rdutch1958
rdutch1958
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 13
November 30th, 2010 at 10:20:35 PM permalink
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
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 30th, 2010 at 11:28:23 PM permalink
Very first entry on Craps on the Wizards main site :

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/craps-bettingsystems.html

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)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
rdutch1958
rdutch1958
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 13
December 1st, 2010 at 12:35:45 AM permalink
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 )
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 302
  • Posts: 8342
December 1st, 2010 at 5:03:44 AM permalink
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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3469
December 1st, 2010 at 5:52:54 AM permalink
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.)
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 7023
December 1st, 2010 at 7:59:37 AM permalink
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.
kenarman
kenarman
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
December 1st, 2010 at 9:14:55 AM permalink
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.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 1st, 2010 at 9:46:28 AM permalink
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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
7winner
7winner
Joined: May 31, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 198
December 1st, 2010 at 5:49:26 PM permalink
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.
7 winner chicken dinner!
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
December 1st, 2010 at 9:46:04 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: