Free Odds - the Best Bet?

[heavy]

What do you suppose the “best bet” in craps is according to most gaming experts?

Yep, that's right. The free odds bet. Most math experts will tell you to play the Pass line with max free odds. Okay, some of them may go on to admit that the Don't Pass is marginally a better bet - but most stick with the Pass line with max free odds as the way to play.

Why? Because in a 20X odds game where you play max odds the house edge is only .10 percent. That converts to .0010 - or ten cents for every hundred dollars wagered. All in all, it’s a dirt-cheap bet.

So why is this strategy wrong for MOST players? It all has to do with the variance inherent to the game.

Let's do a little math exercise. We’ll head on down to that place I refer to as Worst Case Casino, where there’s a ten dollar 20X odds game. We’ll buy in for $500 – a decent bankroll – and play ten bucks on the Pass Line. Dice are out – shooter has them – and the point is nine.

Now let’s take $200 Free Odds and wait to collect our money.

Next roll - 6.

Next roll - 2.

Next roll - 4.

Next roll - 5.

Next roll - 6.

Next roll - 8.

Next roll - seven out.

Congratulations. You just lost $210.

Now, based on the math of the game this bet was only supposed to cost us a fraction over twenty cents, so don't forget to ask for your change.

Okay, what went wrong? Well, those of you who’ve been around awhile know that we over-bet our bankroll. But craps is essentially a 50/50 game, right? So that can’t possibly happen again. So let’s take the $290 we have left and try another hand.

Ten bucks on the line. Dice are out. Shooter has ‘em. The toss and . . .

“Seven, winner, front line winner!”

Hey! Things are looking up. Let's just let it ride and play $20 on the line. Shooter has ‘em. The toss and – point is six. Great! An easy number. And as a courtesy to big players the casino allows you to play up to $500 odds on a $20 line bet. Hey, super deal! But you only have $280 left. You can’t afford another $220, but at least you can keep your free odds bet in even numbers. So, you dig in your pocket and pull out another twenty to stack behind the line.

$300 Free Odds plays behind the six.

Shooter has ‘em. Dice are in the air and ...

“Seven out – line down. Pay the don’ts. New shooter coming out.”

“Wow, mister,” says the sweet young thing standing beside you. “You just lost $520.”

But the “expert” said the house edge was just 52 cents on that action.

So why are you leaving the casino broke?

You see, that .10 percent figure house edge we talked about earlier applies to all the play of all the players for all time. It also assumes you have unlimited bankroll to survive the natural swings of the game. In the great scheme of things your action and the amount of time you spend at the table is really insignificant. And just the slightest variation from the mean is sufficient to bust you out of the game. Is the Free Odds wager a good bet? Absolutely. But only when it wins.

[Mad Professor]

Coming soon to every message-board that SuperRick and HarleyHorn posts on:

"Heavy finally agrees with us...PL-ODDS are the WORST bet in the house, and just another way for the greedy casinos to make you lose"




MP

[Mad Professor]

While it's true that I've never attended any of Heavy's seminars, my sense of it is that he would never suggest spending ~40% of your buy-in on one single wager...all evidence to the contrary (see above) nothwithstanding.

If I'm wrong in that assumption, okay. Lesson learned.

Whether it be $200 in Odds on a $500 buy-in, or the $204-Across Regression on that same $500 buy-in; I know I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

My sense of it is that H was using that as an extreme example, and probably could have done a better job in reiterating that fact after demonstrating why Odds in that too-high-for-its-buy-in over-bet example are bad.

Regardless though, I still say that all of this feeds right into Rick's anti-Odds, anti-MP-$204, anti-anything position. He basically says the same thing, that a "Winning bet is the BEST bet, and a losing-bet is the WORST bet, and since you can't know ahead of time what's going to roll; then any bet that will lose is a bad bet, and any bet that will win is a good bet."

I'm sure there's some kind of circuitous logic in there, but good luck finding it.

If the new consensus here (other than Irishsetter and myself) is that the Odds bet for skilled-shooters is a bad bet, or that over-betting your bankroll is a good thing; then you guys are in for a world of bankroll-eroding hurt.

If on the other hand, this thread was merely started to spark discussion; then job-accomplished...however, it may have come with a painfully steep still-being-repeated-by-SR-and-HH-15-years-from-now price.


MP

[heavy]

For the record - my recommendation is that your average bet not exceed 8% of your session bankroll. And yes, that is even MORE conservative than most gaming writers, who generally come in at 10% of your session bankroll. Personally, I think risking 10% of your action on any one player is too much. As for pressing up your bets- it should be done in relation to your total bankroll as IT grows. If your $1000 buy in allows you an $80 bet - when your wins grow your bankroll to $1500 you can bet $120 - and not a dime more. Okay, that's what I TEACH. That's not what I do - but that's a different story. Note that I said your AVERAGE bet should not exceed 8% of your bankroll. However, if you are betting on advantage shooters (DI's) with a proven history I have no problem with starting out with a $132 bet - regressing down to $66 or so, then working your way back up to $88 or so after your action is "paid for." You guys have all seen this play before, so it shouldn't surprise anyone. The question, then, is whether to spread that action or to load up on the Free Odds instead. That, my friend, is a decision that will vary - depending on your theoretical approach to the game. Are you trying to make passes or hit box numbers?

[heavy]

The point of this article was - of course - that if you over-bet your bankroll - even on wagers with zero house edge - you're likely to get your ass handed to you. If the Short Bus Crew grasps this then good for them. But I do not want links to the Short Bus Craps Forum posted on this board. Why do anything to promote the sort of idiocy those guys espouse?

[heavy]

No problemo.

[Reloaded]

First post, pardon the interruption.

This makes sense in a lot of ways, so much information is always on how this free odds pass line bet is the best bet in the casino... I'm sure places with 100x free odds would love to see players drop those full odds a few times in a row.

I'm extremely green when it comes to this game, thanks Heavy for all the info so far.

[arrgy]

Why is the free odds bet the worst, simple. After the number is established, the house has the following edge over you with no odds:

6/8: 9.091%
5/9: 20%
4/10: 33.3%

We laugh at people who make a field bet, but the odds of repeating a 6/8 are worse than the field bet. Your better off betting Big Red then the 5/9. And the 4/10 ranks right up there with the odds of hitting the joker on the big wheel.

All the odds do is get you closer to the correct payout, it does not change the math. It does not change the fact that you only have 3 ways to make a 4/10 vs. 6 ways of losing.

This is what my right betting friends forget, and why I hardly ever bet that way (unless I shoot or I know a good mechanic.)

Let me ask this: Would you rather have 5x odds at the table, or only be allowed to have single odds yet you will not lose on a 1-6,6-1 so that you reduce the ways you can lose from 6 to 4?

Right betting with odds are for suckers.

[sharkbyte]

Right betting with odds are for suckers.

True...but then there is the issue of odds on the Don'ts.

[SHOOTITALL]

Here I am curious again, MP. My personal preference is the dark. What makes one a little nervous is the 8 ways to lose on the CO. So, by playing a doey-don't and neutralizing the C.O. more or less, one would then be working only with the free odds. Of course, winning all bets at once is certainly better than losing all bets at once. So, the question is what are the statistical odds on this particular play? That also includes using a DC/come bet for more action.

[Golfer]

"Right betting with odds are for suckers"

Strong opinion. Who are you trying to convince? Why? Do you think there are a lot of Suckers here?

You might consider to dial comments like that down. This board is made up of a variety of people. Some new to the game and others who have played more than you and seen more than you.

Trying out a comment along these lines here won't get you much and in fact will lower your creditability.

You just didn't discover the Holy Grail and your need to inform the masses of your discovery is misplaced here.

I play the darkside. I was happy to see a new darkside face appear. However, comments like this are not suitable.

It is Heavy's board and he can do as he wishes. I don't speak for Heavy. I speak for me. Leave the Sucker shit at the door.


Good Luck


Golfer

[arrgy]

When I mean its for suckers, I mean just that. Or should I say it more nicely...."Its not a bet I would make, and I suggest that you don't make it either (unless you practice as a dice mechanic) because I believe it will kill your bankroll."

The fact is (to all the newbies who never played the game) Remember this gold mantra: In craps there is nothing harder then throwing any other number except the 7. That is the basis of the game. So what the right side is telling a player to do is: throw a box number twice before throwing a 7, when the odds of that happening are 2:1, 3:2, or 6:5 against you to do it just once. Now the casino is going to be nice and give you the opportunity to place odds at no cost to us, and we will pay you what you should be paid for it. The thing is, that flat bet you made doesn't get paid what it should get paid, and that is where we make our real profit off your PL/Come bet.

If it wasn't a sucker bet, every casino in the world would close their craps tables down and offer something else that is more profitable.

Since this is the only game where you as the shooter can determine the outcome, the strategy has become to change how you shoot to possibly less those odds. Sadly 99.999% of the people who play this game around the world (yes I made that up) don't even understand that, let alone will do it. So most shooters are chicken feeders.

You are better off (IMHO) on making the outside bets on a single zero roulette game and taking even money.

If my tone is too harsh, I apologize. I hate to see new people stand up to a crap table and dump even $1 let alone hundreds in a matter of minutes with no understanding of what is expected of them.

[Mad Professor]

Hi SIA,

While the Doey-Don't doesn't neutralize the house-edge against you (it actually doubles the neg-ex cost because of the total dollar-amounts that are being bet); it does offer you the flexibility to deploy and remove Odds either for or against the PL-Point whenever you want.

In a negative-expectation game where random outcomes are being produced; Odds on EITHER side of the line (either for or against the PL-Point) only act to add volatility to what is still a neg-ex game. Essentially then, all Odds offer is nothing more than a zero-sum gain when all is said and done.

However, in a dice-influenced positive-expectation game where the outcomes have been slightly de-randomized; Odds act as a skill-leverager for the shooter because they effectively take whatever D-I advantage that shooter manifests, and multiplies his advantage by the payout-multiple for that particular PL-Point.

That works in the obverse too, for skilled Darkside-shooters. The skill-leverage in this case comes entirely from the Odds-multiple, and not from the flat even-money portion of his D-side wager.

How can that be, especially given the fact that DP-Odds pay at an inverse-rate?

Ahhh, that's because they OCCUR at the same inverse-rate at which they are paid; so again, Odds act as a skill-leverager for the D-side shooter too, because they effectively take whatever D-I advantage that shooter manifests, and multiplies his advantage by the payout-multiple (even though the payout-ratio itself is set at a less than a 1-to-1 ratio) against any particular PL-Point.

Now this is the point where someone usually pipes up with the tainted-logic silly-headed assertion of, "I would never settle for anything less than an even-money payout no matter how big my advantage is!"

It's silly of course because that would mean that every investment they make has to meet that same greater-than-or-equal-to 100% criteria, or they won't make it. So to them, a 50% return-on-investment is too low, as is a 66.6% ROI, as is an 83% return-on-investment.

If that's how they make their investment decisions, that would easily explain why they turn to neg-ex gambling. They aren't interested in returns, they're interested in thrills. For them, it's the CHASE, not the KILL.


Let me leave you with this one verity of advantage-play dice-influencing:

~If you have an in-casino validated edge, then taking Odds increases your advantage.

~If you don’t have an edge, then taking Odds only increases your volatility.


For related reading:

Doey-Don’t…The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

Doey-Don't Odds Question

Understanding Why PL-Odds Can Grow Your Bankroll at Unparalleled Rates

Under-Funding Odds Costs More in Uncollected Profit Than it Saves in Reduced Volatility


MP

[arrgy]

This is why I hate the term "House Edge" in craps. To me, it should be called "Payout Edge." Payout Edge is the difference between what you earn on a winning bet and what you SHOULD earn on a winning bet. The Payout Edge changes and fluctuates with each point, with how much odds you take or lay. The House Edge (to me) is the probability of throwing a number before a 7, that number is constant and never changes. To me, the Edge the house has is not in what it pays, but how it can beat you. Some casinos pay double for the 12, some pay triple for the 12...does that change how many ways a field number can be made? No, it doesn't. Paying me an extra unit on the 12 has no bearing on the fact that I can lose with the 5,6,7,8. People think that because you get an extra unit on the 12 that you get another way to win, no you don't, and since everyone tells me that the "dice have no memory" it doesn't change the number ways you can lose.

Lets say you walk up to the table with your buddy. Your buddy makes a PL bet. 4 becomes the point. He doesn't take any odds because he hates the 4/10. You take $10 odds for your buddy out of your own money. What is the house edge for you?

Most people would have to say for you: 0% because you are getting back exactly what you should get back 2:1 on your odds bet.

What I would say: -33.3% you may get true odds back, but you still have a big hill to climb. You still have 6 ways to lose and only 3 ways to win. Placing more money as odds may get you closer to what you should get paid, but does it take the House Edge away? No, it doesn't. You are still more likely to lose than to win.

Lets swing over to the dark side. On that side the endless debate remains as to whether or not to lay odds. I will always lay odds, simply because you have a huge house edge not payout edge.

If 5 was the point and you had a $25 flat bet, your House Edge and Payout Edge is the same at +20%
When you take $75 odds your Payout Edge now drops to +5% for the entire $100, however your house edge still remains the same at +20%


The next time you go to the casino and your friend says I know this new game where you will lose 66% of the time would you play?

[Mad Professor]

It's painfully clear that some guys can play this game for 10, 20, or even 30 years or more, and STILL not fully understand this game, nor the underlying math that is a constituent part of it.

Arrgy, I'm not trying to offend you, but what you've written above seems to personify that very trait.

MP

[arrgy]

It's painfully clear that some guys can play this game for 10, 20, or even 30 years or more, and STILL not fully understand this game, nor the underlying math that is a constituent part of it.

Arrgy, I'm not trying to offend you, but what you've written above seems to personify that very trait.

MP

Interesting because I basically just restated what someone who will remain nameless stated on this forum:

How do we know that?

~If the PL-Point is a 4 or 10; there’s a 3-out-of-9 (33.3%) chance that it will repeat…and a 66.6% chance that it won’t.

To determine how much ‘relative risk’ your post-CO DP w/Odds wager is under during the Point-Cycle, we simply multiply the amount of money that you've added, by the DP-Point 60%/40% win/lose difference of 20.0%, and then factor in the inverse blended-average payout that D-side Odds are paid at. Since DP-Odds are paid at true-Odds (1:2, 2:3, and 5:6 respectively); they represent a -20% metric...thus nullifying the win/lose difference above.

...where the house-edge is simply derived from whatever you initially wager on the DP-line, and is merely diluted by whatever you decide to add by way of DP-Odds.

In a random-outcome game, even a "carefully deployed" one-roll Iron-Cross/Anything-but-7 method WILL NOT beat nor overcome the 16.67% house-edge often enough to be net-accretive to your bankroll.

All I am saying is that I do not like how the term "house edge" is thrown around this game. My basic logic and math arguments are the same that YOU stated in previous threads.

If you took 1 million times odds, and the guy next to you took no odds on the same PL bet who is more likely to win?

NEITHER one of you. You both have the same chance of winning, and the same chance of losing your bet. Your payout is different, that's all I am stating.

Why we call this "house edge" on the same expected outcome is what I am questioning. I also believe that is an attempt by casinos to produce misleading advertising, by stating their house edge as being something that the average may not understand. The average gambler does not understand how the 1.4% figure is computed. I think casinos for decades have taken advantage of this and made a boat load of money.

[Mad Professor]

: Hi Arrgy,

For the sake of harmony, I’m going to assume that you aren’t being intentionally obtuse; however, neither your basic logic nor your math arguments are the same as what I’ve stated, unless you are intentionally leaving out some very important pieces that complete the puzzle.

Again, you may not be doing that intentionally in order for your dislike of the term “house-edge” to be given further validity or wider acceptance; however, that is certainly the way it appears.

Sadly, your assertion that the term “house-edge” is part of a vast multi-decade ‘misleading advertising’ casino-conspiracy, really doesn’t hold any of the merit you think it does.

Instead, your insistence that the overall net-payout player-disadvantage on either DP-Odds or PL-Odds, is in the -20% realm, is entirely wrong.

If you carefully re-read the quote of mine that you posted above, you’ll see that I meticulously set forth exactly why the initial +20% win/loss disadvantage is fully and completely nullified when the Odds payout-rate is factored in.

More than that though, my explanation of how the DP is highly disadvantaged during the ComeOut cycle, somehow didn’t find its way into your argument. That is, no discussion of the DP is complete unless both the COME-OUT cycle and the POINT-CYCLE are included in their entirety.

I’m not sure why you failed to allow that critical factor to be allowed into your argument; which in failing to do so, immediately made your point quite specious and entirely baseless. More than that though, is in doing that, you did a great dis-service to those who might have otherwise given your ideas at least a passing amount of relevance.

Arrgy, we agree that the casino holds a -1.4% overall advantage over the PL as well as the DP, and I acknowledge that you don’t like the term “house-edge”; however, renaming it the ‘George Foreman’, or the ‘Great Divide’, or even ‘Cat-Scratch Fever’ won’t change the simple fact that the casino still holds a -1.4% edge on random PL or DP outcomes, with or without the use of Odds.

In other words Arrgy, and to quote Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name would still be a rose.” You may not LIKE calling it a rose, and I understand that; but frankly, it’s still a rose even if you personally don’t like characterizing it as such.

Sorry, but house-edge is house-edge. You could start a petition to get the name changed to something more to your personal liking; but I don’t think you’d get more than a quarter-load of short-bussers to sign it.


MP

[wild child]

.
The time honored old saw often stated by con men and carnival hucksters :
"Never give the sucker an even break" carries forward to current time.

While the D I / ADVANTAGE PLAYER may not be a "sucker",casinos do not offer a mathematically even
game on machines or table games. That is a fact..."House Edge " gets the point across without further explanation.

For individual purposes ,it may be called anything that gets the point across.
For me House Advantage / House Edge works as there are far more pressing issues.

Also ,I feel that the well placed Iron Cross or even all box numbers covered with a HORN is a high percentage ( 83% ) RETURN ONE ROLL WAGER. The HOWEVER FACTOR is when mal-placed it takes six winning wagers to make up the loss of one Iron Cross.........

How about changing the disparaging term "Short Bus Crew" to " PARTY BUS DUDES " ?


Just me saying

W C

[SHOOTITALL]

WC: As MP once pointed out, I have a risk aversion. That is why I prefer the dark side. I can lose one bet at a time but when I win, it picks up the loss plus extra. Getting paid 50% or 66% or so on a bet is actually to me irrelevant. Since I can win more than one bet at a time, the actual payout is greater than one bet with the other a wash. Just my thinking on this. As far as best bets go, I still do not know. Sometimes these numbers are prevalent, sometimes those numbers are prevalent. Sometimes I am on a table where Houdini could not control the dice. But I need something that I am comfortable with while the dice lap the table. Being a little (understatement) thick headed, I am still learning.

[wild child]

S I A
Two examples of what I posted:

1] BOX # 5 $15 Box # 6 $18 Box # 8 $18 FIELD $5

There is a 17% opportunity for any dice combination adding up to SEVEN
and

there is a 83% opportunity for the sum of two die to total a number other than SEVEN
The #'s FIVE SIX or EIGHT in this example would yield a $21 gross win minus the $5 FIELD

$21
- 5
---
$15 $15/$21 = 71% on that one number.

In this example the total wager is $56
$15/$56 = 26.7857 % win on this one wager

The FIELD WAGER pays $5 . BONUS BUCKS of $10 should the #2 or # 12 show
$10/$56 = 17.857%
This is the return on this one roll should it pay.

2] Let's look at $96 ACROSS with $4 HORN
The #'s 4 and 10 pay $27

The #'5 and NINE pay $21

The #'s SIX and 8 pay $21

Should NOT A HORN # ROLL , THE WIN WOULD BE REDUCED BY $4

Should one of the HORN NUMBERS show ,the pay out is 15or 30 TIMES THE WAGER MINUS THE TOTAL OF THE NON WINNING HORN WAGER WITH ZERO AFFECT ON THE BOX NUMBERS.

THREE & ELEVEN PAY 15 TIMES

TWO & TWELVE PAY 30 TIMES

To reduce the opportunity of loss to the SEVEN a player may choose to remove his MONEY AT RISK TO LOSS and wait patiently for another likely shooter before making the wager......

THE CASINO PLACES AT RISK $$$$$$$$ IN EXCESS FAR GREATER THAN THE CHUMP CHANGE ANY TYPICAL CRAPS PLAYER WILL BRING TO PLAY. The casino appears to cover the extensive expenses and return a large $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ PROFIT........

Each player has the opportunity to choose how and how much will be at risk and for how long a time frame.

Just me saying

W C