Is the Wizard Wrong? Craps Pass Odds Combined Edge Table
Poll
 | 14 votes (100%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
14 members have voted
But I just discovered somewhere where I'm questioning his math.
Using his stated house edge on the pass line (no odds) of 1.41%.
When I try to create my own combined house edge table taking various amounts of odds, my numbers don't match.
I think this is simple math. .0141/(o+1) where o=odds multiple
I am applying the 1.41% house edge to the flat bet and converting to combined house edge by looking at total wagered.
As an example, I wager $5 on the pass line with an house edge of 1.41% and an EV of -0.0705. A point is set and I lay the max odds 5x. My EV is the same -0.0705 but is now spread over $30 wager [$5 flat, $25 odds]. Isn't the combined house edge 0.235% then? The Wizard Craps page cites it as 0.326%.
I took that same approach on the Don't Pass side and my numbers match his combined don't numbers.
What am I missing?
I.E. You're not factoring in the odds payoff. Your calculation has the odds paying even money.Quote: Craps Appendix 1The player edge on the combined pass and buying odds is the average player gain divided by the average player bet.
By the way, you BUY odds on a pass and come bet. You LAY odds on a don't pass and don't come bet.Quote: bluemuAs an example, I wager $5 on the pass line with an house edge of 1.41% and an EV of -0.0705. A point is set and I lay the max odds 5x.
On a side note, thanks for allowing us to call you an idiot.
You're an idiot.
Man, that feels good!
Quote: bluemu
I think this is simple math. .0141/(o+1) where o=odds multiple
It should be 0.0141/(1+(2/3)*o), because there is a 2/3 chance of rolling a point to make an odds bet.
Quote: DJTeddyBearMan, that feels good!
a good thing bluemu [evidently] has a sense of humor. To show what an idiot I am, I thought the issue was the business of counting ties or not. I notice at the wikipedia craps page they show the don't pass as HE 1.40% btw. I've never been able to comprehend that controversy.
His dissertation is a work that creates a new mathematical formula which rebutts, refutes, and disproves a long endorsed and universally accepted statistical thesis.
As committee members, what would you require of this student and his dissertation before accepting his new formula?
How would his credibility be judged?
What reasonable requirements would be necessary to validate his work?
I would be interested in reading your responses which in turn might generate more questions.
Thank you, tuttigym
You can't argue with results.
But I doubt there are many statistical results that could be refuted now-a-days. It's not a very theorem heavy field.
Quote: dwheatleyPublished peer-reviewed journal papers backing up the thesis. Lots of readers to review the proofs. Simulation evidence if appropriate.[q/]
Would you be willing to wait years for your degree until the papers are published.
Quote: scotty81He would need to construct an experiment which, if repeated, would empircally demonstrate the validity of the thesis
Would the "experiment" require a longitudinal study revealing the empirical data which creates the results to prove the thesis, or would computer "simulations" with models designed by the student be enough for validation?
tuttigym
Quote: dwheatleyPublished peer-reviewed journal papers backing up the thesis. Lots of readers to review the proofs. Simulation evidence if appropriate.
If the formula is new and ground breaking in its rebuttal, where will these "published peer-review .... papers" come from, and will the review of proofs be from "simulations" or actual duplication of the experiment using different approaches?
What "simulation" is appropriate and why as opposed to actual number crunching?
tuttigym
Quote: matildaIf the derivation of the formula is mathematically correct, nothing further would be required.
So, for you, proofs are not required? Where does the "derivation" come from, how is the "derivation" determined or revealed, and is it the committee's responsibility to determine if it is mathematically correct??
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymSo, for you, proofs are not required? Where does the "derivation" come from, how is the "derivation" determined or revealed, and is it the committee's responsibility to determine if it is mathematically correct??
tuttigym
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the dissertation was a proof. How else would it "disprove" current statistical thought. If it is a proof, no empirical application is needed or necessary, because such an application could only support or discredit the validity of the proof, it cannot disprove the proof. Only another proof can do that, and this is what the current dissertation has done.
Quote: matilda
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the dissertation was a proof. How else would it "disprove" current statistical thought. If it is a proof, no empirical application is needed or necessary, because such an application could only support or discredit the validity of the proof, it cannot disprove the proof. Only another proof can do that, and this is what the current dissertation has done.
Let's say that the prevailing thought (old formula) had never been challenged and the advocates of such were unwilling to change because their formula had been relied upon so that any new and different approach was highly resisted. Disproving the new would simply be their assertions that the status quo was academically and mathematically correct even though there had NEVER been any longitudinal studies to validate their in-place formula.
Those who backed and relied upon the old formula would then state that there is no empirical application needed or necessary because their current applications supported its validity. What then???
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymLet's say that the prevailing thought (old formula) had never been challenged and the advocates of such were unwilling to change because their formula had been relied upon so that any new and different approach was highly resisted. Disproving the new would simply be their assertions that the status quo was academically and mathematically correct even though there had NEVER been any longitudinal studies to validate their in-place formula.
Those who backed and relied upon the old formula would then state that there is no empirical application needed or necessary because their current applications supported its validity. What then???
tuttigym
Under your assumptions, then empirical applications, simulations etc would be necessary. However, if the degree to be awarded was in mathematical statistics, a proof most likely would be required. But a degree in applied statistics would be possible.
To your last question: If the backers of the old formula did not accept his work--no degree would be awarded even though the student's work is correct. I have seen this several times. In one case the student changed departments: moved from a theoretical economics department to the school of business administration and received a DBA instead of a PhD. In another case the student transferred credits to another university, stayed the residency requirement, and got a degree.
Quote: matildaUnder your assumptions, then empirical applications, simulations etc would be necessary. However, if the degree to be awarded was in mathematical statistics, a proof most likely would be required. But a degree in applied statistics would be possible.
To your last question: If the backers of the old formula did not accept his work--no degree would be awarded even though the student's work is correct. I have seen this several times. In one case the student changed departments: moved from a theoretical economics department to the school of business administration and received a DBA instead of a PhD. In another case the student transferred credits to another university, stayed the residency requirement, and got a degree.
Thank you matilda -- great answers!! Isn't it ashame that some of those who can convey and make judgements do not have the flexibility or critical creative thinking to advance new approaches to problem solving.
Our troubles in the Gulf are good examples of immovable stale power relinquishing their position to those who might be able to solve or mitigate a huge problem. It seems to be all about ego and political posturing.
I have my hopes that JB and the Wizard will jump in and advance their positions on my questions.
tuttigym
Quote: DeMangoOh great, shall we now have another 355 posts to prove that tutti - frutti is an idiot? Has this site not learned it's lesson to properly answer then ban the troll? Are you really Frank Stanton? Have you found the "Flaw" in craps???
I do not know Frank Stanton. There are no "Flaw(s)" in the game of craps to my knowledge just perhaps some closed minds unwilling to investigate a different perspective. As far as "frutti," my handle does not contain any reference to a certain type of vegetation - DeMANGO.
Perhaps using your mouse and aiming the pointy thing at the x in the top right of your screen will relieve your suffering and obvious frustration.
tuttigym
Your work could possibly earn you a degree in fiction writing.
Quote: Mosca
Your work could possibly earn you a degree in fiction writing.
Hi Mosca, glad something could wake you up from your slumber. A cold washcloth applied to the back of your neck is very stimulating. Lying in wait to ambush me, huh.
BTW, Pulitzers are awarded for fiction, not degrees.
tuttigym
