Craps Place Bet Rethink
Example: $6 bet on Place 8 at risk for only one roll followed by immediate takedown.
Total Return = (lose return) + (tie return) + (win return)
Total Return = (6/36)($0) + (25/36)($6) + (5/36)($6 + $7)
Total Return = ($0) + ($4.1667) + ($1.8056)
Total Return = ($5.9722)
For $6 bet on Place 8 at risk for only one roll, the casino expected gain is slightly less than 3 cents. The disadvantage is only -0.462963 percent.
Please note that the published disadvantage for Place 8 is -1.515152 percent, which is more than three times worse.
Place bet strategies with increased numbers of rolls before takedown will have percent disadvantages that gradually approach the published disadvantage. Each different strategy will yield a different disadvantage. If the strategy permits unlimited rolls until decision followed by immediate takedown of both the initial bet and any winnings, so that a tie outcome is not possible, then the actual disadvantage is equal to the published disadvantage. Wizard, the calculation requires infinite series analysis.
Because many players who make Place bets never take them down, and their original bets inevitably are lost, their actual percent disadvantages are worse than the published disadvantages.
The fact is that if you keep your bet up for every roll, the house advantage, PER resolution, is the published 1.515%. Past rolls have no affect on future results. Quite simply .492963% x 36/11 = 1.515%. The HA is simply the per roll that you correctly calculated multiplied by the 11 rolls out of 36 they are resolved.
Quote: pwcrabbCalculating the percent disadvantages on Place bets has heretofore implicitly assumed that the bets are left at risk only until decision. That scenario accurately describes customary play on Place bets, and the Wizard practice program assumes such play. However, the rules of Craps permit Place bets to be taken down before a decision is reached, effectively causing a tie outcome. For limited rolls, the tie outcome is by far the most likely outcome. The actual percent disadvantage for a Place bet strategy of strictly limited rolls is less than the published disadvantage. For a strategy of very few rolls, the actual percent disadvantage can be far smaller.
Example: $6 bet on Place 8 at risk for only one roll followed by immediate takedown.
Total Return = (lose return) + (tie return) + (win return)
Total Return = (6/36)($0) + (25/36)($6) + (5/36)($6 + $7)
Total Return = ($0) + ($4.1667) + ($1.8056)
Total Return = ($5.9722)
For $6 bet on Place 8 at risk for only one roll, the casino expected gain is slightly less than 3 cents. The disadvantage is only -0.462963 percent.
Of course, this is only true if you do it once and never make the bet again! The ev/roll is indeed 0.46%.
Quote: pwcrabbPlease note that the published disadvantage for Place 8 is -1.515152 percent, which is more than three times worse.
Place bet strategies with increased numbers of rolls before takedown will have percent disadvantages that gradually approach the published disadvantage. Each different strategy will yield a different disadvantage. If the strategy permits unlimited rolls until decision followed by immediate takedown of both the initial bet and any winnings, so that a tie outcome is not possible, then the actual disadvantage is equal to the published disadvantage. Wizard, the calculation requires infinite series analysis.
Because many players who make Place bets never take them down, and their original bets inevitably are lost, their actual percent disadvantages are worse than the published disadvantages.
This is not correct. Any series of place bets left up to resolution, whether the last bet is won or lost, has an ev of -.01515 * action.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
The play strategy used by most Place bettors is to leave their Place bets as risk until they are lost, whether the loss occurs after one roll or one thousand rolls. The sum of the infinite series of expected returns from such a strategy yields a disadvantage that is worse than -1.515152 percent. A presentation of that series in this forum can be done.
The takeaway lesson is to make Place bets with the firm intention to take them down, perhaps even before a decision, but after some other takedown criterion has been satisfied. The selection of an appropriate criterion is amenable to rational input.
Quote: pwcrabb
The takeaway lesson is to make Place bets with the firm intention to take them down, perhaps even before a decision, but after some other takedown criterion has been satisfied. The selection of an appropriate criterion is amenable to rational input.
Here again, if you make another place bet later, it's no different than leaving the original bet up.
I remember discovering this series of different HA's for different numbers of rolls many years ago. It blew me away until I saw the trick of it.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Even though one could technically take down a place bet is it really proper?
Consider the famed DontPass bet: once you are over the hurdle of that initial roll, its pure gravy. Oh sure you can still lose, you can lose rather promptly even but you've survived the major risk and should leave your money in play.
I feel the same way about a place bet. You've risked it. You can decide to take it down or leave it up. Its your money and leaving it up is simply a way of affirmatively making the bet anew but doing it by default. Yet, I tend to think of it as already having been risked and although emotionally I might feel a SevenOut looming on the horizon, I'm hoping to get mileage out of the place bet I've already made.
is there a parallel here? I'm being Devil's Advocate.
Quote: odiousgambitNo one has mentioned counting ties in general and how there are two different ways of looking at it. I'm sure most of us are aware that the HE for the Don't Pass can be calculated one way to get 1.403%, instead of 1.364%... depending on whether or not you count the push.
is there a parallel here? I'm being Devil's Advocate.
As a matter of fact, it is exactly the same thing. Look here:
Don't Pass
949 X 1 = 949
976 X -1 = -976
55 X 0 = 0
----
-27
Now, if you divide -27 by 1980, you get -.013636..., but if you divide it by 1925 (not counting the bet that pushed as "risked"), you get -.0140259.
Similarly, for place 6 or 8:
5 X 7 = 35
6 X -6 = -36
25 X 0 = 0
---
-1
If you divide -1 by 66, you get -.0151515..., but if you divide it by 216, you get -.0046296, the per/roll HA quoted above and in WinCraps.
Most of the advocates of taking place bets down or calling them off base their "thinking" on the Gambler's Fallacy, i.e. the illusion that the seven becomes more likely the longer it doesn't appear. Of course, according to that "reasoning" the six or eight should also become more likely if they haven't shown, either. Or, they reason that, if the six has won a couple of times, it is unlikely to win again because of the high odds against winning three is a row, which is the same Fallacy.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: goatcabin
Most of the advocates of taking place bets down or calling them off base their "thinking" on the Gambler's Fallacy, i.e. the illusion that the seven becomes more likely the longer it doesn't appear. Of course, according to that "reasoning" the six or eight should also become more likely if they haven't shown, either. Or, they reason that, if the six has won a couple of times, it is unlikely to win again because of the high odds against winning three is a row, which is the same Fallacy.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
I must agree with Alan. I would say the ratio to be 60/40. 60% saying that the 7 out is coming but 40% believing it is better to lock up a profit first then go for that long hand.
Here is a picture of my place bet chart and it can be seen that most place bets wins are 3 or less to have a 50% or more chance of happening. Wincraps sims prove this also.
My table converter software is not working, so it is too hard to post the table here. Will at a later date.
Example: an inside place bettor 25% of the time will win 0 bets and lose them all. only 42% of the time will win 3 or more.
I think the table shows value in locking up a profit. But then, to each his own betting style.
Quote: 7winner
Example: an inside place bettor 25% of the time will win 0 bets and lose them all. only 42% of the time will win 3 or more.
I think the table shows value in locking up a profit. But then, to each his own betting style.
The "value" in locking up a profit, in the long run, is that you bet less, hence lose less, than someone who keeps the bet up until it loses. In the short run, it simply depends on what happens after you take your bet(s) down. If the seven shows, you saved some money; if one or more of your numbers show(s) first, you missed one or more wins.
Taking bets down or regressing them reduces variance, which means you tend to lose less and win less than someone who leaves bets up or progresses them.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
