An Interesting Discussion....

[London Shooter]

Well, I'm not party to the other discussion so will have a stab here

1. OK I will say it is apples for apples if you are comparing how a total of $47 can be spent on the don'ts. Or at least the stake is apples for apples, but the result will be apples to oranges. On the flat $47 don't you are subjecting your whole wager to the full HA every time, 1.3x % (can't remember the exact figure) whereas the second way you are only subjecting $5 to the HA. Bottom line over 500 rolls you would expect to lose a lot less using the second method. You would lose about 10 times as much on average over 500 rolls putting all your 47 as a flat don't bet.

2. I would say it is a poorer comparison as the amounts lost over 500 rolls would be a lot closer to each other than in example 1, given that the stake subject to HA is in the ratio of 2:1 as compared to almost 10:1 in the first example.

[London Shooter]

Well it looks like I am missing something as I believe total outlay to be $4700 in both cases.

[Americraps]

The CO sevens destroy the $47 bettor more than they do the $5 bettor.

[mssthis1]

Question # 2. $5.00 DP odds is not a proper bet with the exception of the few joints who have 50cent chips on the table. Even then only the 4 and 10 would be proper. $5.00 DP odds on a 6 or 8 I believe would result in a payout of 0. and only $2.00 on a 5 or 9. It would definitely not be apples to apples.

[mssthis1]

On question 1: Assuming a rounded 2.78% probability of any given combination and a sample that was 100% random, the outlay risk would be approximate 27% less on the $5.00 with $42.00 odds because of CO roll decisions. I didn't take the time to calculate how much difference 5.00 verses 47.00 on 27.8% of the rolls would affect the answer.

It kinda depends on what you call an apple since $42.00 in odds will result in varying payouts, point dependent.

Personally, I would consider anyone playing that much on the line with no odds a shortbusser. But, it's their money so I always keep my mouth shut and ignore what everyone else is doing.e I didn't account for winning or push CO decisions correctly the first time.


Edited to correct my mistake of subtracting winning craps rolls instead of adding them to decisions in which odds would not be required, and not counting pushes

[wild child]

I I may

Let us retrench a bit...........
DARK SIDE or DO SIDE
I would consider maintaining wagers in ratio of BANK ROLL:BUY IN: Initial WAGER
.........
Thus wagers rounded off to keep the action SMOOTH seems important
.The Above is just my opinion........odd amounts differing from routine
payouts experienced by dealer people tend to confuse and slow down the payout experience..........So I suggest ROUNDING OFF TO DEALER EFFICIENT PAY OUTS........


Just me saying


W C

[gargoil]

Not everybody likes apples... How about parfait. Everybody likes parfait.

[bryfromtheharbor]

Last trip I played to whatever way the trend was flowing. If the trend was PL I'd play that with place bets also. If the dice got to me and trend was DP Id try to set outside point and gun for 7. The dice came to me during a choppy run and I set passline tossed a 7 then moved to DP and set point 7out for win. My plan was to go with the flow 100%.

And I liked it!

[DONaTello]

The questions are: (assuming a random game)

If you were to compare, over say 500 decisions, a $47 flat don't bet, against a $5 flat bet and lay $42 in odds -

Assuming a random game in the sense that over the course of 500 rolls the outcomes are perfectly distributed as expected, betting with odds wins.

The house advantage on a Don't Pass bet is 1.38% so a loss of 1.38% over the course of 500 rolls would occur for the Don't Pass bet.

The house advantage on the Odds bet is 0% so break even on the Odds bet would occur.

DONaTello

[Dylanfreake]

I have played both ways over the last 15 years---- Table minimum laying odds and also a flat DP with no odds.

The way I am playing right now is a table minimum DP laying odds in an amount which will not exceed a session loss limit of 4% of my total gambling bankroll.

The SEVEN on the come out for the Dont bettor is as much a killer as a seven after the point is established for the Rightside bettor.

My thought is that the dont bettor should wager a table minimum DP or DC and lay as close to table limit odds as his bankroll can handle.

And a Pass Line bettor should wager as large a line bet as his bankroll can handle and take no odds.

[heavy]

DF - you left off "and parlay the hell out of all winners."

[memo]

And a Pass Line bettor should wager as large a line bet as his bankroll can handle and take no odds.

Sorry DF...I do not understand the basis for this statement

Memo

[Dylanfreake]

After the come out ,the dont player has an advantage . After the comeout, the Pass line player is at a disadvantage.

On the come out, the pas line player has the advantage . On the come out , the dont player is at a disadvantage.

[heavy]

And the doey-don't player is always at a disadvantage . . .

[SHOOTITALL]

I care not either way, but I believe this is from Sam Grafstein, "The Dice Doctor" where he calls adding odds to a PL bet, "making a bad bet worse." I believe he said after the point, the PL bettor was at a significant disadvantage and adding odds did not improve this disadvantage.

[Dylanfreake]

I`m not sure why the casino would sweat any wager on the felt ,unless they were afraid a high roller would win big and leave , never returning to the casino.

[mssthis1]

I`m not sure why the casino would sweat any wager on the felt ,unless they were afraid a high roller would win big and leave , never returning to the casino.

You're correct. If craps was a game with no HA most people would still lose due to bad bankroll management. They have no clue or refuse to acknowledge variance and how to manage it. Biased dice believers are variance deniers.


The casinos almost unlimited bankroll and the table limits are the biggest advantage they have over the player. That is why table games rake over 10% + when it should be more like 2 or 3%. You can search "Nevada table games hold" and find a paper that UNLV puts out that shows the monthly hold in Nevada for the past 20 years or so.

[heavy]

The casinos do something the players, for the most part, are unwilling to do. They are working a GRIND System against the players 24/7. They are content to grind away with a 1% advantage knowing the game is going to hold closer to 20%.

[Dylanfreake]

I`ve always wanted to go to the casino and play as long as I wanted . However, sticking to a loss limit and leaving the table when I am ahead , I very seldom play more than an hour or an hour and a half and that is when I am winning. Usually , for a losing session , I am gone in thirty to forty-five minutes.

When you are a poor man , a red chip means a lot.

[heavy]

And when you're used to eating hamburgers - a comped steak dinner - even if the steak is a little tough - is pretty good too. That's how they work us.