House Vig on Anything but 7 Rdutch

I've been playing craps for years... ( Pass w/dbl odds & continuous Come w/dbl odds and NEVER turning the odds off ) and my losses are probably exactly in line of what the they should be ! Anyway I never considered the "Anything But 7" bet. Reading about it last week, I couldn't believe the vig being touted as 1.13636% and apparently so for years. At first I created a spread sheet to figure the odds and came up with the apparent house vig. of 1.13636%. This is sort of the equivalent of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts... and I couldn't accept it without proving it to myself. So understanding that a bet in the field does not have any relationship to the place bets and visa versa I calculated each separately using a sampling of 1980 rolls ( to eliminate tedious fractions). My results show the correct house vig is .02486 not .0113636. I have two spread sheets (with formulas) explaining how I came up with both figures. I could be wrong and wouldn't mind if someone proves me so.
In a nut shell the difference is because in my calculation using 1980 rolls and "decisions"... you factor in all 1980 decisions for the field bets but only the 1100 decisions on the place bets. With the understanding that the 880 rolls without a decision on the place #'s did not result in any "bet" action (W or L) and shouldn't be considered. In reality they "didn't occur". Figured separately the vig's are as follows.
2.778% on the field bet
4.00% on the 5
1.515 on the 6 & 8
I'd be happy to share my spreadsheets w/ formulas to anyone interested. ( Note all calculations were based on $5 Field, and Place bets of $5 (5) & $6 ( 6 & 8 ).
SO.... I figure the house vig. is .02486 or 2.486%.
Rdutch

Very first entry on Craps on the Wizards main site :

https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/craps-bettingsystems/

Anything but a 7 is 1.136% as a single roll bet. But the 5,6 and 8 are not single roll bets, so they vig given there is till you get a decision. Per roll, the vig on the 5, 6 and 8 is much lower (1.11 and 0.46)

thecessp, Yes it’s a 1 roll bet. What I should of explained better is that whoever originally came up with the 1.13636 vig. used an incorrect formula / calculation / algorithm (obviously I am not a mathematician). They included the $ value of what I called the non-bets when there is no action (W or L) on the place bets. Believe me, the #’s don’t lie. Play this 1980 times and this will happen
Field bets – total bet = $9,900.00, Win =$5.225.00 Lose = $5,500.00 Net -275.00
Place bets – total bet = 10,010.00, Win = $5,390.00 Lose = $5,610.00 Net -220.00
Total bet = 19,910.00 Total lost = $495.00 House vig = .02486

The original calculation uses $43560.00 as then total bet which includes the $ values for the place bets that were not actually in action (or as I say bet). 495/43560 = 1.13636%.
My point is they didn’t take this into consideration. And if the vig. is .02486 for 1980 rolls it is for 1.
Sorry if I sound argumentative, not trying to be. Just want to see what is correct.
( Here’s another question – Are the Place bets “On” after a 7 is rolled? LOL )

according to WoO's free game, place bets are normally not allowed on come-out rolls, so, without ever asking at a real casino if it was allowed, I just havent been interested in placing a bet that sometimes you can make, sometimes you can't. Plus I would tend to want to eschew placing a bet on the number '5', then it kind of spoils the whole idea.

Quote: odiousgambit

Place bets are normally not allowed on come-out rolls

"Allowed" might not be the correct word. "Customary" is far better. After all, what about the WOTCO strategy? (NB. It stands for Working on the Come Out Only.)

Quote: odiousgambit

... place bets are normally not allowed on come-out rolls, so, without ever asking at a real casino if it was allowed, I just ....

When rolling the dice myself, I sometimes ask for certain place bets to be working on the come out. It's one of my irrational foibles. Most commonly, at a $5-min table, my initial bets when shooting are $5 or $10 pass, $6 on the six (working), and $1 on the hard six (working). I use a hard way set with the 3-3 up and 2-2 toward me, add my magic touch, and let them gently fly. (You do understand how seriously I take all of that, don't you?)

I have never had any casino show any reluctance to accept that set of wagers. It's just more money bet to their advantage.

I often place the 6 & 8 on the come out roll and have them 'working'. It is never refused. Depends how aggressive I feel that day.

Quote: rdutch1958

The original calculation uses $43560.00 as then total bet which includes the $ values for the place bets that were not actually in action (or as I say bet). 495/43560 = 1.13636%.
My point is they didn’t take this into consideration. And if the vig. is .02486 for 1980 rolls it is for 1.
Sorry if I sound argumentative, not trying to be. Just want to see what is correct.

They are in action - they just didn't get resolved on that particular roll. The only legitimate way to evaluate a system on a roll-by-roll basis is if you consider each bet on the layout. If you say "I rolled a five, so it's as if I didn't even have a place 6 bet working" but at the same time say "I rolled a seven, so all of my place bets lose", then you're not making an accurate roll-by-roll comparison.

Here's a question that might help clarify:

Say you're a place bettor and you routinely spread $130-across (give or take, based on the point). Do you want to be comp-rated at $130, or do you want to be comp-rated based only on the place bets that "were actually in action"?

Edit: I realized I didn't answer the actual question. The weighted EV might be 0.02486 per bet, but it is not 0.02486 per roll. The number given on the site was per-roll.

Quote: rdutch1958

The original calculation uses $43560.00 as then total bet which includes the $ values for the place bets that were not actually in action (or as I say bet). 495/43560 = 1.13636%.
My point is they didn’t take this into consideration. And if the vig. is .02486 for 1980 rolls it is for 1.
Sorry if I sound argumentative, not trying to be.
Just want to see what is correct.

Just like everyone has already said,
Both figures are correct for what is know as the "Iron Cross" bet.
Was Very popular in the 70s and 80s, but has slowly died away in my opinion...

The 1.13636% is per ROLL.
The 2.486% is per bets resolved.(as long as the 2 or 12 pay triple)
3.87% is the house edge when the field 2 and 12 only pay double.
Your calculation is for all bets resolved and so it also shows in my computer simulations.

The Wizards' figure is also correct because he is comparing all bets on a per roll basis since all bets do not resolve on every roll.

http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/Stickman/stick0011.shtml
has a good detailed explanation for the Iron Cross bet and house edges. Three pages long.

Quote: rdutch1958

Field bets – total bet = $9,900.00, Win =$5.225.00 Lose = $5,500.00 Net -275.00
Place bets – total bet = 10,010.00, Win = $5,390.00 Lose = $5,610.00 Net -220.00
Total bet = 19,910.00 Total lost = $495.00 House vig = .02486

Look at both numbers this way...

Total bets RESOLVED in 1980 rolls= $19,910.

Quote: rdutch1958

The original calculation uses $43560.00 as then total bet which includes the $ values for the place bets that were not actually in action (or as I say bet). 495/43560 = 1.13636%.

Total action (handle) in 1980 rolls = $43,560

Now, you plan on playing the "Iron Cross" for two hours or about 200 rolls. How would you calculate your expected loss for 2 hours of casino play?

I say 200 rolls * $22 each roll = $4400 in action. 4400*.0113636 = $50.00 (rounded) expected loss.
I know no easy way to calculate my expected loss using the 2.486% number since I do not know how much my resolved bets will add up to.

By using the "per roll" numbers, it becomes way easier, for me at least, to know my expectations for few hours of play using the Iron Cross.

7Winner - I am not ( actually can not ) arguing with what you have stated and.....
I appreciate the replies and comments from everybody. I just want to emphasize that the house would or should rate the vig. on this bet at .02486 and not .0113636. Consider this. PLACE bets are 1 roll bets. You can turn them on / off or take them down anytime you want. There is no contract. We tend not to think of them as 1 roll bets because we usually keep them in play until there is a decision even though we don’t have to. The “AB7” bet is “called” a 1 roll bet but that would imply you make it only once in your life and how realistic is that?
I doubt anybody will argue these #’s for the vig on placing the 4,5,6,8,9 & 10 ?
6 & 8 Vig = .015151
5 & 9 Vig = .040000
4 & 10 Vig = .066667
But using the same logic applied to the “AB7” bet the Vig’s for them are…
6 & 8 Vig = .00463
5 & 9 Vig = .00926
4 & 10 Vig = .01389
Of course these Vig #’s look much more attractive.
My only point in starting this thread was to inform players that the “AB7” should not be considered an attractive bet based on the assumption that the touted Vig of .0113636 is realistic. .02486 “IS”.
Nothing wrong with making the bet as long as you’re having fun and want to “play”.
But… If your serious… stay away from this bet and stick to Place & Come with as much odds taken as you can comfortably afford.

Guido111, .....Use the same formula but .02486 as the multiplier... 200 rolls is a terribly small sampling… but realistically your expected losses should be $109. Which is exactly my point. People expecting to lose $50.00 at the touted vig of .0113636.
Rdutch

Quote: rdutch1958

Guido111, .....Use the same formula but .02486 as the multiplier... 200 rolls is a terribly small sampling… but realistically your expected losses should be $109. Which is exactly my point. People expecting to lose $50.00 at the touted vig of .0113636.
Rdutch

That's incorrect. You should expect to lose the smaller amount over 200 rolls, not the larger, because 0.0113 is the per-roll EV. You're mixing up the per-bet EV and per-roll EV, even though you seem to understand that you don't book 200 place 6 bets in 200 rolls.

It's tedious, but you can calculate the weighted expected loss using per-bet figures if you also divide by the expected resolution time of each bet. For example, in 200 rolls you will have 200 field bets, but not 200 place 6 bets. How many place 6 bets will you have? That's the number to multiply by the 1.52% EV. Here's the template - I'll let you fill in the numbers:

Field: 200 x $5 x 2.78%
Place 5: N1 x $5 x 4%
Place 6: N2 x $6 x 1.52%
Place 8: N2 x $6 x 1.52%

First find N1 and N2, the number of place 5 and place 6/8 bets in 200 rolls. Then multiply through.

Quote: rdutch1958

I just want to emphasize that the house would or should rate the vig. on this bet at .02486 and not .0113636.

First off "AB7" is called the Iron Cross bet. I used to bet it in the 70s and also tried other variations of it.
It has been called that for many years.

Again, BOTH percentages are correct and will arrive at the exact expected players loss.
it is up to the player to use one correctly. I find the 1.13636% easier to use.

At this point I do not understand why you do not see that both ways end up at the same expected loss.

Method #1 ACTION PER ROLL method using the 1.13636%
action*edge=expected loss (action = number of rolls * total $ of bets PER ROLL)

using your example... $43560 is the total "action" (1980*$22)
$43560 * -1.1363636(-1/88 to be exact)= -$495.00... the players expected loss.

Method #2 using the 2.24862% with total bets RESOLVED.
$19910 * -2.24862% (-9/362 to be exact) = -$495.00… the players expected loss
Note: both methods arrive at the exact same answer.

My example: I want to play the Iron Cross for 2 hours at 100 rolls per hour at $22 total bets per roll. What is my expected loss?
Method #1 ACTION PER ROLL method using the 1.13636%
action*edge=expected loss (action = number of rolls * total $ of bets PER ROLL)
action = (200*$22)=$4400
$4400 * -1.1363636(-1/88 to be exact)= -$50.00... the players expected loss.

Method #2 using the 2.24862% with total bets RESOLVED.
$2011.11 * -2.24862% (-9/362 to be exact) = -$50.00… the players expected loss
Note: both methods arrive at the exact same answer.

Again, I use method #1 since it is easier to figure the "action" than the "total of bets resolved"
The total bets resolved can be found by action * (181/396)


To close:
One way is PER ROLL,
the other way is PER BET RESOLVED.
apples and oranges!

Quote: rdutch1958

Guido111, .....Use the same formula but .02486 as the multiplier... 200 rolls is a terribly small sampling…

It is normal casino type play. 2 hours of play. It does not matter the length of time played or how many rolls. The players' expected loss will still be the same percentage.

Quote: rdutch1958

but realistically your expected losses should be $109. Which is exactly my point. People expecting to lose $50.00 at the touted vig of .0113636.
Rdutch

should be $109?
No.
recheck your math.
expected loss both ways are $50 as per my math in the above post.

Quote: rdutch1958

My only point in starting this thread was to inform players that the “AB7” should not be considered an attractive bet based on the assumption that the touted Vig of .0113636 is realistic. .02486 “IS”.
Nothing wrong with making the bet as long as you’re having fun and want to “play”.
But… If your serious… stay away from this bet and stick to Place & Come with as much odds taken as you can comfortably afford.

I understand where you are coming from.

Most craps bets house edges are easy to calculate if we talk about just 1 bet.
You can see why it now gets even more complicated as you start to mix bets together that do not resolve at the same time.

The Wizard has a nice table showing an easy way to calculate multiple bets to arrive at the expected value.
https://wizardofodds.com/craps/appendix2.html
"For example assume a game has 60 rolls per hour and you always bet $25 on pass line, $10 on the place 6, and $5 on any 7. The expected hourly loss would be 60*($25*0.42% + $10*0.46% + $5*16.67%) = $59.06."

Guido111, My apologies... If I may offer an excuse.. it was very very late and ...well I just missed it.
$50.00 is correct. Using my calculations and reasoning at $22 bet per roll (and over 1980 rolls) the actual amount risked or bet is $19,910.00 after we factor out the non action or inconsequential "place bet" monies. What results is an average bet of $10.06 ( $19,910.00 / 1980 ).... Therefore
200 x $10.06 = $2,011.11 X .02486 = $50.00
Yes you can use either the .0113636 or the .02486 to calculate expectations.

Again - My point was and is that the actual Vig is .02486 in the same sense that the Vig on placing the 6 or 8 is .015151 and not .00463 if calculated for 1 roll.
Rdutch

Quote: rdutch1958

Again - My point was and is that the actual Vig is .02486 in the same sense that the Vig on placing the 6 or 8 is .015151 and not .00463 if calculated for 1 roll.

That assumes that you're making all four bets exactly once and then just letting them ride for as long as they take to resolve. That's not how you're playing, though. If you roll a 6 you're making new place 6 and field bets, but you're not making a new place 5 or 8 bet. What's the combined vig of the place 6 + field bet that you're making on the 2nd roll? Turns out it's just easier to think of the whole thing on a per-roll basis and then you don't have to worry about any of that.

Math, I appreciate your input…admit I am far from being an “authority” and could probably learn a thing or two from you. However…I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying. I know the math for 1 roll comes out as .0113636 but would you agree that the correct vig on a place be for the 6 or 8 is .015151 and not the .00463 if it were calculated for 1 roll, as it could be, since it is in fact a 1 roll bet… and that the same criteria for calculating Vig. on a Place bet should be applied to the “AB7” or “Iron Cross”?
Rdutch

Quote: rdutch1958

would you agree that the correct vig on a place be for the 6 or 8 is .015151 and not the .00463 if it were calculated for 1 roll, as it could be, since it is in fact a 1 roll bet

No - the place 6 bet is not a 1-roll bet. It resolves in 3.27 (36/11) rolls on average. Note that 0.01515/3.27 = 0.00463.

Math, All Place bets are One Roll bets. Just because it's assumed the player wants to keep playing after a roll resulting in a non-decision doesn't make it a "contract" bet that has to be played until a decision. The place bets can be turned on, off or TAKEN DOWN at any time. When you play a place bet what is happening in reality after a non-decision roll is you are playing a new bet.
Without question the vig. on the 6 place is .015151. ... not .00463 and the vig. on the AB7 bet should touted as .02486.
Look - I don't want to get into an argument as all this means nothing. The game is still going to take our money.
Rdutch

Quote: rdutch1958

All Place bets are One Roll bets....

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that matches most players' definition. Most consider a one-roll bet to be one in which you will definitely either win or lose on the very next roll.

Bingo ! Now... Knowing this discussion amounts to squat... Just out of curiosity... If you owned a casino in Never Never Land and the players could only make one kind of bet. Would you prefer they had to play the AB7 or a Place bet on the 6 ?
Rdutch

Quote: rdutch1958

Math, All Place bets are One Roll bets....
Without question the vig. on the 6 place is .015151.

Those two notions don't go together. If you leave a place bet up until it resolves, it takes more than one roll on averagae and the vig is 1.52%. If you consider it a one-roll bet then the vig is 0.463% per roll. The results are the same either way, but you're mixing apples and oranges.

Quote: rdutch1958

Bingo ! Now... Knowing this discussion amounts to squat...

Not even, it was a good excuse to do some craps math!

Quote: rdutch1958

Just out of curiosity... If you owned a casino in Never Never Land and the players could only make one kind of bet. Would you prefer they had to play the AB7 or a Place bet on the 6 ?
Rdutch

My choice would be neither. I would want a bet that resolved every roll, just win or lose, not even a tie like blackjack.

Maybe a coin toss game by a chimp tossing the coin through a hoop, like basketball.
Touch screen terminal, no cheques to mess with, you bet heads or tails or both.
$1 bet, you lose if you are wrong
I pay you 98 cents if you are correct.

.02/2=1% house edge every toss.

Ah, my wife has chores for me to do.

guido, I hope you don't have to mow the lawn in December! Just one more thing about this as we could go on ad anuseum. Is there a place marked on the table layout for this so called "one roll" bet? No ?! Hmmmm.... Well then, if a field # is hit on the "1" roll, do the dealers automatically take down and return the place bets? No???
Hmmmmm.... Is it possible it's called a "one roll bet" but in reality it isn't for the purpose of calculating true odds and the house vig. ? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...Maybe I should find some chores to do too !
Take care
Rdutch