local casino offers two different payout systems for regular BJ
First payout system is the standard:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Second payout system is the following:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Dealer busts with 6 as bust card 4:1
Dealer busts with 7 or 8 as bust card 3:1
Dealer busts with 9 as bust card 3:2
Dealer busts with natural 10 as bust card Push
Dealer busts with J,Q,K as bust card 1:2
This is not a side bet, the Player has the choice to play either payout system individually, or both. There is no requirement to match bet sizes on both if you do play both. Each bet is just restricted to table minimum (was $15 last night) and table maximum (was $1000 last night), and operate independently of each other.
I looked extensively on wizardofodds and blackjack variant games, as well as blackjack side bets, but this payout and associated house edge is not there. The Raise the Roof side bet has a table with associated probabilities for Dealer busting with different cards, but the table includes 10s and face cards in the same row (obviously because they are all worth 10), but since this payout differentiates between a push for a natural 10 and only winning half your bet for a J, Q, or K so a new row would be needed. Also there is no "raise" side bet for after you see the dealers card like that thread has.
Obviously a 6 can only be the dealers bust card if his hand equaled 16 before drawing it, which will occur much less frequently than busting with a 10 value card, since that busts any Dealer 12-16 hand.
What is the associated house edge with this different payout system, and is there a relevant true count to perhaps play this payout system over the original if you're counting cards. I personally count with Wongs halves count from his Professional Blackjack book, but Hi-Lo info would also be very useful.
. Great questions. Seems like the game would be full of dealer payout errors. And quite slow.Quote: linuxuser3191Hi, so a local casino offers a fairly standard BJ game (6D/S17/DAS/RSA) but has two different betting circles, depending on which payout system you want to use.
First payout system is the standard:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Second payout system is the following:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Dealer busts with 6 as bust card 4:1
Dealer busts with 7 or 8 as bust card 3:1
Dealer busts with 9 as bust card 3:2
Dealer busts with natural 10 as bust card Push
Dealer busts with J,Q,K as bust card 1:2
This is not a side bet, the Player has the choice to play either payout system individually, or both. There is no requirement to match bet sizes on both if you do play both. Each bet is just restricted to table minimum (was $15 last night) and table maximum (was $1000 last night), and operate independently of each other.
I looked extensively on wizardofodds and blackjack variant games, as well as blackjack side bets, but this payout and associated house edge is not there. The Raise the Roof side bet has a table with associated probabilities for Dealer busting with different cards, but the table includes 10s and face cards in the same row (obviously because they are all worth 10), but since this payout differentiates between a push for a natural 10 and only winning half your bet for a J, Q, or K so a new row would be needed. Also there is no "raise" side bet for after you see the dealers card like that thread has.
Obviously a 6 can only be the dealers bust card if his hand equaled 16 before drawing it, which will occur much less frequently than busting with a 10 value card, since that busts any Dealer 12-16 hand.
What is the associated house edge with this different payout system, and is there a relevant true count to perhaps play this payout system over the original if you're counting cards. I personally count with Wongs halves count from his Professional Blackjack book, but Hi-Lo info would also be very useful.
link to original post
Additionally, the dealers were very unfamiliar with it, I played right at a shift change, and saw 4 different dealers in that time, and each one had to ask the pit about payout questions on it.
Also, I'm curious if the house edge can be calculated to show one dealer payout error per hour like what I experienced, and if that generates any positive EV.
The house edge for this game is 1.94%. If the dealers are making pay errors, then that lowers the edge somewhat. If you're counting, a True 4 is where you'd be playing even with the house, and so a True 5 or higher this would be profitable. It could add to your cover if you spread to 2-3 hands and played both bets.
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd like a 6:5 BJ game.
At higher true counts, it perhaps can be a good way to generate a small amount of EV as a cover play while counting.
Don't worry about the spam filter eating links. It lets me pretend to be useful from time to time.
This just validates my observation (also noted by others far more advanced than I) that any new casino game, pay table, side bet, or variant is inevitably worse for the player than what has gone before. This is why I stick to craps, 9/6 JoB, and the like.Quote: ChumpChangeWhat is the different name, and the link please?
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd like a 6:5 BJ game.
link to original post
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
Quote: BillHasRetired
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I agree 100%
Quote: BillHasRetired
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I disagree with this. Just because a bet is -EV it is not a ‘sucker bet’. Unless you believe 99+% of bets the casinos offer are sucker bets.
I believe the ‘Fire Bet’ was highly -EV. I don’t feel like it’s a sucker bet. I feel it’s an inexpensive way to get a thrill that you can’t get on a simple pass line bet.
SooPoo, I respectfully request that you edit your post. You attribute two sentences to me. ChumpChange made the first ("2% HA"), while I made the second.("sucker bet").Quote: SOOPOOQuote: BillHasRetired
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I disagree with this. Just because a bet is -EV it is not a ‘sucker bet’. Unless you believe 99+% of bets the casinos offer are sucker bets.
I believe the ‘Fire Bet’ was highly -EV. I don’t feel like it’s a sucker bet. I feel it’s an inexpensive way to get a thrill that you can’t get on a simple pass line bet.
link to original post
Thank you.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: BillHasRetired
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I disagree with this. Just because a bet is -EV it is not a ‘sucker bet’. Unless you believe 99+% of bets the casinos offer are sucker bets.
I believe the ‘Fire Bet’ was highly -EV. I don’t feel like it’s a sucker bet. I feel it’s an inexpensive way to get a thrill that you can’t get on a simple pass line bet.
link to original post
Interesting concept, how negative EV must a bet be before it is considered a sucker bet? I guess in my mind it would be around 5%.
Quote: BillHasRetiredSooPoo, I respectfully request that you edit your post. You attribute two sentences to me. ChumpChange made the first ("2% HA"), while I made the second.("sucker bet").Quote: SOOPOOQuote: BillHasRetired
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I disagree with this. Just because a bet is -EV it is not a ‘sucker bet’. Unless you believe 99+% of bets the casinos offer are sucker bets.
I believe the ‘Fire Bet’ was highly -EV. I don’t feel like it’s a sucker bet. I feel it’s an inexpensive way to get a thrill that you can’t get on a simple pass line bet.
link to original post
Thank you.
link to original post
Apologies. I can edit original post. But I don’t think I can edit the one you just quoted.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOQuote: BillHasRetired
With a near 2% HA, it just seems like another way to rake the crowd
If it's new, it's suspect and probably a sucker bet.
I disagree with this. Just because a bet is -EV it is not a ‘sucker bet’. Unless you believe 99+% of bets the casinos offer are sucker bets.
I believe the ‘Fire Bet’ was highly -EV. I don’t feel like it’s a sucker bet. I feel it’s an inexpensive way to get a thrill that you can’t get on a simple pass line bet.
link to original post
Interesting concept, how negative EV must a bet be before it is considered a sucker bet? I guess in my mind it would be around 5%.
link to original post
That indeed is interesting.
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
Quote: Dieter
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
With that definition wouldn't there only be one bet that is not a sucker bet?
Quote: ChumpChangeJust played 1200 hands of video poker and lost 15.7% of my total bet or almost a $250 loss on the quarter machine (home game) and that's even with a straight flush & a quads payout. I fail to see the "not a sucker bet" sign on it.
link to original post
Way too small of a sample to be meaningful. If you played 1200 hands every day for a year you would get something more meaningful. The cycle on video poker is very large.
Quote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
With that definition wouldn't there only be one bet that is not a sucker bet?
link to original post
I think there are two definitions:
One is a higher HE bet when an identical or substantially identical lower HE bet is available. Example: betting any seven on craps vs hopping the seven. Call that objectively a sucker bet.
The other is a bet where the HE is higher than your personal tolerance for the trade off in entertainment. Example: the inside bets in craps vs just playing the line and placing 6/8. Call that subjectively a sucker bet.
Quote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
With that definition wouldn't there only be one bet that is not a sucker bet?
link to original post
I don't think so.
Not all bets are comparable.
UTH and Spanish 21 may both be table games, but they're different enough that direct comparison doesn't make sense.
The basket bet at roulette vs betting each number straight would be a sucker bet.
Quote: unJonQuote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
With that definition wouldn't there only be one bet that is not a sucker bet?
link to original post
I think there are two definitions:
One is a higher HE bet when an identical or substantially identical lower HE bet is available. Example: betting any seven on craps vs hopping the seven. Call that objectively a sucker bet.
The other is a bet where the HE is higher than your personal tolerance for the trade off in entertainment. Example: the inside bets in craps vs just playing the line and placing 6/8. Call that subjectively a sucker bet.
link to original post
First, I will disagree with your premise on the "hop 7" wager and explain later. But can you clarify what is the HE on the "Any 7" vs the HE on the "hop 7"?
Can you show the actual "math" that produces that HE and then relate THAT "math" to the actual odds of winning or losing the bet?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: unJonQuote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I believe that the "sucker bet" is a comparison; that there are two or more similar bets, and the sucker bet has less favorable terms for the player.
I suggest that how bad it is matters little, only that it's worse than something else.
With that definition wouldn't there only be one bet that is not a sucker bet?
link to original post
I think there are two definitions:
One is a higher HE bet when an identical or substantially identical lower HE bet is available. Example: betting any seven on craps vs hopping the seven. Call that objectively a sucker bet.
The other is a bet where the HE is higher than your personal tolerance for the trade off in entertainment. Example: the inside bets in craps vs just playing the line and placing 6/8. Call that subjectively a sucker bet.
link to original post
First, I will disagree with your premise on the "hop 7" wager and explain later. But can you clarify what is the HE on the "Any 7" vs the HE on the "hop 7"?
Can you show the actual "math" that produces that HE and then relate THAT "math" to the actual odds of winning or losing the bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
Ok but only because Mission is suspended right now.
Hop 7 for $15 pays 5*15- 10 = 65. 65/6 - 15*5/6 = $1.67 expected loss divided by bet of $15 = 11.11% HE
Any seven for $15 pays 4*15=60. 60/6 - 15*5/6 = $2.50 expected loss divided by net of $15 = 16.67% HE
Or an easier way to think about the comparison. If you hop the 7 and lose you lose $15. If you bet any 7 and lose you lose $15. So that’s the same. But if you win any 7 you only have $75 (60 winnings and your $15 bet). If you win hopping 7 you have $80 (75 winnings and one $5 bet).
That’s $5 more.
Quote: unJon
Ok but only because Mission is suspended right now.
Hop 7 for $15 pays 5*15- 10 = 65. 65/6 - 15*5/6 = $1.67 expected loss divided by bet of $15 = 11.11% HE
Any seven for $15 pays 4*15=60. 60/6 - 15*5/6 = $2.50 expected loss divided by net of $15 = 16.67% HE
Or an easier way to think about the comparison. If you hop the 7 and lose you lose $15. If you bet any 7 and lose you lose $15. So that’s the same. But if you win any 7 you only have $75 (60 winnings and your $15 bet). If you win hopping 7 you have $80 (75 winnings and one $5 bet).
That’s $5 more.
link to original post
First, thank you for the response, and yes, the hop 7 is a better bet.
You did not provide an answer as to the comparison of HE to the actual odds of winning either wager.
As for my take on the "sucker bet," I believe you and most others believe the hop 7 to be a one roll wager. It is not.
Since mathematically, the 7 appears once every 6 rolls (in a perfect 4th grade math world), one can hop the 7 five times in a row and be a winner. $3 hop five times = $15. the fifth roll hop 7 winner pays $16. Now I don't know what that means for the presumed HE, but I know, I like my chances of winning the hop bet under real table conditions than some other "sucker bets."
If this topic is thread worthy, perhaps it can be moved.
tuttigym
That’s correct. My impression of Mission only stretches so far.Quote: tuttigym
First, thank you for the response, and yes, the hop 7 is a better bet.
You did not provide an answer as to the comparison of HE to the actual odds of winning either wager.
Quote: tuttigym
As for my take on the "sucker bet," I believe you and most others believe the hop 7 to be a one roll wager. It is not.
Since mathematically, the 7 appears once every 6 rolls (in a perfect 4th grade math world), one can hop the 7 five times in a row and be a winner. $3 hop five times = $15. the fifth roll hop 7 winner pays $16. Now I don't know what that means for the presumed HE, but I know, I like my chances of winning the hop bet under real table conditions than some other "sucker bets."
$3 hop five times = $15
The sixth (not fifth) pays $15 plus $1 return of bet minus $2 loss bet on the sevens that didn’t hit. I think your math neglects this last bit.
So your comparison of $15 < $16 should really be, in my view, $15 > $14.
Quote: unJonThat’s correct. My impression of Mission only stretches so far.Quote: tuttigym
First, thank you for the response, and yes, the hop 7 is a better bet.
You did not provide an answer as to the comparison of HE to the actual odds of winning either wager.Quote: tuttigym
As for my take on the "sucker bet," I believe you and most others believe the hop 7 to be a one roll wager. It is not.
Since mathematically, the 7 appears once every 6 rolls (in a perfect 4th grade math world), one can hop the 7 five times in a row and be a winner. $3 hop five times = $15. the fifth roll hop 7 winner pays $16. Now I don't know what that means for the presumed HE, but I know, I like my chances of winning the hop bet under real table conditions than some other "sucker bets."
$3 hop five times = $15
The sixth (not fifth) pays $15 plus $1 return of bet minus $2 loss bet on the sevens that didn’t hit. I think your math neglects this last bit.
So your comparison of $15 < $16 should really be, in my view, $15 > $14.
link to original post
I did not say it was a 6 roll bet. It is a 5 roll bet. That 5th roll winner 7 gives the player $15 + $1, so the total $15 five roll outlay ends up giving the player $16. My math IS correct. You and others project the hop as a one roll "sucker" bet. I have shown that one's odds of converting that bet to a winner is 5 opportunities with a minimum of risk. Of course, the 7 does NOT show every 6 tosses, so that strategy is not guaranteed.
Why do you need Mission? Why doesn't the Wizard engage, you know, come out from behind his virtual curtain?? What does that sentence even mean?
Based on your reply, it seems that you cannot make that requested HE to odds of winning conversion.
Another thread??
tuttigym
https://wizardofodds.com/games/multiplier-blackjack/
The end of that article also includes a link to a 2018 WoV discussion about it:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/31930-multiplier-blackjack/
You omitted one detail which wasn’t obvious to me at first:
On the 2nd betting circle, everything is normal when the dealer doesn’t bust. IE. The player only wins 1:1 when the player beats the dealer’s hand AND the dealer didn’t bust.
If the player doesn’t bust but the dealer does, ONLY THEN do the new payouts apply - only on that 2nd betting circle.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
Quote: linuxuser3191Hi, so a local casino offers a fairly standard BJ game (6D/H17/DAS/RSA) but has two different betting circles, depending on which payout system you want to use.
First payout system is the standard:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Second payout system is the following:
Player wins 1:1
Player has BJ 3:2
Dealer busts with 6 as bust card 4:1
Dealer busts with 7 or 8 as bust card 3:1
Dealer busts with 9 as bust card 3:2
Dealer busts with natural 10 as bust card Push
Dealer busts with J,Q,K as bust card 1:2
link to original post
Interesting. I would be more inclined to analyze this if I knew the casino and if this version has a name.
Quote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
You are totally missing the concept. If I told you you can ‘roll the dice’ and win $10 30 times but lose $1,000 6 times would you do it? I mean, you are going to win over 82% of the time?
Learn what EV is.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
You are totally missing the concept. If I told you you can ‘roll the dice’ and win $10 30 times but lose $1,000 6 times would you do it? I mean, you are going to win over 82% of the time?
Learn what EV is.
link to original post
No. The question was to DO about HIS definition of "Sucker" bet. As far as your "spin," perhaps you can postulate a wagering on the "iron Cross" or any other scheme that would provide a $10 win and a $1000 loss on one roll of the dice. BTW, I am well aware that an immediate 7 out would clear the board, but that is what is termed GAMBLING. Going back to the "POINT," it was about "SUCKER BET." If you are going to elbow your way into a conversation, it would be best to stay on topic.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
You are totally missing the concept. If I told you you can ‘roll the dice’ and win $10 30 times but lose $1,000 6 times would you do it? I mean, you are going to win over 82% of the time?
Learn what EV is.
link to original post
No. The question was to DO about HIS definition of "Sucker" bet. As far as your "spin," perhaps you can postulate a wagering on the "iron Cross" or any other scheme that would provide a $10 win and a $1000 loss on one roll of the dice. BTW, I am well aware that an immediate 7 out would clear the board, but that is what is termed GAMBLING. Going back to the "POINT," it was about "SUCKER BET." If you are going to elbow your way into a conversation, it would be best to stay on topic.
tuttigym
link to original post
LOL! I’ll answer. No, the Iron Cross is not a sucker bet, UNLESS while making it you feel you have an advantage over the house. It’s one of hundreds of -EV bet types offered by casinos.
I’ve thought a little more about this…. Life is basically a continual run of sucker bets…. I paid $15.95 for a burger and fries that probably had $4 in ingredients. I pay someone $1000 a season to mow my lawn. I just gave my town $17 to get a license for my dog. I pay someone $$$ to figure out how much $$$$ I must pay the government.
Some may label me a ‘sucker’ for one or all of those things. I look at it as just how I enjoy life. Same with my casino -EV bets.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
-EV are sucker bets even the iron cross. You are guaranteed to lose even if it's in slower increments of time or where you have lots of wins and STILL lose overall.
How can anyone play a game (any game) where the other side has set up the parameters so that it guaranteed you lose and not be considered a sucker bet?
Would you play Poker at a friend's house if he told you he rigged it so even if you won a few pots your friend was guaranteed to still beat you?
I am not talking skillset. If I play Poker with Phil Ivey I expect he will always be the winner because of his skill. But maybe if I put years into playing and honing my skill I might have a chance.
With -EV games you can not win. Not with skill. Not with luck (not if you keep playing) AND
The other side is NOT beating you because they are lucky OR BECAUSE they have skill. But because they rigged it that way so no matter what you do you will lose.
How can that not be considered a sucker bet?
Quote: darkozQuote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
-EV are sucker bets even the iron cross. You are guaranteed to lose even if it's in slower increments of time or where you have lots of wins and STILL lose overall.
How can anyone play a game (any game) where the other side has set up the parameters so that it guaranteed you lose and not be considered a sucker bet?
Would you play Poker at a friend's house if he told you he rigged it so even if you won a few pots your friend was guaranteed to still beat you?
I am not talking skillset. If I play Poker with Phil Ivey I expect he will always be the winner because of his skill. But maybe if I put years into playing and honing my skill I might have a chance.
With -EV games you can not win. Not with skill. Not with luck (not if you keep playing) AND
The other side is NOT beating you because they are lucky OR BECAUSE they have skill. But because they rigged it that way so no matter what you do you will lose.
How can that not be considered a sucker bet?
link to original post
The casino is your place of work. Not mine. I can’t help it if you can’t understand that I can enjoy playing Pai Gow knowing I’m more likely to lose than win. That’s a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem. I play golf with a guy who’s certainly better than me. I LOVE playing him for a $1 on all the par 3’s. If ALL I cared about was money, it is certainly a sucker’s bet.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: darkozQuote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
-EV are sucker bets even the iron cross. You are guaranteed to lose even if it's in slower increments of time or where you have lots of wins and STILL lose overall.
How can anyone play a game (any game) where the other side has set up the parameters so that it guaranteed you lose and not be considered a sucker bet?
Would you play Poker at a friend's house if he told you he rigged it so even if you won a few pots your friend was guaranteed to still beat you?
I am not talking skillset. If I play Poker with Phil Ivey I expect he will always be the winner because of his skill. But maybe if I put years into playing and honing my skill I might have a chance.
With -EV games you can not win. Not with skill. Not with luck (not if you keep playing) AND
The other side is NOT beating you because they are lucky OR BECAUSE they have skill. But because they rigged it that way so no matter what you do you will lose.
How can that not be considered a sucker bet?
link to original post
The casino is your place of work. Not mine. I can’t help it if you can’t understand that I can enjoy playing Pai Gow knowing I’m more likely to lose than win. That’s a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem. I play golf with a guy who’s certainly better than me. I LOVE playing him for a $1 on all the par 3’s. If ALL I cared about was money, it is certainly a sucker’s bet.
link to original post
I totally get it and that's fine.
You enjoy playing a game You know you cannot turn a profit in the long run.
But I do believe for all the entertainment value people give it that's a smoke screen.
Let's take a hypothetical. Your casino begins offering a special Pai Gow table where you get paid 2:1 (it's a hypothetical).
You would fight for a chair or would you happily play the other normal PaiGow? Would you storm out the casino to go play regular Pai Gow at the casino across the street because you were insulted that you were being given an opportunity to win? Would you be upset you weren't being allowed to pay for your entertainment?
Quote: darkoz
The other side is NOT beating you because they are lucky OR BECAUSE they have skill. But because they rigged it that way so no matter what you do you will lose.
How can that not be considered a sucker bet?
link to original post
Sometimes, I play pinball. I'm not very good, but I get some joy and delight from watching the ball just barely miss the spot I wanted it to go, and the startling noises the bumpers make.
To me, that delight is worth 50 cents a game. It's not worth a dollar a game, and it's REALLY not worth buying a dozen tables and lining them up in the basement, even if I do get to set them for free play. (Shuffleboard bowling alley? Maybe... but the maintenance and repairs get you.)
People are allowed to value the entertainment at more than the theoretical loss, just like you're allowed to choose a different outlet for your entertainment dollar.
Quote: Dieter(snip!!)
Quote: darkoz
The other side is NOT beating you because they are lucky OR BECAUSE they have skill. But because they rigged it that way so no matter what you do you will lose.
How can that not be considered a sucker bet?
link to original post
Sometimes, I play pinball. I'm not very good, but I get some joy and delight from watching the ball just barely miss the spot I wanted it to go, and the startling noises the bumpers make.
To me, that delight is worth 50 cents a game. It's not worth a dollar a game, and it's REALLY not worth buying a dozen tables and lining them up in the basement, even if I do get to set them for free play. (Shuffleboard bowling alley? Maybe... but the maintenance and repairs get you.)
People are allowed to value the entertainment at more than the theoretical loss, just like you're allowed to choose a different outlet for your entertainment dollar.
link to original post
I will probably start a new thread about this. I have certain thoughts on the subject that merit a full discussion.
If you're asking me, there are some I like, there are some I don't like.
I don't like any of them enough to want to own one, much less a dozen.
I had something of a minimalist epiphany about a decade ago, and I just cannot justify owning such a thing that I might only use twice a year. This is especially true when part of what I enjoy about pinball is the environment it is played in.
My valuation changes a bit when talking about Pachinko machines or a shuffleboard bowling alley. I can't casually detour to a local barcade or laundromat to play those games for a few dollars.
I'm happy to let someone else have the basement arcade and be the objectively coolest guy in the neighborhood, especially if that means I can buy him an occasional case of beer to play a few games and make appreciative sounds of admiration.
edit: I should point out that I recognize a difference between "Nobody should collect pinball machines" and "Collecting pinball machines isn't for me". I'm definitely in the latter camp.
I suppose since I lobbed the first "sucker bet" epithet that I should define what I think is a sucker bet. I have two criterion:
1) If there are two ways to effectively bet for the same outcome, the one with the higher house edge is the sucker bet. A perfect craps example is making a place bet on a six ($6 wins $7), versus betting on the Big Six (1:1 payout) This does NOT mean that placing the six instead of playing the pass line for six is a sucker bet because one cannot know that their pass line bet will result in a point of six. Not buying the 4 or 10, or putting down a $15 bet on 6 also fall into this category.
2) A bet where the house edge is egregiously high. Bonus Craps falls into this category, with the "All" bet sporting a House Edge over 20%. Most "center bets" sport minimum HEs of 9% or more, so I consider them all to be sucker bets. The real question is "what is egregious?" For me, in craps, that is anything over 5%. There's plenty of fun to be had with bets 5% HE and below. Besides, if I do "throw them all" or hit every point on the Fire Bet, I usually get a tip from the winners, so I win without risk.
I disagree with the contention that every -EV bet is a sucker bet. We're all adults here (in theory), and thus approach gambling with the knowledge that the deck is stacked against us. All we have to do is limit ourselves to the lowest HE possible. I am perfectly happy playing the 'cheap 4" bets in craps: Pass, Free Odds, Place 6, Place 8. And JoB VP, as full a paytable as I can find.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: darkozMy definition of a sucker bet is any bet where you pretty much know you are set up to lose.
So pretty much all -EV wagers.
The ultimate test is would you agree to the same terms in a friendly game with family
If you aren't willing to let your friends and family have an edge why let some corporation?
(Paying for your entertainment is just self consolation as to why you are playing a sucker bet).
That's my definition not others.
And now I pass Nareed on the top contributors with this post :)
link to original post
Based on the above post, my question for you DO:
The Iron Cross in craps has 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose.
The player allows himself one roll of the dice.
Would you still classify that one roll bet a "sucker" bet?
tuttigym
link to original post
You are totally missing the concept. If I told you you can ‘roll the dice’ and win $10 30 times but lose $1,000 6 times would you do it? I mean, you are going to win over 82% of the time?
Learn what EV is.
link to original post
No. The question was to DO about HIS definition of "Sucker" bet. As far as your "spin," perhaps you can postulate a wagering on the "iron Cross" or any other scheme that would provide a $10 win and a $1000 loss on one roll of the dice. BTW, I am well aware that an immediate 7 out would clear the board, but that is what is termed GAMBLING. Going back to the "POINT," it was about "SUCKER BET." If you are going to elbow your way into a conversation, it would be best to stay on topic.
tuttigym
link to original post
LOL! I’ll answer. No, the Iron Cross is not a sucker bet, UNLESS while making it you feel you have an advantage over the house. It’s one of hundreds of -EV bet types offered by casinos.
I’ve thought a little more about this…. Life is basically a continual run of sucker bets…. I paid $15.95 for a burger and fries that probably had $4 in ingredients. I pay someone $1000 a season to mow my lawn. I just gave my town $17 to get a license for my dog. I pay someone $$$ to figure out how much $$$$ I must pay the government.
Some may label me a ‘sucker’ for one or all of those things. I look at it as just how I enjoy life. Same with my casino -EV bets.
link to original post
For me, your post is spot on, and life is the ultimate -EV as we all die having done the best we could under an infinite number of different circumstances.
tuttigym
