Why is the table HOLD greater than the combined HA of wagers?

[mssthis1]

There's many reasons but the main math based one is the HA is per bet resolution. Playing a game with a 1% HA for an extended number of resolutions results in a house hold of greater than 1%.

[heavy]

You're essentially comparing apples and oranges. "Hold" is the percentage of the drop the casino "wins" at the end of the day. At craps it's typically 18 - 26% of the drop. The "drop" is the total amount of money that goes into the drop box. As mssthis noted, that number is based on an extended number of wagers where the house has - say a 1.4% advantage. The player continually wins and loses month over a period of hours. He may see 30 decisions where his wagers are exposed to that 1.4% advantage for the house. Those numbers add up as the player re-bets his winnings and turns them into losses.

[London Shooter]

But this is the combined HA of all wagers isn't it? I think Irish is looking for something more.

[heavy]

Again, I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Hold is one thing. HA is something else. Perhaps Irish will enlighten us on his perspective.

[mssthis1]

But this is the combined HA of all wagers isn't it? I think Irish is looking for something more.

London. A lot of it is also how people manage their bankroll verses the table limits. I firmly believe I could set up a game where every wager paid true odds with no house advantage with a $10.00 min bet and a $100 max daily buyin and that game would win money for the house.

[heavy]

I think I'd like to play at Crazy Larry's. That $500 buy in rule is something I'd considered adding to Heavy's Perfect World Casino because it would keep the $20 buy-in prop bumbs and the "I'm here for the beer" lumps away from the game. Oh, it could be a $300 minimum. That would do the trick as well.

[Moe Bettor]

How about getting the casino to give you back 20% if you lose everything? Guess you'd have to buy in for a mil for that one.

[Bankerdude80]

Just intuitive thinking on my part, I think the hold % would go down because the $500 player is better bankrolled. Whereas a player that has a underfunded bankroll is likely to give most of that back to the house due to volatility and variance unless he happens to catch a decent hand or two. Bigger bankroll = staying power.

[heavy]

The problem with your theory is just this. IF Crazy Larry required a $500 buy in you'd get more "qualified" players buying in . . . by that I mean you'd get more players with a decent bankroll. But you'd also get a few "unqualified" players buying in at that level. Setting the "qualified" players (the ones who simply have more money to play with) and looking just at the "unqualified" players, the question I'd ask is whether the unqualified players are going to bet differently just because they bought in for more than they're comfortable with. Will they utilize money management moves and switch to better bets or will they continue down their hop bet - horn bet - hardway bet path to poverty? My thought is that the majority of them will continue down the path to poverty - partly because they just don't know any better, but also because they're addicted to the roller coaster thrill of the chase. So for their part I don't think the hold will vary much. They'll stand at the table until they lose everything they bought in for or they'll hit a couple of long shot bets and go blow the profits on hookers and cocaine. What they will not be doing is taking any money home with them. Now, back to the well-heeled player who buys in for $500. While this guy may be better educated and playing a smarter game as far as his betting is concerned, the majority of these guys are lacking the one thing you can't win without. Discipline. So by and large they are going to leave losers as well. But enough of them are going to win (together with the unqualified shooters that got lucky) and enough of them are going to have loss limits and decent money management skills that the hold won't get to 100%. The table will never get much higher than 25 - 30% hold regardless of how stupid or unskilled the players are. And now I'm rambling. The question is - does the hold kick off sufficient $$$ profit for the casino to cover the cost of those free drinks they used to offer? Are the casinos just being greedy by cutting back on cocktail servers in an effort to spend less money on free booze for the players. Are they just being greedy by tracking your play and checking to see if you're qualified for a free drink based on the action you're giving them. Oh, the humanity. What the hell were we talking about anyway?

[London Shooter]

At $500 min buyin how many $200-300 customers just pass you by for the next place and never buy in at all whilst the dealers stand there twiddling their thumbs?

[heavy]

Yeah, I'd be all over it. Better quality dealers. Fewer dickwads to deal with. No short bussers. But remember, you are tying this to BUY-IN. If you change the table minimums to $25 I suspect the story changes significantly.

[heavy]

The hold is typically lower in Tunica than it is in the mid-river casinos. I think that's more attributable to the fact that most of the Tunica casinos offer 100X odds. Then again, how many people in Tunica do you see betting 100X odds? It's even better on the coast! Hold at Craps is just 13.7% there. Here's the hold report for Mississippi from the Mississippi Gaming Commission website: http://www.msgamingcommission.com/files ... 16hold.pdf

Take a look at those numbers and you'll never want to play three card poker again.

[London Shooter]

Lower coastal hold must be the affect of all those Biloxi classes

On a serious point though doe the figures suggest not only an effect of higher odds game but also a more educated craps gambler in general there as in using the low edge bets proportionately more than in other markets?

[mssthis1]

I'd be all over it too. I think maybe $15 min.

Anyway, we've gotten a bit off track here though. So why does it matter that we know why the hold percentage is so high? Why do we need to know why the house has various procedures for accounting at the table? Why do we need to know the difference between gaming protection and heat? Why do we need to know how and why dealers make payouts in a specific order?

Why is this knowledge important to us as players? Why is this knowledge even more important to those playing with an edge?

Several reasons come to mind but one that I have run into recently is used car salesman dealers who try to talk players into making high house edge bets or pressing more than they would normally. There's a couple dealers locally who I have to constantly correct at the beginning of a session because they try to press a bet more than I tell them to. They try me at least a couple times every session before they give up and start making the bet I tell them to make.

As far as heat. If the pit is applying the rules equally to all players it is NOT heat. If everyone is leaving the dice short but you are the only one being admonished it IS heat. I always laugh when I see someone who is obviously a random roller get all bent out of shape when they're told to hit the back wall.

[rhythm roller]

MSS,
I disagree. A little bit with what you are saying about heat. I think you are correct if the other players are random but well healed players. If they miss the back wall and you are the only one being told then that is Heat in my book. Sometimes in Vegas I see obviously a new player who is missing the back wall consistently and they are not being told about it or maybe once. If I miss the back wall they tell me. I actually think that is OK. They know I can hit the back wall consistently and should be doing it although everyone will miss occasionally. Sometimes they are lucky if the new players can even hit the table let alone the back wall! Just my opinion though. I think lots of times us dice influencers get too crazy about perceived casino heat and if we just ignore it our blood pressure and our toss will thank us!