Question for the (math) experts
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:16 pm
What's the math say about laying odds against a number, when it's the last box number needed to finish the all small or all tall? This came up in Tunica. Several of us were betting that way to insure at least a modest win vs the ATS bets. I'm probably forgetting a few times on others' rolls, but on my own rolls I needed just the 4 on for the "small" in a session Sunday morning, laid the 4, and hit the 4 hard to finish that side off. Monday I needed the 6 and 9 to finish the row, laid them both, hit the 9, increased my lay on the 6 and couldn't get it before the bad number showed.
If all you need is a 6, and you're going to win, say, $240 on a $4 dollar bet, and your chances of making it are 5:6, that's obviously a great spot to be. So is insuring up $50 profit with a lay bet. To my mind, when all you need is a box number to finish a side, you've already won the ATS.
What would you do? And how large should the lay bet be, if you're making one, in relation to your ATS bet? Do people play this way with a firebet, and lay the point when you're some number of points into a roll?
If all you need is a 6, and you're going to win, say, $240 on a $4 dollar bet, and your chances of making it are 5:6, that's obviously a great spot to be. So is insuring up $50 profit with a lay bet. To my mind, when all you need is a box number to finish a side, you've already won the ATS.
What would you do? And how large should the lay bet be, if you're making one, in relation to your ATS bet? Do people play this way with a firebet, and lay the point when you're some number of points into a roll?