How best to turn $1000 into $5000?

This is a question from one of the Ask the Wizard columns that I thought I would throw out for discussion:

Quote:

You mentioned in one of your articles an upcoming appearance on "The Casino" (apparently, it's been cancelled). I have searched and searched to no avail in finding some kind of link to his episode. I find the idea of a story involving his advice to some young gamblers and how to most likely turn $1,000 into $5,000 quite intriguing. Please respond with some insight/leads as to how I might go about finding a copy of this episode online or purchase a video recording of it, or at the very least come across a written transcript of the episode. Thank you for your time. Brian

Yes, there was a story taped in which some frat boys at UNLV were trying to parlay $1,000 into $5,000 to buy a high end television. They sought out my advice on how to best achieve this goal quickly. I was limited to the games at the Golden Nugget. The Nugget has 10x odds in craps, which I felt offered the opportunity to achieve the goal. It was my strategy on each come out roll to bet min(bankroll/11, (5000-bankroll)/21), subject to convenient rounding, and take the maximum odds. This way we would never go over $5,000 after a 4 or 10 win, would always have enough to take full odds, and would risk the maximum amount if we didn't have enough to get to $5,000.

For the first bet, this formula would call for a pass line bet of $90.91, but I rounded it up to $100. Then a point was rolled, I think a 6 or 8. On the second roll the shooter sevened out. So the entire grand was lost in two rolls. It apparently didn't make for very entertaining television and that story never made the air.

Two questions I can anticipate being asked would be (1) why did I have them bet the pass as opposed to the don't pass, and (2) why didn't I bet $91 on the line and $910 on the odds, adding the extra dollar out of my own pocket. To answer the first question, I think that for purposes of going for a quick big win the pass line is better. While the overall house edge is less on the don't pass, I felt it would have taken more rolls to achieve the $5,000 goal, thus exposing more money to the house edge. To answer the second question, there is not much difference between 9x odds and 10x odds and I thought it would look better on television to be betting only black chips, at least to start.

Without impugning the Wizard's judgment at all, do you agree with this? If not, what other method would you recommend/prefer?

Edit: "The Casino" was a short-lived reality show about the Golden Nugget in the early days of its ownership under Tim Polster and Tom Breitling.

I've never seen the show. Can I assume that it's a reality show, and they were playing with real money? I.E. They couldn't simply re-shoot the scene?

My reply assumes that is WAS a reality show.

If the goal was to simply multiply the money, I agree that $91 on the pass line and $910 odds is probably the best / fastest method. Of course, as was the case, it was also quite risky.

I agree with the Wiz that betting the pass rather than don't pass would be quicker, if successful, and that betting all black would look better on TV.

However, if one of the goals would have been to create captivating TV, then I would have suggested betting even money bets on single zero roulette. And not the full amount on every roll. The bet size is something that the Wiz could have worked on.

I think it would have been interesting and funny to watch a group of UNLV EggHeads argue whether to bet on Red or Black because one is hot or the other is due. And then argue about switching to Odd / Even or High / Low for the same reasons.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

UNLV EggHeads

Haha...oxymoron.

(Well, he did say frat guys...)

OK. Maybe not UNLV EggHeads, but it would be interesting to see a few brainiacs reduced to mere mortals as they argue the merits of 'hot' vs 'due'.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

My reply assumes that is WAS a reality show.

The new buyers of the Golden Nugget allowed the show to film in the casino and to film executives. Rather foolishly the owners failed to retain any control over the final product so the show focused mainly on alcohol and sex.

I think the 100 on the line the rest at maximum odds is mathematically correct because it is the least exposure to that relentless house advantage, however, its not much fun which is probably why the video editors dropped this scene.

#2 is explained well.

RE#1. OK, well I had this question anyway and would like to see the answer.

There's the old saying, "never take the small end of the odds". Now, this is fairly good advice from the perspective that *usually* the bet also has a terrible edge in favor of the other side, offered by a casino or not. Taking the odds in Craps is an exception as far as HE, but is it also not true that taking the small end also means you are more subject to big long streaks of bad luck? You are trying to accomplish something that is not supposed to happen regularly (in craps that's making a point) thus is it not more prone to streaks of failure to do so?

I have been dickering with this enough to finally decide I will play "the don't" next time around, mostly for the reason of being less prone to getting clobbered right off the bat with my larger bets, which bugs the heck out of me. Perhaps I will lay out full strategy in another thread...

Anyway, it seems to me that urging above to do pass line betting is ignoring that the most likely short outcome is a losing streak. Of course what "seems to me" to be something probably is explainable otherwise, but I would like to hear that explanation.

Quote: odiousgambit

There's the old saying, "never take the small end of the odds". Now, this is fairly good advice from the perspective that *usually* the bet also has a terrible edge in favor of the other side, offered by a casino or not. Taking the odds in Craps is an exception as far as HE, but is it also not true that taking the small end also means you are more subject to big long streaks of bad luck? You are trying to accomplish something that is not supposed to happen regularly (in craps that's making a point) thus is it not more prone to streaks of failure to do so?

I have been dickering with this enough to finally decide I will play "the don't" next time around, mostly for the reason of being less prone to getting clobbered right off the bat with my larger bets, which bugs the heck out of me. Perhaps I will lay out full strategy in another thread...

Anyway, it seems to me that urging above to do pass line betting is ignoring that the most likely short outcome is a losing streak. Of course what "seems to me" to be something probably is explainable otherwise, but I would like to hear that explanation.

I too have been wrestling with the question, "Do I PL or DP?". I have come to the following conclusion:

If I want to play for a longer time, and have a lower variance, I will play DP. I feel my chance for a winning session is much improved, but I don't expect it to be a big win. A small win is due to my intentionally lowering the variance by taking smaller odds, and having less action elsewhere on the table.

If I want to play for a big score, and don't mind a lot of variance, then I will play the PL, and look to be playing when that big roll occurs, or when 2 or 3 good rolls string together.