Laying odds or not laying odds?

[Dylanfreake]

Year after year I keep playing craps and always , back in my mind, the question keeps arising , "Should I lay odds , or should I not lay odds?"

The way I have been playing recently (basically the last 6 years) is to keep my DP wagers naked (no odds).

I know most of you are Rightside players ,who would never play the Darkside, so laying odds has never been a consideration. I know that ,when I put a $5 wager on the DP line, I am giving the casino 7 cents out of that red chip , whether I win or lose that wager (you rightside players are also).. And I know that after a point is established , I am still giving the casino 7 cents out of that red chip. I can lay single odds if the red chip survives the comeout , thereby reducing the casino`s take of 7 cents to 5.5 cents out of that red chip. So, why the hell am I not laying odds?

Large casinos are built on using small percentage points. Why am I not doing the same?

I have been playing "The Dylanacci" with no odds. An example of the total wagers in a "Dylanacci" up as you lose series is: $5 $10 / $10 $20 $30 $50 $75. With these naked DP wagers , the comeout roll is a killer quite often.

Why should I not lay odds and only make a table minimum DP wager? Wouldn`t that be the right thing to do? A 7 step series sequence would be: $5 lay $12 odds , $5 lay $18 odds, $5 lay $24 odds, $5 lay $24 odds, $5 lay $30 odds, $5 lay $36 odds, $5 lay $42 odds. However , because of laying odds, I would also drop back one step on a win.

(Laying equal odds on any number was something Professor H and I discussed on the old AllCraps board.)

Damn, and I am still wondering about laying or not laying odds????? I know what Professor H would do.

[heavy]

In my opinion the primary reason for not laying odds on the Don'ts is bankroll volatility. Most of the folks I know have fairly limited bankrolls. Playing the right side they don't mind taking $5 odds on the four or ten to win $10 - but laying $10 to win $5 is troublesome because $10 is a larger percentage of their bankroll.

Like you, I played for years without laying odds on the Don'ts. I never really got into it until we started hearing all of those "Dave's System" reports. Dave, as you recall, lays something like $60 on every number that comes up. I took a look at that and factored in my bankroll size and decided I could afford to lay $30 per number as long as I was firm in my loss limits. That meant that in many cases I was through playing my session in twenty minutes instead of two hours. But it also meant I accumulated some fairly large wins in relatively short order. Do I recommend that for everyone? Absolutely not.

I think the idea of a negative progression on the odds might work if you have sufficient qualifiers prior to your entry in the game. I guess that's old Wolfbyte's territory, although I'll be the first to say that I don't have the patience to stand at the table for fifteen minutes (or longer) with no action, waiting for my entry queue. As for WB's recovery stage betting - that stuff scares the hell out of me.

Anyway, I'd vote for laying odds and using some sort of progression. Many here will likely disagree.

[Mad Professor]

~Your Don’t Pass wager is under a negative-expectation burden right from the Come-Out; where the Sheriff (the ‘7’) and his Deputy (the ‘11’) hold an 8-to-3 (72.7%-vs-27.3%) advantage...and it continues on right through to the end of the hand even when you have a 60%-vs.-40% win/lose advantage during the Point-Cycle.

It's one of those "D'ya wanna pay me NOW, or pay me LATER?" propositions.

~We already know that 30.6% of DP wagers will run into an “instant” win-or-lose decision during any given Come-Out roll.

How do we know that?

Well, with 8 ways to lose on the C-O, and 3 ways to win on the C-O; those 11 combined ‘instant decision’ possibilities represent 30.6% of the entire 36-possible dice outcomes.

That also means that there is a 69.4% possibility that any given C-O roll will not result in an “instant” decision, but rather will establish a point-number.

To determine how much ‘relative risk’ your flat DP wager is under during the Come-Out, we simply multiply that amount of money by the instant win/lose difference (45.4%) and then multiply that sum by the C-O’s 30.6% resolution-rate.

So for example, if your DP wager is $25; then during the Come-Out, there’s about $3.47 of relative negative-side risk’ ($25*0.454*0.306). In other words, each dollar of your flat (no-Odds) DP wager carries about -13.9% downside HOUSE-EDGE risk during the Come-out cycle. However, that figure is misleading because the PL-Point still has to be resolved (but it does show how foolish it would be to remove the flat DP wager once the PL-Point is established).

Let’s consider what happens when the DP Point (or anti-Point, if you will) is established.

~During the Point-Cycle, we know that there’s a 59.4% chance that you will win (with a 7-out showing up before the PL-Point is repeated)…and a 40.6% chance that you will lose (by way of the PL-Point repeating before the hand-ending 7-out does).

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.

~If the PL-Point is a 5 or 9; there’s a 4-out-of-10 (40.0%) chance that it will repeat…and a 60.0% chance that it won’t.

~If the PL-Point is a 6 or 8; there’s a 5-out-of-11 (45.5%) chance that it will repeat…and a 54.5% chance that it won’t.

When blended and weighted, that works out to a 59.4% point-cycle win-rate vs. a 40.6% loss-rate for a DP wager once the PL-Point has been established. In discussions, we usually see rounding of these DP win/loss figures to 60%/40%.

So how do we figure the ‘relative risk’ for your post-CO Point-Cycle money; especially if we are adding DP-Odds?

~We take the amount of any Odds that you add to your DP wager once the PL-Point has been established; and apply a relative-risk formula similar to the that we used above, but this time we substitute the point-cycle win/lose metrics.

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.

In other words, while you appear to 'gain' from the 60/40 win/lose Point-Cycle equation; that upside is nullified because of the inverse 40/60 blended-payout that DP-Odds are paid at...so it's a zero-sum gain...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.

So, the question is:

Would you rather risk MORE money upfront during the Come-Out, when there's the prospect of an instant-decision going against you...or risk more after the PL-Point is established, where you know you'll win more often but where the payout itself is inverted relative to that increased prospect of winning?

As always though, when talking about betting on random-outcomes; the house maintains its overall -1.41% negative advantage over the player no matter HOW you split up the bet-allocation between line-bet and Odds.


MP

[WOLFBYTE]

MP,

I have waited a long time for an answer to this question and, I feel, YOU are the person to ask.

I use the Ricochet System to 100% hedge-out all my 6 and 8 points by place betting them when they are set as the points.

The Ric. takes away the Casino's power over the C/O 7 killing our DP box bet when the point is trying to be established.

When looking back on the current, just rolled, numbers to find the 100% hedge-number to use as the pre-point C/0 Ricochet number, ( I exclude the 6's and 8's ) I

only look back for the LONGEST NON-APPEARING 4,5,9 and 10.

EXAMPLE :

This really happened. Pre-point, I scanned back for the longest non-appearing 4,5,9 or 10. The non-appearing points set-up as :

The 9 last appeared 3 rolls ago.......
The 10 last appeared 5 rolls ago......
The 5 last appeared 15 rolls ago......
The 4 last appeared 23 rolls ago.....
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The four was the longest non-appearing number ...so...it was my Ricochet hedge against the C/O 7 # ........

I put a $300.00... " No 4 " lay-bet on the four and at the same time, I put $150.00 in the DP box.

I then waited for the C/O roll to establish the point :

The 1st C/O roll was a 7 = ..................... loss of - $150.00 and a win of + $150.00 ............... net 0.

The 2nd C/O roll was another point of 7 =............... loss of -$150.00 and a win of +$150.00....net 0.

The 3rd C/O point was another 7 = ........................ loss of -$150.00 and a win of +$150.00.......net 0.

The 4th C/O point roll another 7 = ........................ loss of -$150.00 and a win of +$150.00........net 0.

The 5th C/O point set-up roll was another 7 = ........... loss of -$150.00 and a win of +$150.00....net 0.

The 6th C/O point was a 3 .....................................finally, I won the + $150.00 DP box bet.......net + $150.00 !

The 7th C/O point was a " 5." & it played-out ...5,6,7 ...for a play-ending 7-out & back-to-back +$150.00 wins !

I colored up and took the Colorado River barge across the River to the BAT bus ( Bullhead Area Transit ) for a break and to pick up a few

things for my rooms refrig. at the 6-miles-away Super Wal Mart.

MP, I am impressed with the way the ' RICOCHET ' kills-off C/O 7's when playing the DP.

What value does the ' Ricochet ' impart and how does the ' Ricochet' alter your above stats. ?

Thank You in advance.

W7 aka WB.

[Mad Professor]

Hi W7,

Unfortunately John Patrick's Ricochet DOES NOT provide a 100% hedge....never has and never will.

The "Ric" does not alter the odds of the game in any way whatsoever.


MP

[Mad Professor]

Hi Little Joe,

Under random-outcome conditions, PL w/Odds vs. DP w/Odds work out to pretty much the same losses over a reasonable number of trials.

For example:

~If you bet $10 on the PL, and back your PL-Point of 4 or 10 with $50 in Odds; the $110 in winnings will make their way into your rack, on average, about 1-out-of-3 times…so you’d win $110 once for each of the two times that you’d lose $60…for a net -$10 loss which would mostly be made up for by your PL’s come-out winnings.

~If you bet $10 on the DP, and back your DP anti-Point of 4 or 10 with $50 in Odds; the $35 in winnings will make their way into your rack, on average, about 2-out-of-3 times…so you’d win $35 twice, but lose your $60 once…for a net +$10 win which would mostly be lost back by your DP’s come-out losses.

Net result on random outcomes, whether PL or DP, and regardless of whether or not you use Odds or go naked; the house takes its -1.4% rake no matter what.



MP

[Golfer]

I like odds. Lay them on the darkside is the comfort food of craps. You have an advantage in that they will never get taken down by an 11 and will win on a 7. Comfort craps.


Golfer

[heavy]

Here you go, guys. The "Classic" post of the day from our buddy Dylanfreake way back in 2011. Should you lay odds on your Don't bet or not?

[Dylanfreake]

Well , I am still trying to decide whether to lay odds or not lay odds. Last year I layed odds on DP wagers and ended the year with an increase of $1700 in bankroll. However, this year, I am making naked DC wagers.

Laying more dollars to win less dollars has never bothered me because , the laying of odds takes place when the Don't player has an advantage over the casino . I just wish that having an advantage would lead to a guaranteed win over the casinos every session.

Playing the Donts over the years has taught me discipline, plus it has helped me avoid worrying about all the superstitions that other crapsters have. I feel that playing the donts gives me freedom to enjoy every session that I play win or lose.

My plans are to play a naked DC wager until October 1, 2018, after which I may be asking , "DP wager or DC wager?'

[Bankerdude80]

Since I am not yet a serious darksider, I only make naked DC and DP wagers. I bet this way on randies while I am waiting for the dice to come back around the table. Once I see how often this strategy pays off, I may start dropping some odds behind them.

[London Shooter]

Laying more dollars to win less dollars I've always thought a strange point if somebody doesn't like it as rightsiders play that way all the time when they have multiple bets up.

[eastcoast]

Some of the Darksiders i have talked to from time to time, not only lay odds, but prefer 20X.

[al_falcons]

Dylanfreak, give the 1326 odds a try. It may shorten your session because you will win more than that flat bet method you are using. Has been working for me, in limited action. I wouldn't use the dylanicci and the 1326 at the same time, that would cause more bankroll volitivity

[Dylanfreake]

Nick the Greek is the one that supposedly said that although some say it is a craps myth.

[slt1966]

Make a don't pass bet, then placing odds on roll two to protect a don't come bet. Once the second point is established remove the odds and waiting for a decision seems pretty sensible to me.

[mssthis1]

Year after year I keep playing craps and always , back in my mind, the question keeps arising , "Should I lay odds , or should I not lay odds?"

The way I have been playing recently (basically the last 6 years) is to keep my DP wagers naked (no odds).

I feel most people should not lay odds strictly because of bankroll management. Even though there is 0 ha on the DP odds I have been more than 20 wagers in the hole on the don't side many times. I never get that far down in one session because I walk, but I have had multiple bad sessions in a row playing the dark side.

It takes a lot of bankroll, patience and intestinal fortitude to dig out of those holes. Making the naked wager only gives you a much better chance of surviving the normal downturns of the game with a much smaller bankroll.

[Dylanfreake]

Miss this, I find when I lay odds that the wins are larger and the losses are also larger , than when I do not lay odds.

When a dealer or fellow player comments on my having a lot of patience, my reply to them is this ; "I have more patience than money".

[220Inside]

Make a don't pass bet, then placing odds on roll two to protect a don't come bet. Once the second point is established remove the odds and waiting for a decision seems pretty sensible to me.

This is a method I learned from Wizard and I like it when I'm playing dark side.

If I'm establishing a DP and a single DC bet, I'll lay odds on the DP to cover the DC until it travels and then remove the odds.

If I'm establishing a DP and 2 DC bets, I'll lay odds to cover the first DC only. For the second DC, I'll leave it naked. If the DC gets knocked off by the 7, I've got the 2 other don't wagers already established and paying and still book a profit. Otherwise, I wind up with the 3 don't bets set up and I'll sit back and wait for a decision.

[London Shooter]

$44 inside to win $14. Right side players are laying odds every day of the week. Not a like for like comparison but you get the point.

It's interesting that a good few don'ts players will not take odds whilst on the right side it's almost a cardinal sin to have a pass/come bet and not take odds in some form.

[220Inside]

Perhaps at lower amounts, but consider laying $100 on the 4 to win $50 vs $25 odds on the light side.