Is the free odds bet a preferred wager for a DI?

[Dave73]

I understand the math on the PL bet with and without odds. I also know the math is based on probability with a random roll.

When randomness is reduced and a shooter may be more likely to hit a natural, is there any advantage to putting the money that would go to the odds on the pass line instead?
My thoughts are that the increase occurrences of naturals, and the larger win due to the larger wager, could in theory offset the lost odds.

I know it's not possible to come up witty a definitive answer on this due to the dynamic nature of a player'potential edge, but I'm curious about other's thoughts and if anyone has done a 'what if'

[Mad Professor]

Hi Dave,

I would like to offer a TWO-PART answer to your question.

Here is part one:

Does the “Stack ‘em, Don’t Rack ‘em” Approach Make Any More Financial Sense Today Than it Did Back in 2004 or 2006?

Back in 2004 when I first wrote this piece, many student D-I's were taught to stack their instant (7 or 11) PL-wins back onto the Passline instead of taking full-Odds, partial Odds, or even ANY Odds at all. This was done under the guise of being a “mathematically-sound winning strategy”.

Unfortunately, it is not anywhere close to being a mathematically-sound strategy.

When I updated and 'freshened' this piece again in 2006 for reposting (around the time I started this Not-So-Random Thought thread); many players were still being taught that the Stack 'Em, Don't Rack 'Em method was a sound strategy, and that scrimping on Odds would leave more money for a spreading widely across all the box-numbers.

Sadly, that is NOT anywhere close to being a mathematically-sound strategy; and so, many freshman and sophomore D-I students (as well as a surprising number of multi-year dice-influencers who have developed proficiency in most other aspects of their game) continue to see their D-I earning lag far, far behind their D-I skills.

Here's part of the problem:

If you still hold onto the notion that any money that you’ve just won is “the casinos money” and can be treated any differently than money that came out of your pocket; then I can see how this “parlay your PL-winnings back onto the Pass Line” approach for another instant-win or a subsequent now-larger-valued PL-Point win seems to make sense.

Many players who get ahead a certain amount during their session share the same “If I lose my winnings, I’m not REALLY losing because I’m playing with the casinos money” mentality…in which case I can see how some players and even a few dice coaches would want to somehow rationalize this “stack ‘em, don’t rack ‘em” approach.

However, to use this approach while somehow thinking (or worse yet, teaching) that it is a “mathematically sound winning strategy” as some have suggested; is to push the outer boundaries of veracity, or at least, altered reality.

The reality of dice-influencing is that the greater the difference between the money you bet on the Passline versus the amount of money you use to back that PL-bet with Odds; the more a dice-influencer is able to leverage his or her skills.

Similarly, if you scrimp on Odds when you are shooting in order to have more money to spread All-Across the box-numbers; then you are going to short-change your skills to a point where your D-I earnings will lag far behind what they could and should be putting directly into your pocket.

The Stack 'em Don't Rack 'em strategy didn't make sense back in 2004 when I first wrote about it; nor did it make sense in 2006 when we revisited this whole issue because of its curriculum popularity; and I can tell you again that it still doesn't make any better sense today than it did back then.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a strategy like that actually robs you and your family of the money that your D-I skills could and should be producing.

Don't take my word for it; here’s the math:


Pass/Come

The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36.

That’s how we come up with the 22.22% chance of producing an instant PL-win.

The chances of an instant PL-loser is 4/36 or 11.11%; and therefore as I mentioned previously, the PL does indeed enjoy the prospect of a 2:1 instant-win/instant-lose ratio.

The probability of establishing a point and then winning is pr(4)*pr(4 before 7) + pr(5)*pr(5 before 7) + pr(6)*pr(6 before 7) + pr(8)*pr(8 before 7) + pr(9)*pr(9 before 7) + pr(10)*pr(10 before 7) =
(3/36)*(3/9) + (4/36)*(4/10) + (5/36)*(5/11) + (5/36)*(5/11) + (4/36)*(4/10) + (3/36)*(3/9) =
(2/36) * (9/9 + 16/10 + 25/11) =
(2/36) * (990/990 + 1584/990 + 2250/990) =
(2/36) * (4824/990) = 9648/35640

The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640 = 17568/35640 = 244/495

The probability of losing is obviously 1-(244/495) = 251/495

Which means that the random-wagering PL-bettor will win 49.29% of the time and lose the other 50.71% of the time.

Therefore the player's edge is (244/495)*(+1) + (251/495)*(-1) = -7/495 = -1.414%.



Combining Your Passline-bet with Odds

The player edge on the combined Passline bet with Odds is the average player gain divided by the average player bet.

The gain on a randomly-wagered Passline-bet is always -7/495 and the gain on randomly-wagered Odds is always 0.

The expected bet depends on what multiple of Odds you are allowed. Lets assume full double-odds where the Passline-bet is $2, and the Odds on a 4, 5, 9, and 10 is $4, while the Odds on a 6 or 8 is $5.

The average gain is -2*(7/495) = -14/495.
The average bet is 2 + (3/36)*4 + (4/36)*4 + (5/36)*5 + (5/36)*5 + (4/36)*4 + (3/36)*4] =
2 + 106/36 = 178/36

The player edge when he takes full double-Odds is (-14/495)/(178/36) = -0.572%.

If you use the "stack 'em don't rack 'em" approach of parlaying instant PL-wins back onto the Passline; then the house edge obviously remains at -1.41%.

Instead, if you take those same instant PL-wins and used them as single-Odds behind your Passline, then the house-edge against you drops by about 40% to-0.848% .


When a skilled dice-influencer adds more Odds in relation to the amount of his Passline wager; the more his edge over the house is multiplied and the more his D-I skills are leveraged and over-weighted in his favor.

Unfortunately doing the opposite (making the PL-to-Odds ratio lower), acts to minimize your your advantage over the house.

If you've worked hard to develop a skill; then why let the house off the hook?

If you have the skill; then use as much leverage to fully exploit it. It's an advantage that is rightfully yours. You've worked hard to develop it. Don't unwittingly surrender most of your edge right back to them. That would be foolish.

Here’s the math regarding…

Place Bets

Place bet on 6 or 8: [(5/11)*7 + (6/11)*(-6)]/6 = (-1/11)/6 = -1/66 =~ -1.515%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 1.79 times HIGHER.

Place bet on 5 or 9: [(4/10)*7 + (6/10)*(-5)]/5 = (-2/10)/5 = -1/25 = -4.000%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 4.72 times HIGHER.

Place bet on 4 or 10: [(3/9)*9 + (6/9)*(-5)]/5 = (-3/9)/5 = -1/15 =-6.667%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 7.86 times HIGHER.


The simple truth is that if you use the “Stack ‘em, Don’t Rack ‘em” approach, somehow thinking that it makes financial sense; it is an ERROR of monetarily significant proportions.


As always,

Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.

The Mad Professor
Copyright © 2009

[Mad Professor]

Hi again, Dave. Here is the second part of my answer to your question:

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

When a skilled dice-influencer scrimps on his PL-Odds because he doesn’t like the volatility that goes along with a higher Odds-to-Flat ratio (that’s the ratio between the amount of money that you use in Odds, versus the value of your basic PL or DP flat-wager); he actually short-changes his D-I talents.

That is, if you have a validated edge over a given box-number; then backing it with Odds when it is your PL-Point, will always give you a higher advantage over the house than the same amount of money wagered as a Place-bet on that same number will.

I’ll be the first to admit that I used to under-fund my PL-Odds, and I didn’t think it was making much of a difference…that is until our friend, Stanford Wong showed me a side-by-side comparison of what my PL w/Odds bets were making for me at the time, versus what they could be making for me if I simply upped my PL-Odds by even a 1x or 2x factor.

For example, I had been using 3x-Odds at some high-buck ($25+) tables that offered 3x/4x/5x-Odds, and I figured I was doing pretty darn good. However, by simply shifting to full-Odds whenever I shot; my net-profit immediately jumped nearly 30%.

What surprised me the most, was not only how quickly I could recoup a previous PL w/full-Odds loss; but also that my session-to-session (but not hand-to-hand) profit became more reliable.

I had thought it would be just the opposite and that my profit-peaks would be higher as would my bankroll-dips; but in fact it turned out to be the opposite (though not on a hand-to-hand basis), but definitely on a session-to-session and week-to-week basis. I'll candidly admit that I had no idea that my near-horizon profit-projections would actually become more predictable and more reliable as I increased the Odds-ratio.

Another example...

In high-Odds casinos where I had been building up to their 10x or 20x-Odds limit by starting out at the 3x or 4x-odds level and then adding a nickel ($5) to my PL-Odds with each subsequent Place-bet win; my net-profit actually increased in greater proportion to my Place-bet wins when I started out with maxed-out Odds.

Again, the hand-to-hand volatility that I was expecting, was definitely there…but it was easily outpaced (and negative draw-downs were quickly recouped) on a session-to-session basis when I started putting max-Odds out there from the get-go, because early Point-repeaters in the hand were now getting paid at full-Odds and not at the under-funded (and still building level) that I had been using up until that time.

Again, the volatility on a hand-to-hand basis was quite a bit higher than the variance I had been experiencing while using under-funded Odds; but that minor inconvenience was easy to overlook when viewed on a session-to-session basis.

Now, I ALWAYS take max-Odds when I am shooting...even on my first toss.
It took me a long time to get it through my thick skull that taking max-Odds was in my best interest.

Taking less than max-Odds has the intended effect of minimizing volatility; but it also has the unintended effect of actually minimizing your wins too.

Let me explain why that is.

When you back your PL-Point with less than full-Odds, we think we are minimizing our 'risk' by lowering volatility; and in many ways that is true. But if you follow that idea to a logical conclusion; then the ultimate low-risk, low-volatility bet is no bet at all.

However, advantage-play entails making wagers that are at some risk, but that risk is outweighed by the expected reward.

When we say 'expected' reward, we are really talking about our edge over the house manifesting itself over a reasonable number of trials.

We know that we won't win every time that we pick up the dice, but we know that over a number of tries that we will win more than we lose...and THAT is what A-P is all about, and yes, I knew that you knew that.

When we minimize and skimp on the amount of Odds that we use, we are taking away some of the force-multiplier effect that Odds offer us.

As dice-influencers, that force-multiplier effect is critically important.

In fact...

The LOWER Your D-I Skills, the MORE Higher PL-Odds Will Help You

Lately we've been discussing rarely talked about and rarely understood advantage-play concepts; so I thought I’d add one more piece of fuel to the “Gee, how come no one told me that before?” fire.

The closer your dice-influencing skills are to random, the more higher Odds will help you turn your modest skills into useable profit.

Now admittedly, the concept may sound a little counter-intuitive to most players who have been holding off on using full allowable Odds to back their PL-Point “until their D-I skills improve”.

Well, the truth is that if you have a verified edge over the house, even if it is a very slim edge; your advantage becomes more exploitable as you increase your PL-Odds.

Now that fact is probably obvious to everyone, however what most players don't realize is that some dice-influencing skills that are UNprofitable at 1x-Odds or even 2x-Odds…will often BECOME profitable if backed with 3x/4x/5x-Odds…and will become even more profitable when backed with 5x or 10x-Odds.

Don’t believe me? Check it out yourself.
[tr] [td][b][color=#FF0000][center]SRR-6.5 Rightside-shooter[/center][/color][/b][/td][td][color=#FF0000][center][b] PL-Point 4 or 10 Win/Loss Ratio[/b] [i][b] 37%/63% [/b][/i][/center][/color][/td][td][color=#FF0000][center][b] PL-Point 5 or 9 Win/Loss Ratio[/b] [i][b] 43%/57% [/b][/i][/center][/color][/td] [td][color=#FF0000][center][b] PL-Point 6 or 8 Win/Loss Ratio[/b] [i] 49%/51% [/i][/center][/color][/td] [td][color=#FF0000][center][b]Average Profit-per-Hand [/b] for this [b] SRR-6.5 Rightside-shooter [/b][/center][/color][/td] [/tr] [tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b]NO Odds[/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=Red] [b] (-26.0%)[/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=Red] [b] (-14.0%) [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=Red] [b] (-2.0%) [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=Red] [b][i] (-14.0%) [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td][/tr][tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b]1x Odds[/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=Red] [b] (-7.5%) [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=Red] [b] (-3.3%) [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +2.9% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=Red] [b][i] (-2.63%) [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td] [/tr] [tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b]2x Odds[/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=Red] [b] (-1.33%) [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +0.33% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +4.50% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=#FF0000] [b][i] +0.95 [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td] [/tr][tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b] 3x/4x/5x Odds [/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +1.75% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +3.2% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +6.17% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=#FF0000] [b][i] +3.71% [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td] [/tr][tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b]5x Odds[/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000][b] +3.33% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +9.92% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +6.17% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=#FF0000] [b][i] +6.47% [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td] [/tr] [tr][td][color=#FF0000] [center][b]10x Odds[/b][/center] [/color][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000][b] +7.63% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +11.55% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td][td][center][color=#FF0000] [b] +6.91% [/b] per hand [/color][/center][/td] [td][center][color=#FF0000] [b][i] +8.70% [/i][/b] average edge per hand [/color][/center][/td] [/tr] The first thing that jumps out, is that even though this SRR-6.5 shooter is indeed influencing the dice…the use of insufficient Odds means that some of his Passline bets will be in negative-territory.

It also means that simply increasing the Odds portion of his Passline bet will put those exact same D-I skills firmly into profit-making territory.

Now, as I mentioned before, many players use minimal Odds at the present time…hoping and praying that at some time in the future their current low-Odds or no-Odds PL-bets will put them into a good enough profit position so they can fuel the use of higher-multiple Odds.

Unfortunately though, many players never get into that net-profit position…not because their current skills aren’t good enough…but simply because their PL-Odds were never high enough.

In other words…

The LOWER your D-I skills, the MORE higher PL-Odds will LEVERAGE your abilities into profit.

Likewise…

The HIGHER your D-I skills, the HIGHER and FASTER your PL-Odds will accelerate your profits and keep re-doubling your bankroll.

As always,

Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.
The Mad Professor
Copyright © 2010

[rhythm roller]

Hopefully I won't hijack this thread but I do have some questions. I am trying to become a more astute better but, honestly, every time I read something I seem to get more confused instead of smarter.

MP, I totally understand and agree to everything in your article as far as the math numbers. I am still confused however as to what I should really do when I arrive at that casino table to toss with an edge.

Here is my scenario. I arrive at a table and my bankroll and buy in let me start betting at about $100 per hand. My signature numbers from bone tracker are 8 and then 9. I toss a point of 10 which is about my 4th or 5th number as far as my bone tracker results. Should I still place full odds on that 10 as the point or would I be better served to place more on the 8 and the 9 as place bets and put less than full odds behind my 10? If my point number was an 8 or even a 9 then it would be an easy choice of full odds behind.

My current move(with max odds of 3,4,5) would be to put single odds behind and $42 on the 8. And $40 on the 9 as place bets. If I did win on the pass line on the 10 then I might move to double odds behind on the next number unless it was one of my signatures.

What do the rest of you all do and experts how could I improve on this strategy and how would it be better?

Thanks and thanks Dave73 for starting this thread and sharing it with me!

[Mad Professor]

Hi RhythmRoller,

Great question.

If your PL-Point is not one of your top-two highest-advantage box-numbers, but you still have a validated positive-edge on it; then bet maximum-Odds if at all possible.

On the other hand, if you have no edge on the PL-Point number; then frankly no-Odds would be the way to go, and you could take the money that you were going to use for Odds and add it to the Place-bet money you already have on your top-two box-numbers.

The point at which to start using significant-value-difference 'weighted' bets is usually when your best box-number is disproportionately better than your second-best box-number.

For example, let's say that you have a properly-validated 6% advantage over the Place-5, but only a 2% advantage over your second-best box-number, the Place-6. In that case your best box-number is 300% better than your second-best box-number.

In that case, I'd be very tempted to split my per-hand 7-exposure Place-bet money into four parts...putting three-quarters of it on the 5, and the other one-quarter on the 6. So, if I was willing to expose an average of $110 per-hand in Place-bet money; then I'd bet $75 on the 5, and $30 on the 6.

On the other hand, if your two-best box-numbers are very close in advantage-percentage; then I'd be splitting it about even...$50 on the 5 and $60 on the 6.

~Again, IF you have a valid overall in-casino advantage over your PL-Point; then back it with the maximum amount of Odds that you comfortably can afford.

~However, if you do not have an advantage over your PL-Point; then no-Odds would be the route to take.

~If your validated in-casino advantage is positive but marginal; then the lion's share of your 7-exposure should be on the box-numbers where you DO have the highest advantage...and your Odds on the lesser-advantaged PL-Point would reflect its lower betting-weight priority.



MP

[rhythm roller]

Thanks MP, that was very helpful to me!

[KnowNothing]

I lose track of time when I get into MP's write-up's, before I know it; it's 1am & I have a 5am start to my day! There is sooooooo much knowledge out there from the vets. Said it before, this is a top-flight community.

From a lamen POV... 'free odds bet' shouldn't be the term, rather 'true odds bet'. Casino marketing knows the business of manipulation. True Odds implies a negative connotation to their other higher H/E bets. Free implies, "oh, I should make more bets"... cause they are 'free'. As though the house is doing you a favour.

Not only is it the best bet for DI's (any number), or randies, or in craps, it's the best bet of any game in the casino.

It's so good, the casino doesn't even mark it on the felt! Why advertise a zero H/E bet? Why they dress up the fancy prop high H/E bets with dice-faces instead of simply the numbers & why they give them sexy names; world, hop, midnight blah-blah-blah. It's not a conspiracy, it's all sales. They even print the 'negative/poor-odds'... '30/1', because 30/1 sounds like a pay-day, yet their taking your $ without you thinking about it. The All's & Fire are referred to as 'feature-bets' in my local casino. Why the stick literally sells these bets between rolls. If I ever heard a dealer sell "get your true-odds bets down while the dice are in the middle" to the whole table... a) dealer would be made redundant b) i'd literally piss myself on the spot. A good dealer will remind you if you forget it after making them on previous rolls, but most are content to watch newbs not take true odds. The damn Fire bet spot is where the free-odds bet 'should' be.


I'll stop now, as I'm sure i'm preaching to the choir; but I recall being new at this. It's not only a lot to retain, but difficult to put into practice in a live atmosphere.

KN

[spiker]

At my local casino, the dealers always nag to any player that doesn't have odds, to take them or lay them. Pl dp come dc, doesn't matter. Almost anytime they see a flat bet, they almost always advise the player and try to sell him the odds. Guess these dealers are more friendly than others around the country.

[Dave73]

thanks for the info guys. I always knew the value of the free odds bet, but I think when starting this thread I was over estimating the edge a skilled shooter would have on the come out.

BTW, I always thought it was called the free odds bet because there was no commission like there is on a buy bet, which also pays the same true odds.

[Knick111]

Hi dave73,

Careful WITH DOES FREE ODDS BET--- you will decontrol your betting units.

Dave do you know what betting units are, and how to use them.

[bobthetree]

Keep in mind most don't recommend taking more then 10x odd, should you be in a place where you can place more. If your bankroll can sustain it then why not, but most can't even on a $5 table. The amount of total % edge on your pass line + odds bets is pretty small after 10x.

[Americraps]

I think that a lot of times, people don't bring enough money with them, or just don't have enough of a bankroll period to properly fund their bets. If your total BR is $500, then you would be very aggressive betting more than $15 total on any one hand. $5 PL and $10 odds sounds very boring to me. Or a $5 PL no odds and $6 6 & 8. It seems boring, but is actually sound betting for the size of many Crapsters BRs. That's around 3% of $500. Without going into a kelly discussion here, I would say 3% per hand would be safe for anyone with a modest amount of influence.

A $12 six and eight with a $5 PL and $30 odds SEEMS right to me, but thats $59 of exposure. That's 11.8% of a $500 BR. Not very safe to the point of you're asking to go broke.

My point is that the free odds is the best bet in the house, but not if you are overbetting your BR and risking going broke.

[shunkaha]

I think that a lot of times, people don't bring enough money with them, or just don't have enough of a bankroll period to properly fund their bets. If your total BR is $500, then you would be very aggressive betting more than $15 total on any one hand. $5 PL and $10 odds sounds very boring to me. Or a $5 PL no odds and $6 6 & 8. It seems boring, but is actually sound betting for the size of many Crapsters BRs. That's around 3% of $500. Without going into a kelly discussion here, I would say 3% per hand would be safe for anyone with a modest amount of influence.

A $12 six and eight with a $5 PL and $30 odds SEEMS right to me, but thats $59 of exposure. That's 11.8% of a $500 BR. Not very safe to the point of you're asking to go broke.

My point is that the free odds is the best bet in the house, but not if you are overbetting your BR and risking going broke.

Then too, free odds are only a good bet if you tend to return your point... I can think of several trips where I tossed well, tossed box numbers, just not the ones I set as a point. Also one side note I can think of, if you use 2 different sets... a comeout and a point cycle, the point a shooter sets and the numbers tossed during the point cycle could be radically different, under that circumstance I could see free odds being very nasty indeed.

[Dave73]

I think that a lot of times, people don't bring enough money with them, or just don't have enough of a bankroll period to properly fund their bets. If your total BR is $500, then you would be very aggressive betting more than $15 total on any one hand. $5 PL and $10 odds sounds very boring to me. Or a $5 PL no odds and $6 6 & 8. It seems boring, but is actually sound betting for the size of many Crapsters BRs. That's around 3% of $500. Without going into a kelly discussion here, I would say 3% per hand would be safe for anyone with a modest amount of influence.

A $12 six and eight with a $5 PL and $30 odds SEEMS right to me, but thats $59 of exposure. That's 11.8% of a $500 BR. Not very safe to the point of you're asking to go broke.

My point is that the free odds is the best bet in the house, but not if you are overbetting your BR and risking going broke.

Its easy to say "you need a bigger bankroll" but its difficult for many people to do that. As you stated, many people are limited to $300-500, and with a $5 minimum it doesnt take long to get 10% of you buy in on the table.
So what is a person with a limited BR to do?
Risk a short game with relatively aggressive betting? They could either hit and run while ahead or go home broke.
Limit themselves to one bet at a time? As you said, BORING, and frustrating for someone who wants to believe they can influence the dice...
Wait 10 years until they save up enough to significantly grow their BR? Aint gonna happen.

I think a combination of all three are best:
Go in with an understanding that when you are ahead you are doing well. Don't get greedy as a couple of consecutive losses, with 10-15% of your money on the table, will get you in the red quick.
Stick to smaller bets, forget coming in with a steep regression plan as it wont work with your low BR and a $5 minimum.
Set extra money aside when possible to build your BR...Keep your "change" from broken $20s aside as this adds up quick, quit eating expensive meals that are unhealthy, trim the fat on frivolous crap you don't need. Its really up to the player to determine the priority level of their gaming.

Then too, free odds are only a good bet if you tend to return your point... I can think of several trips where I tossed well, tossed box numbers, just not the ones I set as a point. Also one side note I can think of, if you use 2 different sets... a comeout and a point cycle, the point a shooter sets and the numbers tossed during the point cycle could be radically different, under that circumstance I could see free odds being very nasty indeed.

That is partially what I was getting at, but I was way overestimating the potential advantage (thats what I get for thinking about games when I should be working). I was thinking someone using a seven set who could get maybe 10-12 wins and 2-3 losses per 36 rolls as opposed to the 'random' 8/36 and 4/36. This would make their likely hood of winning on the CO 27-33% and their chances of losing 5-8% (as opposed to 22.22% win, 11.11% loss)

...of course I have zero skills so this is all just theory for me

[wild child]

.
Frequently I observe players BUY IN for $500 not once but serial BUY IN(S.....
Perhaps after multiple trips an A T M or THE CAGE about the fourth round of
this and the beleaguered and frantic player is making desperate wagers with
his last $too few bucks........May be better to save or have a yard sale or get a part time job
to build up a BANK ROLL than to dig a hole so deep he can no longer feed the bull dog or
give the kids lunch money or even have enough to gas up and drive home

THAT IS THE SAD SIDE OF PEOPLE WE WITNESS ALL TOO FREQUENTLY

My thoughts are if you can fund it AND are on a $5 or $10 table and trust you are HIGHLY LIKELY
to toss a Come Out 7/ELEVEN on command Make a P/L wager of $25 or $50....THE MOMENT YOU TOSS SAID WINNER on the C/O
.......TAKE DOWN the original $25 or $50 PLUS the $25 or $50 newly won ( now your money)
and replace it with the TABLE MINIMUM .........Lock up half and either use the newly $ in ODDS or
FLAT PLACE BET your handy SIGNATURE number or numbers...........

Go for a taste of EARLY PROFIT and a side order of REDUCED STRESS ..........

Just me saying

W C

[KnowNothing]

'Bang for OUR Buck'

Unit % value decreases as the odds multiplier increases. For us, we do not place >3x odds as the units beyond that are worth more in future odds betting. Taking the House below .5% is our stop point. The 2 units from 3x -> 5x are only worth .15%. Those 2 units are worth .81% (double) & .38% (triple) on future rolls.

Preaching again,
KN

[bobthetree]

Thanks for the graph KN, I have not seen that one before. It is a good one!

[Dave73]

Definitely. I have seen the numbers before but never looked past the idea that higher odds lowers the HA. That graph puts the odds:HA reduction into perspective.

[Americraps]

+1 on the graph kudos, KN. When you say future odds, are you referring to come bets on the same hand, or future odds as in the next point cycle?

[Dave73]

I took it to mean any future odds bet.