Laying Odds on the Don't - Two Views
Mason Clarke
The Guru Version - Guru John Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laying odds on the Don't ......always was.........is
now.......... and always wil be..........a dumb bet.
A player goes through all the trouble of beating the 7 and 11 on
the come out roll and has a decided edge in the fact that whether
the point is 4-5-6-8-9- or 10.....he has the 7 working for him.
He will be paid even money, yet he has an edge of 6-5 or 6-4 or
6-3..........going for him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mathematical View - Al Krigman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Should You Lay Odds on "Don't" Bets at Craps?, by Alan Krigman
Playing It Smart, Volume 6, Number 52, 27-Dec-99.
Craps players who follow "don't pass" or "don't come" strategies
hotly debate whether it's preferable to lay odds after the come-
out roll, or simply start higher and stick with their flat bets.
Most dice doyens declare that laying as much as possible in odds
is optimum because it minimizes the house advantage in the game.
Bettors, however, sometimes find this counter-intuitive.
The reasoning behind the contrary opinion is twofold:
(1) Money laid as odds against a number returns less than is at
stake. For instance, $30 yields $25 on points of six or eight,
$20 on five or nine, and $15 on four or 10. So, why risk more to
win less?
(2) The original flat bet is favored to win even money after a
point is established. Chances are 6-to-5 on points of six or
eight, 3-to-2 on five or nine, and 2-to-1 on four or 10. So, why
not get 1-to-1 on more money flat, instead of fractional payoffs
for the same amount laid as odds?
These arguments are reinforced by a third point. Namely, the
relatively small sums represented by house advantage on every
wager mean something to the casino. After all, the house earns a
penny or two per dollar bet, roll after relentless roll, from
player upon impassioned player. But individuals, in games of
reasonable duration, don't really notice the effect. Generally,
winning only a few bets over the statistically correct number
more than covers the edge in craps.
An alternate way to view the options for don't pass or don't come
bets is to consider how a set of solid citizens, using the two
approaches, can anticipate finishing sessions of various lengths.
For this purpose, say a thousand flat bettors drop $25 on the
layout and quietly await their fate, while this many odds layers
start with $5 and augment it with $30 regardless of which number
the shooter is trying to repeat. The totals at risk are
equivalent since the averages for every 36 come-out rolls will be
$900 either way -- 36x$25 flat or 12x$5 plus 24x$35 with odds.
If break-even, $500 wins, and $500 losses are taken as reference
levels, here's how the immutable laws of mathematics say the
thousand stalwarts will fare after typical stints at the rail.
*100 rounds*: 445 flat bettors will be above break-even, 15 will
be ahead by more than $500, and 29 be below $500; 489 odds layers
will be above break-even, 19 will have won over $500, and 22 will
have lost more than this.
*200 rounds*: 422 flat bettors will be above break-even, 52 will
have won over $500, and 108 will have lost at least $500; 484
odds layers will be above break-even, 70 will have made in excess
of $500, and 81 will be this deep in the hole.
*500 rounds*: 379 flat bettors will be above break-even, 112 will
show profits greater than $500, and 275 will be wondering where
the steam roller came from; 475 odds layers will be above break-
even, 165 will be more than $500 to the good, and 198 will be
this far down.
Purists should know that the casino's theoretical earnings on
each player are $0.34 per round with $25 flat, compared to $0.07
per round with $5 flat and $30 odds. After 100-, 200-, and 500-
round sessions, respectively, the totals are $34, $68, and $170
for flat fans and $7, $14, and $35 for odds buffs.
Applying the traditional criterion of house advantage to bets on
don't pass or don't come, apportioning money between the flat and
odds portions of a wager is clearly superior to betting an
equivalent amount flat. And guess what, considering where you're
likely to be after a session of representative duration, the
conclusions are the same. Of course, if shooters happen to roll
long runs of twos and threes on their come-outs, while sevens and
elevens only appear after points are established, the flat
bettors will be flush. But, that's where luck enters the picture.
All of which goes to show that the revered rhymer, Sumner A
Ingmark, was right when he wrote:
While only fanatics deny mathematics,
A player perverse doesn't always do worse.
© 1999 Alan Krigman. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hume
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Martin
the pass line vs the player laying odds on the pass? I would be interested
in those results in comparing them with the Don't side. This was a very
informative post, thanks. Jack
Jeffrey LaPadula
dont better? Does everyone agree with this? jeff lap
Mason Clarke wrote:
--
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not
made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women
for men."
- Alice Walker
If just 2,000 of the world’s estimated 600,000+ vegans influenced one
person to become vegan every five years on average, and these new
vegans, in turn, also influenced one new person every five years.
Although the change would be imperceptible at first, by 2057 more than
15% of the US population would be vegan. Alternatives to animal products
would be cheap and plentiful. People would have no excuse not to be
vegan. And at that pace, by 2068, the entire US population would be
vegan.
Please check out http://www.factoryfarming.com
Please check out http://www.veganoutreach.org
Please check out http://www.notmilk.com
Please check out http://www.meat.org
For your health, for the environment, and most of all for the animals!
Please go vegan.
Ready to try eating vegan? Go to http://www.vegweb.com for great vegan
recipes!
Mason Clarke
>Mason, does Krigman lay the stats out the same way for the flat player on
>the pass line vs the player laying odds on the pass? I would be interested
>in those results in comparing them with the Don't side. This was a very
>informative post, thanks. Jack
>
Sorry about the state of the tables, they are much clearer at the
website. It makes the same equivalence comparisons but is not a
mirror image of the other essay.
Al goes beyond the house edge argument because he is very
sensitive to the fact that volatility swamps edge during any
reasonable session.
As usual, the answers aren't simple, but the information is
extremely valuable for making up your own mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
How Taking Odds Affects Your Chances at Craps, by Alan Krigman
Playing It Smart, Volume 5, Number 52, 28-Dec-98.
Craps players have been debating whether or not to take odds when
betting on the pass line since before time immemorial. I forget
if they were arguing it earlier than that, although I suspect so.
One reason for the enigma is the tendency to compare apples with
oranges when choosing between larger base bets and greater odds.
That is, $10 on the line with $20 odds is usually contrasted with
$10 or $30 flat, but neither represents commensurate risk.
Here's how to get "flat" risk equivalents to pass bets with odds.
Of every 36 decisions, 12 are made during the come-out when only
the base bet is up for grabs; the other 24 are made with a point
established when odds are also in action. This makes the
effective exposure $10x(12/36) + $30x(24/36) = $23.33 for $10 on
the line with double odds. Risk counterparts to $10 with other
common odds multiples are $43.33 at 5X, $76.67 at 10X, and
$676.67 at 100X. To be practical, these values can be rounded-off
to $25 at 2X, $50 at 5X, $75 at 10X, and $700 at 100X.
Another reason the odds polemic gets heated is that arguments
focus on changes in house advantage. But edge is small either way
and the impact isn't apparent in sessions of reasonable length.
It's more productive to compare the choices by examining the
ranges of wins and losses which can be expected after games of
appropriate duration. Imagine players wagering only on the pass
line -- either $10 with odds or the rounded-off equivalent flat
bets. The following limits on losses and profits should be
exceeded in under 12.5 percent of all 100-decision sessions.
bet worst loss odds/flat equiv best profit odds/flat equiv
10+2X/25 343/322 315/252
10+5X/50 684/645 656/505
10+10X/75 1,257/968 1,229/757
10+100X/700 11,605/9,030 11,577/7,070
As an example of interpreting these figures, assume 1,000 players
bet either $10 with 10X odds or the $75 rounded-off flat
equivalent for 100 rounds. On the downside, 12.5 percent or 125
of these can expect to lose more than $1,257 with the odds and
$968 with flat bets. On the upside, 125 can expect to win over
$1,229 taking the odds and $757 betting flat.
These figures illustrate how taking odds or betting the flat risk
equivalents affect expected bankroll swings in ordinary sessions.
If luck runs sour, players subject themselves to slightly greater
losses by taking odds. For instance, 125 out of every 1,000
bettors can anticipate being over $21 deeper in the hole betting
$10 with $20 odds than $25 flat. However, the gain on the upside
is relatively greater for those who take odds. At hot tables, 125
out of every 1,000 bettors can expect to have over $63 more
profit betting $10 with odds rather than $25 flat.
Additional insight into the difference between the strategies is
afforded by investigating the chance of being ahead by betting
various ways. Again, consider a 100-decision session. Betting
$25, $50, $75, or $700 flat on the pass line, players have 44.0
percent probability of being in the black. Betting $10 on the
line with corresponding odds multiples of 2X, 5X, 10X, and 100X,
chances of being ahead rise to 48.0, 49.0, 49.6, and 49.9 percent
respectively. Distinctions are stronger after 900 decisions --
which might correspond to a weekend of play. Now, any of the flat
risk equivalent bets gives solid citizens 33.7 percent
probability of being ahead. With $10 on the line and odds
multiples of 2X, 5X, 10X, and 100X, the chances of showing a
profit rise to 44.3, 47.2, 48.5, and 49.8 percent, respectively.
Which approach is better? Decide for yourself. Taking odds
improves your chances of finishing in the money. And, if the
table is hot, you'll earn more for a comparable amount at risk.
But the equivalent flat bet trims the loss you might suffer at a
cold table. In making your choice, stay mindful of the odd
observations of that prudent poet, Sumner A Ingmark:
The statisticians don't know how,
To buy stocks that will beat the Dow,
Or win at gambling here and now.
The weakness is their math depends,
On testing time that never ends.
© 1998 Alan Krigman. All rights reserved.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Money Management
Actually, the statistical properties of the game play the most
part. For sessions of even long duration (by human tolerance
standards), volatility swamps expectation. That is, the standard
deviation is huge compared with the theoretical house earnings
due to edge. And the skewness (the third moment of the
distribution) also has an influence. Money management is, in the
final analysis, a way to make adjustments of standard deviation
and skewness relative to expectation.
Al Krigman
He publishes a newsletter and this information is available at
http://www.icon-info.com/
He allows his essays to be archived on the net. That site can be
reached from the link above or accessed directly at
http://www.casinocity.com/krigman/
ausound
Mason Clarke <ma...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
<snip really good stuff>
"If luck runs sour, players subject themselves to slightly greater
>losses by taking odds."
>How Taking Odds Affects Your Chances at Craps, by Alan Krigman
>Playing It Smart, Volume 5, Number 52, 28-Dec-98.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So can we infer from the above statement
that if you're "Lucky" lay the odds, and "Unlucky"
don't lay the odds...
Bob Wilson
> After 100-, 200-, and 500-
> round sessions, respectively, the totals are $34, $68, and $170
> for flat fans and $7, $14, and $35 for odds buffs.
There is another variation, hedging, that follows the flat, don't come
bet with a come bet and odds that equal the original don't come bet. The
house still has an advantage but this variation seems to stretch the
play longer than just a flat, don't pass bet. My models and simulations
show about a .9% house advantage.
There are some subtle variations that seem to help stretch the play but
I haven't modeled these details:
o replace wining, come bets and odds
o withdraw come bet odds if the flat, don't pass loses
Did I mention the house always has an advantage?
Bob Wilson
Mason Clarke
want...@aol.comSeeBELOW says...
>Would you reduce from a $25 bet
>to $5 just to *lose* *less*? You are not winning more, but
>losing less.
>
Read it again, Jim. You missed the point. The money at risk is
the same. By laying the odds, you increase your chances of
winning and decrease your chances of losing.
We are not saying the same thing at all.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Fred Allen
He always had a chip on his shoulder that he was ready to use
to kindle an argument.
Winnah 5
Don't number. I understand the mathematics of odds as well as the next guy,
but there is one other more important reason I don't do it. And that reason
is bankroll size.
When I bring my usual $200 to my favorite casino, where the tables fade
$2min/10x odds, I would have to lay a full $40 if the Four or the Ten is my
Don't number. That's 20% of my bankroll and a couple of losses will send me
straight home without even checking out the buffet. So I don't like laying
against those "tough" numbers. OTOH, laying against the 6 or 8 require much
less money. So I often lay something, not necessary full 10x odds, but may
be 5x. And if you ask me, those 4s and 10s don't seem to be as hard as
probability says, and the 6 & 8s are not as easy.
Jeffrey LaPadula <ss...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38891429...@ix.netcom.com...
Jim Ferr
<ss...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>I read this... it is pretty much saying to lay max odds everytime as a
>dont better? Does everyone agree with this? jeff lap
>
It does not say that at all... and I totally disagree with laying max
odds on every don't bet. He is not saying to do it, he is only
telling you that if you do it that way you will lose less money,
provided that you do not make the total bet larger... and that
is the key.
Jim Ferr.......
When your mail is returned to you
and you wonder why it happened,
re-send it to Jim...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/jimferr/JimTheSystemMan.html
Jim Ferr
<ma...@onramp.net> writes:
>Purists should know that the casino's theoretical earnings on
>each player are $0.34 per round with $25 flat, compared to $0.07
>per round with $5 flat and $30 odds. After 100-, 200-, and 500-
>round sessions, respectively, the totals are $34, $68, and $170
>for flat fans and $7, $14, and $35 for odds buffs.
>
And there, Mason, is the rub. Would you reduce from a $25 bet
to $5 just to *lose* *less*? You are not winning more, but
losing less. Since I don't go for comps I don't even know if you
will get the same comps either way. So, one logical reason
for doing it could be the comps. I would "guess" that the
comps would be less because you are then a $5 bettor
rather than a $25 bettor. Even *your* guru says the same
thing as I have been trying to pound into your head. Give up.
By the way, this is a different thread. I gave you the last
word on the other one.
It must be difficult to live a life where you are always looking
for disagreements. I find it much more pleasant my way...
I look for areas where I agree with people and then expand
on them. Notice above that I do *agree* with your guru.
This is not critical of Mr K because I also speak highly
of him on my web site. Nothing that I have said is meant
to be negative of him or you. I just want to set the record
straight... we are all saying the same thing.
Big John
wrote:
>In article <MPG.12f2a4726...@tx.news.verio.net>, Mason Clarke
><ma...@onramp.net> writes:
>
>>Purists should know that the casino's theoretical earnings on
>>each player are $0.34 per round with $25 flat, compared to $0.07
>>per round with $5 flat and $30 odds. After 100-, 200-, and 500-
>>round sessions, respectively, the totals are $34, $68, and $170
>>for flat fans and $7, $14, and $35 for odds buffs.
>>
>
>And there, Mason, is the rub. Would you reduce from a $25 bet
>to $5 just to *lose* *less*? You are not winning more, but
>losing less.
That's not the point, Jim.
Craps offers the player a miniscule house advantage. It doesn't take
much variation from the expected results for a player to be in the
black.
By laying odds instead of flat betting, the player reduces the
variation needed to push him into the black.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
John L. Patrick
There is a thread developing that contends that you should lay odds vs the
don't number and that is erroneous information ..............FROM A GAMBLING
STANDPOINT
Read the last part of that sentence...........FROM A GAMBLING SYANDPOINT and
that means the players that play craps , lay odds and are operating with a
short Bankroll. Winnah 5 made a great point.................where is he
going with a $200 Bankroll and if he is forced to lay Max odds to reduce
this thing called vig.............based on an infinite number of
games.........than he is gonna get his tail whacked if that shooter bangs a
couple of numbers where full or any type odds is laid..............he is
showing that he uses a $200 bankroll and there are thousands of people in
that same financial neighborhood..
Jim Ferr touched on the same point and he is right.........read his post and
grasp what he is saying
Go to that excellent write up by Krigman...........I didn't see where he
leaned his opinion either way..........although he did show you the math
that it was better from the statistical side but that is over a period of
time, because the pennies lost in an hour Session is too small to worry
about or notice.
He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I am talking
REALITY................Most players don't have the proper Bankroll
I just returned (for the football games ) from AC where I played Don't for
two days..............Plus $384 on Friday .....and plus $67 on Saturday
(They banged some numbers on me..................and I NEVER laid one dollar
in odds all wek end. I played the RICHOCHET where you never play the Don''t
pass Line, but lay vs the number that becomes the point (for one roll to
establish your Dominant.
The point I'm trying to make is that at every table I played at (maybe 25
Sessions in all.................the majority of time, approximately
75%...........the people were and are playing short.
The don't players who HAD to leave the table too soon were the ones laying
odds and not being able to withstand more than 6-7 bangs of their number
where they were laying odds.
The math people are correct...........the math people are correct in their
math............Yes, I said it and I mean it. They are giving you the math
figures of how much per $5 bet you will risk and how much for such and such
a thing and they are right (I guess) because too many of these experienced
and intelligent people all agree with the math figures
BUT I'm talking from a position of Reality and you're gonna get your clock
cleaned if you listen to these people. You just don't have the money to
last by laying odds..............I saw it over the week end.........I'll see
it this week..........I've seen it for years ...........and I was one of
those people..............laying odds will get you.........believe me.
A story to make my point.
Mike and John are both don't players and both go up to a craps table (after
CHARTING the play to make sure they are at a table going cold........they
both believe in CHARTING)
Mike and John both have $5 on the don't when the shooter establishes the 4
as his point. John does not lay odds but Mike lays $20 odds (I could have
made it $10 or $30 but you get the idea).
STOP right there.......whether a point or seven is thrown is not the issue.
The situation itself is the story. Both guys had a 4 and were risking $5 to
win $5 with a 6-3 chance to win. Think about that : You are risking an
amount of money and will be paid even money if the 7 shows and the odds are
6-3 in your favor on this bet.
When Mike laid the $20 odds, he put himself in a position to win an extra
$10............but at the same time put himself in a position to lose $20.
more
Bottom line.........John is risking $5 to win $5 and Mike is risking $25 to
win $15.
Forget the dollar amounts ...........it is the risk to your Bankroll that
matters. If John loses, he has to win only one more don't bet to come even
If Mike loses, he has to win TWO more like situations to be plus $5 while
putting himself in jeopardy of additional heavy losses if another point is
made.
Do you wanna risk $5 to win $5 ......or do you wanna risk $25 to win $15
I am telling you.............if you swallow these math guys paths, you're
gonna get whacked...........Don't lay those odds. Jom Ferr has a web
site............go there and read from the players who have all types of
methods..........read and talk to people who have gotten creamed laying
odds. Don't swallow that gar-bage that the odds bet is 0% .............you
gotta have a don't or do bet in action in order to lay or take
odds..........so it is NOT a 0% move..........look what you gotta do to get
to lay those odds and the amount you HAVE to lay will hurt your Bankroll
You got two choices........swallow that percentage talk and risk more money
than you will get in return or listen to the voice of
reason............Yeah, yeah, I heard from I wrote............I gotta give
thoase guys something to go after me about...............THEY SURE CAN'T
QUESTION MY LOGIC AND ADVICE..........JOHN PATRICK
DON'T YOU DARE LAY ODDS
Jim Ferr wrote in message <20000122192204...@nso-fi.aol.com>...
>In article <38891429...@ix.netcom.com>, Jeffrey LaPadula
><ss...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>
>>I read this... it is pretty much saying to lay max odds everytime as a
>>dont better? Does everyone agree with this? jeff lap
>>
>
>It does not say that at all... and I totally disagree with laying max
>odds on every don't bet. He is not saying to do it, he is only
>telling you that if you do it that way you will lose less money,
>provided that you do not make the total bet larger... and that
>is the key.
>
>
Mason Clarke
johnlp...@worldnet.att.net says...
>Go to that excellent write up by Krigman...........I didn't see where he
>leaned his opinion either way..........although he did show you the math
>that it was better from the statistical side but that is over a period of
>time, because the pennies lost in an hour Session is too small to worry
>about or notice.
>
>He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I am talking
>REALITY.
>
(a)
Guru John couldn't understand Krigman's post, which is obvious
from his attempt to characterize it. This is not at all
surprising in that it is perfectly consistent with his self
avowed chronic innumeracy.
(b)
Guru John wants to define REALITY for you! That is why he is in
the Guru business. Virtually everything he has to say can be
summarized in a single line.
"Pay no attention .... to that man ..... behind the curtain!"
Guru John is your man, if your response to his instruction is
"Yes, sir. Let me just pull this curtain closed so we can
continue with the lesson."
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Samuel Johnson
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves,
or we know where we can find information upon it.
Alan Shank
> Winnah 5 made a great point.................where is he
> going with a $200 Bankroll and if he is forced to lay Max odds to reduce
> this thing called vig.............based on an infinite number of
> games.........than he is gonna get his tail whacked if that shooter bangs a
> couple of numbers where full or any type odds is laid..............he is
> showing that he uses a $200 bankroll and there are thousands of people in
> that same financial neighborhood..
>
> Jim Ferr touched on the same point and he is right.........read his post and
> grasp what he is saying
>
> Go to that excellent write up by Krigman...........I didn't see where he
> leaned his opinion either way..........although he did show you the math
> that it was better from the statistical side but that is over a period of
> time, because the pennies lost in an hour Session is too small to worry
> about or notice.
He gave these figures for 100 rounds, which is what, 3-4 hours of play.
>>An alternate way to view the options for don't pass or don't come
> > bets is to consider how a set of solid citizens, using the two
> > approaches, can anticipate finishing sessions of various lengths.
> > For this purpose, say a thousand flat bettors drop $25 on the
> > layout and quietly await their fate, while this many odds layers
> > start with $5 and augment it with $30 regardless of which number
> > the shooter is trying to repeat. The totals at risk are
> > equivalent since the averages for every 36 come-out rolls will be
> > $900 either way -- 36x$25 flat or 12x$5 plus 24x$35 with odds.
> >
> > If break-even, $500 wins, and $500 losses are taken as reference
> > levels, here's how the immutable laws of mathematics say the
> > thousand stalwarts will fare after typical stints at the rail.
> >
> > *100 rounds*: 445 flat bettors will be above break-even, 15 will
> > be ahead by more than $500, and 29 be below $500; 489 odds layers
> > will be above break-even, 19 will have won over $500, and 22 will
> > have lost more than this.
I think the essential point there is that the odds layer not only has a better
chance to be ahead, but also less chance to be $500 behind. That's because we
are not comparing an equal line bet with one player laying odds and the other
not - we are comparing roughly equal total bet amounts, with one player putting
it all on the don't pass line and the other making a much smaller line bet and
most of it on odds. That means that player B has a lower loss expectation, with
only slightly more variability. He also has a better chance of getting far
ahead. However, see below:
> He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I am talking
> REALITY................Most players don't have the proper Bankroll
>
In Krigman's example, both players were averaging about $25 per round. Many
people can't afford that, or if they do bet that high with a smaller bankroll,
they have a much higher "risk of ruin." Just as progessive betting strategies
can run into the table maximum, this idea of allocating as much as possible of
your bet to the free odds runs into the table minimum and allowed odds rules.
It's pretty hard to find a casino with a $1 minimum and 10X odds.
Here's my approach: Take your bankroll and use the "risk of ruin" formula to get
a bet amount that gives you an 85% or higher probability of surviving 100
rounds. Then, take that bet amount and allocate as much as possible of it to
your odds bet, depending on the casino rules.
> BUT I'm talking from a position of Reality and you're gonna get your clock
> cleaned if you listen to these people. You just don't have the money to
> last by laying odds.
Well, obviously, some people do. The key is to understand how much you can
afford to bet and still have a high probability of surviving.
> Mike and John are both don't players and both go up to a craps table (after
> CHARTING the play to make sure they are at a table going cold........they
> both believe in CHARTING)
>
> Mike and John both have $5 on the don't when the shooter establishes the 4
> as his point. John does not lay odds but Mike lays $20 odds (I could have
> made it $10 or $30 but you get the idea).
If Mike has the same starting bankroll that John has, then he has a lot better
chance of going bust. You keep comparing situations where the odds bet is IN
ADDITION to the same line bet, which I guess serves your purpose, but it's
misleading.
> STOP right there.......whether a point or seven is thrown is not the issue.
> The situation itself is the story. Both guys had a 4 and were risking $5 to
> win $5 with a 6-3 chance to win. Think about that : You are risking an
> amount of money and will be paid even money if the 7 shows and the odds are
> 6-3 in your favor on this bet.
Once again, you're pretending the comeout didn't happen. The don't bettor is
most vulnerable on the comeout - losing 22.2% of the time. Therefore, the more
of a bettor's money allocated to the don't pass, the higher the expected loss.
> You got two choices........swallow that percentage talk and risk more money
> than you will get in return or listen to the voice of
> reason............Yeah, yeah, I heard from I wrote............I gotta give
> thoase guys something to go after me about...............THEY SURE CAN'T
> QUESTION MY LOGIC AND ADVICE..........JOHN PATRICK
Yes, we can. Your argument is flawed. If one has a high enough bankroll and/or
can find the right table minimum/odds-allowed conditions, the right allocation
of dollars on the don't pass and the odds can give you a lower risk of ruin, a
lower expected loss and a better chance for a big win than just playing the
don't.
However, it is clear that a person limited to a $500 bankroll cannot afford to
bet $5 don't pass and lay $30 odds without a serious risk of getting wiped out.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
John L. Patrick
You are wrong and all the double talk in the world cannot make your
point....................I pointed out reasons why people should not lay
odds and you addressed none of them..........sorry, you're off base with
your advice.............try something else but stop giving bad adbvice
For you people who want answers to this gentlemans flawed remarks, look
below......if you wanna swallow his double talk, don't listen to me
Alan Shank wrote in message <388BAA7E...@XSspeed.net>...
>"John L. Patrick" wrote:
>
>> Winnah 5 made a great point.................where is he
>> going with a $200 Bankroll and if he is forced to lay Max odds to reduce
>> this thing called vig.............based on an infinite number of
>> games.........than he is gonna get his tail whacked if that shooter bangs
a
>> couple of numbers where full or any type odds is laid..............he is
>> showing that he uses a $200 bankroll and there are thousands of people in
>> that same financial neighborhood..
>>
>> Jim Ferr touched on the same point and he is right.........read his post
and
>> grasp what he is saying
>>
>> Go to that excellent write up by Krigman...........I didn't see where he
>> leaned his opinion either way..........although he did show you the math
>> that it was better from the statistical side but that is over a period of
>> time, because the pennies lost in an hour Session is too small to worry
>> about or notice.
>
>He gave these figures for 100 rounds, which is what, 3-4 hours of play.
It doesn't matter if it were 100 rounds or 1000 rounds or 10
rounds..........don't you get it?......its a bad expensive play for most
players........don't lay odds
Sure he has a better chance of getting further ahead............but does he
not have a better chance of falling further behind.????????????? WHY DO all
of your explanations have to be steered to point in the direction to back up
your erroneous statements. The odds layer can fall far far
behind.............or don't you realize that???????????????
NO........YOUR ADVICE IS FLAWED. IF one has a high enough Bankroll, you
state. OH, I see..........we're now only talking to the people with the
higher Bankrolls eh?????? What about those without high
bankrolls.........the ones I am trying to reach. Don't they exist or don't
you count them
Are you people grasping what these people are handing you...........telling
you its alright to lay odds IF IF IF you got a high enough
bankroll........they can'dt even include all people in their advice.
Stop with the lower risk of ruin nonsense. A don't player not laying odds
at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing ......has
less chance of ruin...........so why do you people go on with the double
talk "Less chance of ruin"......gimme a break, can't you count
>
>However, it is clear that a person limited to a $500 bankroll cannot afford
to
>bet $5 don't pass and lay $30 odds without a serious risk of getting wiped
out.
What do you mean a person LIMITED???????????????? to a $500
Bankroll............the average Bankroll that people take to the casinos is
about $300.........now you don't wanna include those people in your advice.
What is the matter with you people.........I'll even answer it for you
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GAMBLING........You talk as though everyone has big
Bankrolls and you hide behind your double talk....Now we're up to $5 don't
and laying $30 odds to make your vig numbers look good
You people reading their advice.......try swalloping that crock of
crap........how many of you wanna lay those kind of odds...........a small
losing streak and you're in your car on the way home
By the way, I play Don't and DON'T play the Don't Pass line.........I play
the Richochet which prevents losing with the 7 - 11 on the come out and
the Patrick (you call it the do/don/t) for the $5 player which gives the
same benefit, so don't hand me your 22% loss expectancy...........I didn't
know the figure, but have been imploring people to not bet the Don't Pass
Line for years.......without knowing about the 22%...........I just know
its not a logical move to make.............but what would you people know
about LOGGIK except how tto spell it (and maybe thats the ONLY thing you
have over me
For you people on the fence......don't fall for their
nonsense..............you lay odds, you're gonna get whacked.
My apologies to you people with smaller bankrolls...........these guys think
everyone carries the family jewels to battle.........and you wanna swallow
their bunk.?....gimme a break............JOHN PATRICK
>Cheers,
>Alan Shank
>
Mason Clarke
>Alan
>
>You are wrong and all the double talk in the world cannot make your
>point....................I pointed out reasons why people should not lay
>odds and you addressed none of them
>
repeating himself in capitol letters and refusing to understand
the posts of others, a technique that he demonstrated ad nauseam
in the Blackjack group in his recent sojourn there; below is a
repeat of the Krigman essay which specifically addresses every
reason that Patrick gives that you should not lay odds.
Krigman's essay is understandable, involves no double talk, and
provides supporting figures.
You should remember that Guru John rejects the "traditional
criterion" for evaluating odds wagers or the argument in favor of
odds wagers based on reduced house advantage. He says the house
advantage is always present and should be effectively ignored,
just like you ignore the "vig at a sports book" because it is
just a cost of making a wager. This is the third point that
Krigman mentions in his essay below.
Guru John's original objection to laying odds is acknowledged as
reason (2) in the Krigman essay. I believe that Guru John also
mentions reason (1). Al Krigman wrote this essay to examine the
problem with a view that allows for all of Guru John's
objections.
His risk averse mantra of "I don't care how much I win, I care
how much I lose" is not violated by the view of Krigman's essay,
because when the results of _equalized wagers_ are compared
between flat bet only and flat bet with odds methods, the flat
bet with odds method is LESS risk. Therefore, Guru John should
advocate the allocation of don't bets as outlined in the Krigman
essay .... EXCEPT that he has previously categorically rejected
laying odds as a "dumb bet". That closes the argument in Guru
John's world.
Guru John has shown over and over that he will simply repeat
himself and deny the validity of contrary evidence rather than
modify his view. There is no reason for him to change. He is the
greatest authority on his own opinion and that is the only
reality that he will acknowledge. Expect no less and hope for no
more.
The evidence to support the following conclusion is clearly laid
out below by Al Krigman. The figures are quite easy to
understand. Laying the odds is a good bet whether you judge by
house advantage or by likely results of a normal session.
The amounts of the line bet and odds wager that was used to
illustrate these points in Al's essay were chosen for easy
computation and comparison. The principle obviously holds for
_any_ amount.
The more of the amount that you intend to wager on a round of
play that you can allocate to the odds portion of the don't bet
the better. Each dollar that you move from the line portion to
the odds portion works SIMULTANEOUSLY to _increase_ your chances
of finishing ahead and to _decrease_ your chances of finishing
behind.
Al Krigman -
"Applying the traditional criterion of house advantage to bets on
don't pass or don't come, apportioning money between the flat and
odds portions of a wager is clearly superior to betting an
equivalent amount flat. And guess what, considering where you're
likely to be after a session of representative duration, the
conclusions are the same."
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Oliver Goldsmith
Logicians have but ill defined
As rational, the human kind.
Logic, they say, belongs to man,
But let them prove it if they can.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guru Version - Guru John Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laying odds on the Don't ......always was.........is
now.......... and always wil be..........a dumb bet.
A player goes through all the trouble of beating the 7 and 11 on
An alternate way to view the options for don't pass or don't come
bets is to consider how a set of solid citizens, using the two
approaches, can anticipate finishing sessions of various lengths.
For this purpose, say a thousand flat bettors drop $25 on the
layout and quietly await their fate, while this many odds layers
start with $5 and augment it with $30 regardless of which number
the shooter is trying to repeat. The totals at risk are
equivalent since the averages for every 36 come-out rolls will be
$900 either way -- 36x$25 flat or 12x$5 plus 24x$35 with odds.
If break-even, $500 wins, and $500 losses are taken as reference
levels, here's how the immutable laws of mathematics say the
thousand stalwarts will fare after typical stints at the rail.
*100 rounds*: 445 flat bettors will be above break-even, 15 will
be ahead by more than $500, and 29 be below $500; 489 odds layers
will be above break-even, 19 will have won over $500, and 22 will
have lost more than this.
*200 rounds*: 422 flat bettors will be above break-even, 52 will
Alan Shank
> Jeff, the short answer is no . I for one do not always lay max odds on a
> Don't number. I understand the mathematics of odds as well as the next guy,
> but there is one other more important reason I don't do it. And that reason
> is bankroll size.
>
> When I bring my usual $200 to my favorite casino, where the tables fade
> $2min/10x odds, I would have to lay a full $40 if the Four or the Ten is my
> Don't number. That's 20% of my bankroll and a couple of losses will send me
> straight home without even checking out the buffet. So I don't like laying
> against those "tough" numbers. OTOH, laying against the 6 or 8 require much
> less money. So I often lay something, not necessary full 10x odds, but may
> be 5x. And if you ask me, those 4s and 10s don't seem to be as hard as
> probability says, and the 6 & 8s are not as easy.
Nobody says you have to lay max odds. Obviously, you have to tailor your odds
bet to your bankroll. If you have $200 and a $2 table and you lay double odds,
your chances of getting wiped out within 100 decisions are very slim. I ran this
through SysSim:
starting bankroll $200
don't pass bet $2, lay double odds
Stop at 337 rolls (average number of rolls to a decision is 3.375 for pass/don't
pass)
or if broke.
In 15, 000 such sessions, only 33 resulted in wiping out, which is only about
.2%. The quickest wipeout was after 157 rolls. The average final bankroll was
$197.64 and the standard deviation was $60.03, so 68% of the time you'd expect
to finish between $57 up and $63 down and only 5% of the time would you be $123
down or $117 ahead (or more). The average amount on the table is $6.61.
Let's compare the above to just putting $6 on DP all the time, no odds.Again, in
15,000 trials, there were 22 wipeouts, the quickest after 169 rolls. The average
final bankroll was $190.89, with a standard deviation of $58.64. Not a huge
difference, just a slightly lower SD shifted down about $7.
Everybody seems to think of taking or laying odds as being added on to a
constant line bet, in which case your loss expectation doesn't change at all,
just the amount bet and the variance. However, if you SHIFT money from the line
to odds, your loss expectation decreases, because you're taking money from a bet
where the house has a small edge to one where they have no edge.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Alan Shank
"John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>try something else but stop giving bad adbvice
> >> Winnah 5 made a great point.................where is he
> >> going with a $200 Bankroll and if he is forced to lay Max odds to
reduce
> >> this thing called vig.
Winnah 5 obviously isn't "forced" to do anything, and he was talking
about laying 10X odds on a $2 bet with a $200 bankroll, which noone in
this ng has ever advocated, as far as I know.
> >> Go to that excellent write up by Krigman...........I didn't see
where he
> >> leaned his opinion either way..........although he did show you the
math
> >> that it was better from the statistical side but that is over a
period of
> >> time, because the pennies lost in an hour Session is too small to
worry
> >> about or notice.
> >
> >He gave these figures for 100 rounds, which is what, 3-4 hours of
play.
>
> It doesn't matter if it were 100 rounds or 1000 rounds or 10
> rounds..........don't you get it?......its a bad expensive play for
most
> players........don't lay odds
My point was that his figures were based on not "an hour session," as
you said, but a reasonably long session, i.e. reality, as you put it.
> >
> > >>An alternate way to view the options for don't pass or don't come
> >> > bets is to consider how a set of solid citizens, using the two
> >> > approaches, can anticipate finishing sessions of various lengths.
> >> > For this purpose, say a thousand flat bettors drop $25 on the
> >> > layout and quietly await their fate, while this many odds layers
> >> > start with $5 and augment it with $30 regardless of which number
> >> > the shooter is trying to repeat. The totals at risk are
> >> > equivalent since the averages for every 36 come-out rolls will be
> >> > $900 either way -- 36x$25 flat or 12x$5 plus 24x$35 with odds.
> >> >
> >> > If break-even, $500 wins, and $500 losses are taken as reference
> >> > levels, here's how the immutable laws of mathematics say the
> >> > thousand stalwarts will fare after typical stints at the rail.
> >> >
> >> > *100 rounds*: 445 flat bettors will be above break-even, 15 will
> >> > be ahead by more than $500, and 29 be below $500; 489 odds layers
> >> > will be above break-even, 19 will have won over $500, and 22 will
> >> > have lost more than this.
> >
> >I think the essential point there is that the odds layer not only has
a
> better
> >chance to be ahead, but also less chance to be $500 behind. That's
because
> we
> >are not comparing an equal line bet with one player laying odds and
the
> other
> >not - we are comparing roughly equal total bet amounts, with one
player
> putting
> >it all on the don't pass line and the other making a much smaller
line bet
> and
> >most of it on odds. That means that player B has a lower loss
expectation,
> with
> >only slightly more variability. He also has a better chance of
getting far
> >ahead. However, see below:
>
> Sure he has a better chance of getting further ahead............but
does he
> not have a better chance of falling further behind.?????????????
No, he doesn't. Can't you read? You praised Krigman's article, but you
aren't actually absorbing what he's saying. In the example above, fewer
of the odds layers were behind $500 than the DP-only players.
> >> He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I
am
> talking
> >> REALITY................Most players don't have the proper Bankroll
> >>
> >
> >In Krigman's example, both players were averaging about $25 per
round. Many
> >people can't afford that, or if they do bet that high with a smaller
> bankroll,
> >they have a much higher "risk of ruin." Just as progessive betting
> strategies
> >can run into the table maximum, this idea of allocating as much as
possible
> of
> >your bet to the free odds runs into the table minimum and allowed
odds
> rules.
> >It's pretty hard to find a casino with a $1 minimum and 10X odds.
> >
> >Here's my approach: Take your bankroll and use the "risk of ruin"
formula
> to get
> >a bet amount that gives you an 85% or higher probability of surviving
100
> >rounds. Then, take that bet amount and allocate as much as possible
of it
> to
> >your odds bet, depending on the casino rules.
> >
> >> BUT I'm talking from a position of Reality and you're gonna get
your
> clock
> >> cleaned if you listen to these people. You just don't have the
money to
> >> last by laying odds.
> >
> >Well, obviously, some people do. The key is to understand how much
you can
> >afford to bet and still have a high probability of surviving.
> >
> >> Mike and John are both don't players and both go up to a craps
table
> (after
> >Yes, we can. Your argument is flawed. If one has a high enough
bankroll
> and/or
> >can find the right table minimum/odds-allowed conditions, the right
> allocation
> >of dollars on the don't pass and the odds can give you a lower risk
of
> ruin, a
> >lower expected loss and a better chance for a big win than just
playing the
> >don't.
>
> NO........YOUR ADVICE IS FLAWED. IF one has a high enough Bankroll,
you
> state. OH, I see..........we're now only talking to the people with
the
> higher Bankrolls eh?????? What about those without high
> bankrolls.........the ones I am trying to reach. Don't they exist or
don't
> you count them
>
> Are you people grasping what these people are handing
you...........telling
> you its alright to lay odds IF IF IF you got a high enough
> bankroll........they can'dt even include all people in their advice.
You seem to include all people in your advice. Don't lay odds!!! is a
pretty categorical statement. You don't say, "don't lay odds unless you
can afford it."
>
> Stop with the lower risk of ruin nonsense. A don't player not laying
odds
> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
......has
> less chance of ruin
You're still talking about two players making the same line bet and one
of the laying odds, which is NOT what Krigman was talking about and not
what I'm talking about.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Art Hoffman
qualified it to be fair? JP was talking about gambling with a limited
bankroll. AK's article did not as the words set off by asterisks below seem
to say. So, to me it appears we have an apples and oranges comparison here.
Both pieces of fruit are worth eating.
Mason Clarke <ma...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.12f2a4726...@tx.news.verio.net...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> The Guru Version - Guru John Patrick
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Laying odds on the Don't ......always was.........is
> now.......... and always wil be..........a dumb bet.
>
> A player goes through all the trouble of beating the 7 and 11 on
> the come out roll and has a decided edge in the fact that whether
> the point is 4-5-6-8-9- or 10.....he has the 7 working for him.
> He will be paid even money, yet he has an edge of 6-5 or 6-4 or
> 6-3..........going for him.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> The Mathematical View - Al Krigman
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Should You Lay Odds on "Don't" Bets at Craps?, by Alan Krigman
> Playing It Smart, Volume 6, Number 52, 27-Dec-99.
>
> Craps players who follow "don't pass" or "don't come" strategies
> hotly debate whether it's preferable to lay odds after the come-
> out roll,
****** or simply start higher *******
and stick with their flat bets.
> Most dice doyens declare that laying as much as possible in odds
> is optimum because it minimizes the house advantage in the game.
> Bettors, however, sometimes find this counter-intuitive.
>
(rest snipped)
Winnah 5
> I read this... it is pretty much saying to lay max odds everytime as a
> dont better? Does everyone agree with this? jeff lap
so he did ask whether to lay --max-- odds everytime. To that, I will insist
that max odds everytime is NOT the best play.
To players with relatively short and/or small bankroll, the variance on
laying odds is often too big. Sure, people should not play the game with
short and small bankroll, but people do and people will. Sometimes
unwillingly, but most often it is by choice. I see people bring $20 to play
at $5 tables because there is not a spot at the $2 table. Without odds, at
least the poor guy can play 4 hands. If he wants to lay odds, he may not
even have enough money for double odds.
Odds is misunderstood by many. When I am at the table, I have had my share
of "advice" from many "experts" telling me to take or lay as much odds as I
can. Well, I give them a lame smile everytime when they get tapped out in a
hurry.
Yes, shifting money from the line bet to odds is a wiser move, but people
don't do it for many different reasons. Try this at a 100x odds table:
tell a high roller who is making $500 pass Line with $1000 odds to instead
bet $15 with $1500 odds. Do you think they will do it because they are
convinced that it is a better play?
Alan Shank <goat...@XSspeed.net> wrote in message
news:388BCE6D...@XSspeed.net...
> Nobody says you have to lay max odds. Obviously, you have to tailor your
odds
> bet to your bankroll.
<Big snip on math details>
Mason Clarke
ar...@concentric.net says...
>Mason, I'm surprised you've made this comparison. Shouldn't you have
>qualified it to be fair? JP was talking about gambling with a limited
>bankroll. AK's article did not as the words set off by asterisks below seem
>to say. So, to me it appears we have an apples and oranges comparison here.
>Both pieces of fruit are worth eating.
>
of laying odds was categorical was posted to confirm, compliment
and encourage another post by Jim Ferr. Neither Guru John or Jim
qualified their condemnation of odds on the don't in any way.
In fact, Guru John made an unmistakable point of the universality
of his condemnation, in his own unique style. It is the way Guru
John impresses the impressionable.
Review the thread and you will see that this is so.
As to the Krigman essay, I find it to be a general discussion of
the effect of shifting money from the line to the odds without
the standard reference to the house advantage. It explicates the
effect of the small change in house advantage on each round that
Guru John wishes to ignore by showing the expected result during
a session of an equivalent amount of money placed at risk using
the flat bet and flat bet with odds strategies.
Reread the piece and you should be able to see that the effect of
shifting any money from the flat portion to the odds portion will
be beneficial to the player regardless of bankroll size.
The evidence of the essay is in direct contradiction to the
assertion that "laying the odds on the don't is a dumb bet".
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Oscar Wilde
I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar,
and sometimes convincing.
Jack Martin
the math of the subject and then JP starts in with players using a short
bankroll. He has a point if he would make it as a point but his style
forces him to slam it at you. I think Jim Ferr read it right but JP made a
point and ran with it to left field. I wanted to thank you for posting the
math for the right side player too. Both articles were very interesting as
is much of Krigman's archived material I found through the link you
provided. Regards, Jack.
EGorniak
I hope you don't mind this question. Are those Krigman essays written by
you?
Eddie G
Kim Greenblatt
<johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Alan
>
>You are wrong and all the double talk in the world cannot make your
>point....................I pointed out reasons why people should not lay
>odds and you addressed none of them..........sorry, you're off base with
>your advice.............try something else but stop giving bad adbvice
I wasn't going to jump in but ----
I have read most of your books and your advice in this channel is the
same as anybody else's - just advice.
Now this is my opinion:
As far as I am concerned, your blackjack advice is dangerous, your
books are repetitious and the American public really isn't interested
in becoming a functional gambling addict.
Also, the East Coast screaming is trite, so please give it a rest.
The techniques you continuously hawk are great for people who either
live in gambling towns or are functioning gambling addicts.
Bottom line: Some of your advice is good and some of the advice
isn't.
Personally, I respect most of the other posters math and experience in
this channel because they tend to read articles and postings clearly
before jumping in and adding money management advice.
So give it a rest, John, okay?
In my own case, and this isn't advice, but my own opinion, the
decision on whether to use DONT LAY ODDS is simple. I try and take
them as well as play the DC.
Kim Greenblatt
Alan Shank
> Yes, shifting money from the line bet to odds is a wiser move, but people
> don't do it for many different reasons. Try this at a 100x odds table:
> tell a high roller who is making $500 pass Line with $1000 odds to instead
> bet $15 with $1500 odds. Do you think they will do it because they are
> convinced that it is a better play?
>
Who knows? Whether any given bettor would consider it a better play or not
depends on his goals, bankroll, etc. Here are the facts:
Option #1 results in an average bet of $1166.67, option #2 one of $1015, but
with higher volatility. If they both play for about 3 hours, here are the
expected results:
expected loss total bet handle standard deviation prob. winning
session
#1 $628 $103,703 $13,469 48.1%
#2 $ 19 $ 90,222 $14,255 49.96%
The figures for 1 standard deviation below expectation are -$14, 098 and
-$14254, but for 1 SD above expectation they are +$12,841 and +$14236, so very
slighly more risk you get substantially more profit if you do well.
With a $25, 000 bankroll (dream on!) option #1 would have an 8.7% chance of
getting wiped out within 100 rounds, while option #2 would have a 9.8% chance.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. If I had that kind of money, I'd
definitely take option #2. I think the important thing for gamblers to
understand is how different bets and the amounts of those bets affect the shape
of the distribution curve of possible results - the edge, the standard deviation
and the skew. Al Krigman's articles give you that kind of information.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Mason Clarke
>egor...@aol.com says...
win...@aol.com. I am sure that he will loudly disavow any
connection with me or even knowledge of my existence with with
great vigor. I certainly would do so if I were in his shoes. Al
has always posted to any NG with basic information and avoided
controversy.
Al posted to this kind of thread in response to Guru John's
recent sojourn to rec.gambling.blackjack. I posted a copy of it
here at the time, but I will repost it below in case that you
missed it. I think that it provides a clear insight into Al
Krigman and his thought processes, both of which I admire
greatly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There's a new book out, having nothing (overtly) to do with
gambling, entitled "Truth." The author is the historian and
scholar, Philipe Fernandez-Armesto. I didn't check, but
Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com undoubtedly have it.
Dr Fernendez-Armesto asserts that, over the ages, civilizations
have "found" truth along one or more of four paths. And, at
different times and in different societies, one or another of
these paths tends to dominate. The paths are:
* truths that are deeply perceived or felt rather than
demonstrated
* truths that are revealed by oracles or sacred documents
* truths that are determined by logic or reason, including math &
science
* truths that are reached by analyzing, to various degrees of
depth, observed data.
The parallels to how any moderate-size sample of casino
aficionados arrive at what they consider truths about gambling
jump right off Dr Fernandez-Armesto's pages. I think of them as
(in order of the above):
* hunches
* books and systems by "gurus"
* probability theory
* what players remember (or want to remember) from past
experience.
The ultimate point is that folks who've arrived at their "truths"
along one path aren't going to believe that someone else's
"truths," reached along another path, are somehow better, or more
valid, etc. It's not just the one group rejects the other's
conclusions about what's true, one group rejects -- maybe "fails
to accept" would be a better description than "rejects" -- the
other's whole set of premises. I think that's the situation we
have in this particular set of postings and in many gambling
arguments in the newsgroups and in the casino as well. A good
example outside of the present discussion is that advanced by
those who think you can get an advantage over the house in
blackjack through "card clumping" -- which they say can't be
analyzed mathematically or simulated by computer but is true
anyway (and, of course, since it can't be "proved" this way, it
can't be "disproved" this way either... especially not by the
argument that absence of proof is disproof -- the classical
"second law of thermodynamics" reasoning).
Fernandez-Armesto goes further in saying that modern society
tends to think that the ancients, or primitive civilizations like
those occasionally discovered along the Amazon, were just less
sophisticated than we are because they sought truth from their
shamans and so forth. But it's not really a matter of
sophistication, more of different ways of thinking and acting --
which can't necessarily be categorized as right or wrong. He also
notes that every society, including our own, has truths found in
all of the ways, to one degree or another, and says that we have
to accept the notion that there is no unity in truth.
I think that this "take" on the situation helps explain why
passions run so high in discussions of this type, and why people
who -- for whatever reasons -- approach gambling from their own
personal perspectives with their own backgrounds, aren't about to
be swayed by those who come at it from a different direction.
Alan Krigman
Syndicated gaming columnist &Publisher of WINNING WAYS newsletter
(e-mail me with postal address for a free sample)
To visit the searchable archive of mycolumns, start at www.icon-
info.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Then there was the man who drowned crossing a stream
with an average depth of six inches.
John L. Patrick
You are free to agree or not to agree with my Theories
Kim Greenblatt wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:51:40 -0500, "John L. Patrick"
><johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Alan
>>
>>You are wrong and all the double talk in the world cannot make your
>>point....................I pointed out reasons why people should not lay
>>odds and you addressed none of them..........sorry, you're off base with
>>your advice.............try something else but stop giving bad adbvice
>
>I wasn't going to jump in but ----
>
>I have read most of your books and your advice in this channel is the
>same as anybody else's - just advice.
>
>Now this is my opinion:
>
>As far as I am concerned, your blackjack advice is dangerous, your
>books are repetitious and the American public really isn't interested
>in becoming a functional gambling addict.
I tell people NOT to gamble unless they are perfect.........I do NOT tell
people to gamble until they are perfect, so you must have mis read my ADVICE
as you put it
>
>Also, the East Coast screaming is trite, so please give it a rest.
East Coast screaming?.........................You can read screaming out of
reading??????? (what does trite mean?)
>
>The techniques you continuously hawk are great for people who either
>live in gambling towns or are functioning gambling addicts.
Kim, I think you're a little carried away with the words gambling addict s
>
>Bottom line: Some of your advice is good and some of the advice
>isn't.
Then only read the good....(but look what you;ll be missing)
>
>
>Personally, I respect most of the other posters math and experience in
>this channel because they tend to read articles and postings clearly
>before jumping in and adding money management advice.
>
>So give it a rest, John, okay?
>
>In my own case, and this isn't advice, but my own opinion, the
>decision on whether to use DONT LAY ODDS is simple. I try and take
>them as well as play the DC.
Kim, good advice............if you are doing good laying odds on the don't
side, then by all means lay odds
For you people who are on the fence...............DON'T LAY
ODDS............it is bad advice they are giving you
Thank you, Kim, for a very insightful post and I will attempt to tone down
my screaming.............JOHN PATRICK
>
>Kim Greenblatt
John L. Patrick
Alan Shank wrote in message <388BD678...@XSspeed.net>...
>In article <86g22c$svb$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>try something else but stop giving bad adbvice
>I haven't given any "adbvice," only information.
>
>> >> Winnah 5 made a great point.................where is he
>> >> going with a $200 Bankroll and if he is forced to lay Max odds to
>
>reduce
>> >> this thing called vig.
>Winnah 5 obviously isn't "forced" to do anything, and he was talking
>
>about laying 10X odds on a $2 bet with a $200 bankroll, which noone in
>
>this ng has ever advocated, as far as I know.
If he wants to lay 10x odds.......that is his choice. I am free to give my
opinion to others as to whether it is a smart move to lay odds or
not........I say it ain't..........so it ain't.........but if people still
wanna lay odds........be my guest. (They'll change
eventually...........sometimes you gotta get bit by a dog to understand they
bite)
You're saying that a person betting $1 on the don't pass line and then
allocating the amount of money he would normally bet on that play should be
allocated to odds?????????
If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike laid
$8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk by
John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
And please don't tell me the 8-3 edge by the chances of the 7-11 vs the 1-1.
1-2. 2-1 is in favor of Mike
The number of times the shooter makes his point and reaps a bigger return
from Mikes extra bets more than makes up for the times a natural beats that
player...............I am more concerned about reducing the amount of money
people have to lay out to properly bet their money.........laying odds hurts
the player and by your alluding to the fact that IF IF IF the person
had enough money......does not cut it with me at all
I say DON'T LAY ODDS and you say do lay them.............let the player take
both sides of the discussion and make their own
choice....Cheers..........JOHN PATRICK
>Cheers,
>Alan Shank
>
Michael
"John L. Patrick" wrote:
> Alan
>
> Alan Shank wrote in message <388BD678...@XSspeed.net>...
> >In article <86g22c$svb$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> A don't player not laying
> >
> >odds
> >> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
> >
> >......has
> >> less chance of ruin
> >You're still talking about two players making the same line bet and one
> >
> >of the laying odds, which is NOT what Krigman was talking about and not
> >
> >what I'm talking about.
>
> cYou're saying that a person betting $1 on the don't pass line and then
> allocating the amount of money he would normally bet on that play should be
> allocated to odds?????????
>
> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
> come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike laid
> $8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk by
> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
>
> And please don't tell me the 8-3 edge by the chances of the 7-11 vs the 1-1.
> 1-2. 2-1 is in favor of Mike. The number of times the shooter makes his point
> and reaps a bigger return
> from Mikes extra bets more than makes up for the times a natural beats that
> player...............
It's fairly easy to calculate the effect of the come-out for Mike and John, and
also the effect of the net don't wins once a point is established. In the above
scenario, for all the come out decisions on the don't, the following are the
results:
1. John wins 3 times for a win of 3 X $5 = $15.
2. John loses 8 times for a loss of 8 X $5 = $40.
John loses a net of $40-$15 = $25.
On the other hand,
1. Mike wins 3 times for a win of 3 X $1 = $3
2. Mike loses 8 times for a loss of 8 X $1 = $8.
Mike loses a net of $8 - $3 = $5.
John loses $20 more than Mike over the come out decisions. This is why we cannot
ignore the effect of the come-out decisions when evaluating these two options.
The difference in the loss for the two options is significant, being 4X the base
come out bet.
After the come out the following happens (points will pass, assuming one is
already established, 40.6% of the time, and will don't out 59.4% of the time,
and points will be established the remaining 24 come out rolls. I gave the
calculation for the above in a previous post.) So:
1. John wins .594 X 24 X $5 = $71.28
2. John loses .406 X 24 X $5 = $ $48.72
John wins $71.28 - $48.72 = $22.56, for a net loss on come out and points of
$2.44.
John does well after the point is established, but it's not enough to make up
for what he lost on the come-out. The house advantage is the amount lost divided
by the amount bet, of $2.44/(35X$5) = -.0139, which is the accepted don't
disadvantage.
On the other hand,
1. Mike wins .594 X 24 X $1 = $14.26
2. Mike loses .406 X 24 X $1 = $9.74
Mike wins $14.26 - $9.74 = $4.52, for a net loss on come out and points of 0.48,
for the same house disadvantage (there was some rounding).
The odds bet will break even over the complete cycle, as is well known. It's
easier to overcome, by luck or whatever, an expected loss of $0.48 than $2.44.
I can be a lot less lucky and still show a profit by laying the odds than I can
by not laying them.
> I am more concerned about reducing the amount of money
> people have to lay out to properly bet their money.........laying odds hurts
> the player and by your alluding to the fact that IF IF IF the person
> had enough money......does not cut it with me at all
The does not appear to any evidence, either in the mathematics of the game, in
simulations of the game, or in an analysis of actual casino rolls to show that
laying odds "hurts" the player, where that is taken to mean that s/he loses more
than s/he otherwise would. Sure, you can find particular examples when that
happens, but when you look at any reasonably sized sample, there just isn't any
evidence to support this view, and you haven't provided any.
Laying the odds does not require the player to bet more money than s/he
otherwise would, and no one is suggesting that a player overbet based on the
goals, etc. A $10 bettor can easily lay odds at a $5 table--$5 on the line and
$6 in odds. Some of the systems posted here (e.g. the $44 inside system) require
larger bets with greater variance at a bigger disadvantage. Your remarks about
laying the odds seem much more general than just applying to a short bankrolled
player, say one who goes to a $5 table with $50.
Regards,
Michael
>
>
> I say DON'T LAY ODDS and you say do lay them.............let the player take
> both sides of the discussion and make their own
> choice....Cheers..........JOHN PATRICK
> >Cheers,
> >Alan Shank
> >
Regards,
Michael
Bulldog
Ken Cross
news:388C9613...@ix.netcom.com...
> Winnah 5 wrote:
>
> > Yes, shifting money from the line bet to odds is a wiser move, but
people
> > don't do it for many different reasons. Try this at a 100x odds table:
> > tell a high roller who is making $500 pass Line with $1000 odds to
instead
> > bet $15 with $1500 odds. Do you think they will do it because they are
> > convinced that it is a better play?
> >
>
> Who knows? Whether any given bettor would consider it a better play or not
> depends on his goals, bankroll, etc.
[snip interesting facts]
One additional goal (for some people) is comps. With the first method of
betting, his "average bet" is $500 (worth almost unlimited comps); for the
second, it's $15 (worth almost nothing).
Over a 3-4 day stay, you could easily get $1000-2000 in comps. That could
make up the difference in the house edge. And, IMHO, it would certainly
make the difference in how much you enjoyed the trip! ;-]
Ken
Ken Cross
"John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:86iemt$37m$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]
> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
> come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike
laid
> $8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk
by
> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
No, apples-to-apples would be John bets $5 Don't Come, and Mike bets $1 DC
with $4 odds (to win $2). Both are willing to risk up to $5. Once the
point is made, John is risking $5 to win $5, and Mike is risking $5 to win
$3.
But (this is a Big Deal) the initial DC bet is where the biggest risk is
(22% chance of losing). John will lose $5 and Mike will only lose $1.
FWIW, I take the middle approach. I'm a die-hard Darksider, and always lay
single odds. That almost cuts the house edge in half, but isn't as
expensive as more odds, which only reduce the house edge a marginal amount.
To each his own...
Ken
Michael
John Patrick wrote:
> And please don't tell me the 8-3 edge by the chances of the 7-11 vs the 1-1.
> 1-2. 2-1 is in favor of Mike. The number of times the shooter makes his point
> and reaps a bigger return
In the calculation given below, Mike wins $20 over John on the come-out decisions;
on the other hand, John wins and extra $22.56 - $4.52 = $18.04 on the don't
decisions following the come out, and John is still behind nearly $2 over the entire
cycle. So the number of times the shooter makes his point does not reap a bigger
return for John, overall.
Regards,
Michael
Michael wrote:
> "John L. Patrick" wrote:
>
> > Alan
> >
> > Alan Shank wrote in message <388BD678...@XSspeed.net>...
> > >In article <86g22c$svb$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > A don't player not laying
> > >
> > >odds
> > >> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
> > >
> > >......has
> > >> less chance of ruin
> > >You're still talking about two players making the same line bet and one
> > >
> > >of the laying odds, which is NOT what Krigman was talking about and not
> > >
> > >what I'm talking about.
> >
> > cYou're saying that a person betting $1 on the don't pass line and then
> > allocating the amount of money he would normally bet on that play should be
> > allocated to odds?????????
> >
> > If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
> > come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike laid
> > $8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk by
> > John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
> >
> > And please don't tell me the 8-3 edge by the chances of the 7-11 vs the 1-1.
> > 1-2. 2-1 is in favor of Mike. The number of times the shooter makes his point
> > and reaps a bigger return
>
> > from Mikes extra bets more than makes up for the times a natural beats that
> > I am more concerned about reducing the amount of money
> > people have to lay out to properly bet their money.........laying odds hurts
> > the player and by your alluding to the fact that IF IF IF the person
> > had enough money......does not cut it with me at all
>
> The does not appear to any evidence, either in the mathematics of the game, in
> simulations of the game, or in an analysis of actual casino rolls to show that
> laying odds "hurts" the player, where that is taken to mean that s/he loses more
> than s/he otherwise would. Sure, you can find particular examples when that
> happens, but when you look at any reasonably sized sample, there just isn't any
> evidence to support this view, and you haven't provided any.
>
> Laying the odds does not require the player to bet more money than s/he
> otherwise would, and no one is suggesting that a player overbet based on the
> goals, etc. A $10 bettor can easily lay odds at a $5 table--$5 on the line and
> $6 in odds. Some of the systems posted here (e.g. the $44 inside system) require
> larger bets with greater variance at a bigger disadvantage. Your remarks about
> laying the odds seem much more general than just applying to a short bankrolled
> player, say one who goes to a $5 table with $50.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
> >
> >
> > I say DON'T LAY ODDS and you say do lay them.............let the player take
> > both sides of the discussion and make their own
> > choice....Cheers..........JOHN PATRICK
> > >Cheers,
> > >Alan Shank
> > >
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
Big John
John, how can you say this?
The come-out disadvantage can't be ignored. Anything can happen in a
single session, but the expected results are 3 immediate wins to 8
immediate losses every 36 come-outs. That's a $25 loss for John and a
$5 loss for Mike.
Your contention is that John is in a better position once a point is
established, which will happen 24 of 36 come-out rolls. In that 24
are 5 sixes and 5 eights, 4 fives and 4 nines, and 3 fours and 3 tens.
Let's consider the 4, 5, 9, and 10 as power numbers and the 6 and 8 as
weak numbers. So there are 14 power numbers and 10 weak numbers.
Since John expects to lose $25 on come-out rolls, he needs 5 shooters
to 7-out before making their point just to break even. If we allocate
5 of our power numbers to this as "guaranteed" winners, what's left?
9 power numbers and 10 weak numbers.
Sorry, but I don't like John's method of play.
Mike, on the other hand, bet only $1 when the odds were against him on
the come-out. Once a point is established, he has options. Perhaps
he chooses to lay full odds against the 4-10, partial odds against the
5-9, and nothing against the 6-8. Only one win on a point of 4 or 10
recoups his expected come-out losses.
Sure, Mike gets beat badly if 4's and 10's are repeating. It's going
to happen sometimes. But that's where intelligent loss limits come
into play.
John L. Patrick
Good message..........very clear and simple to understand. It still answer
the question because we're talking a $1 table but from a math
standpoint.....you made an excellent point
However, a few comments below
Michael wrote in message <388CDC50...@yahoo.com>...
>
>
>"John L. Patrick" wrote:
>
>> Alan
>>
>> Alan Shank wrote in message <388BD678...@XSspeed.net>...
>> >In article <86g22c$svb$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> A don't player not laying
>> >
>> >odds
>> >> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
>> >
>> >......has
>> >> less chance of ruin
>> >You're still talking about two players making the same line bet and one
>> >
>> >of the laying odds, which is NOT what Krigman was talking about and not
>> >
>> >what I'm talking about.
>>
>> cYou're saying that a person betting $1 on the don't pass line and then
>> allocating the amount of money he would normally bet on that play should
be
>> allocated to odds?????????
>>
>> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
>> come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike
laid
>> $8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk
by
>> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
>>
>> And please don't tell me the 8-3 edge by the chances of the 7-11 vs the
1-1.
>> 1-2. 2-1 is in favor of Mike. The number of times the shooter makes his
point
>> and reaps a bigger return
>
>> from Mikes extra bets more than makes up for the times a natural beats
that
>> I am more concerned about reducing the amount of money
>> people have to lay out to properly bet their money.........laying odds
hurts
>> the player and by your alluding to the fact that IF IF IF the
person
>> had enough money......does not cut it with me at all
>
>The does not appear to any evidence, either in the mathematics of the game,
in
>simulations of the game, or in an analysis of actual casino rolls to show
that
>laying odds "hurts" the player, where that is taken to mean that s/he loses
more
>than s/he otherwise would. Sure, you can find particular examples when that
>happens, but when you look at any reasonably sized sample, there just isn't
any
>evidence to support this view, and you haven't provided any.
Michael.........you passed right over the example I gave about two players
betting don't and one laid odds .........reducing the value of that original
Don't bet, where he was risking $5 to win $5 and by laying $10 odds to win
an additional $5.......he put himself in a position of risking $15 to win
$10, when he WAS in a position of risking $5 to win $5.............why do
you wanna give back the edge garnered by establishing that don't
>
>Laying the odds does not require the player to bet more money than s/he
>otherwise would, and no one is suggesting that a player overbet based on
the
>goals, etc. A $10 bettor can easily lay odds at a $5 table--$5 on the line
and
>$6 in odds. Some of the systems posted here (e.g. the $44 inside system)
require
>larger bets with greater variance at a bigger disadvantage. Your remarks
about
>laying the odds seem much more general than just applying to a short
bankrolled
>player, say one who goes to a $5 table with $50.
And since you used the example of the $1 table................where outside
of Vegas can a short bankrolled player find a $1 or $2 table??..........All
craps players in AC would be eliminated........its hard enough to find a $5
table , especially on week ends and even $10 tables are crowded with people
having to play there with short bankrolls.........just to play
A $5 bettor , taking double odds has to risk approximately $17 to $25 to
take advantagge of this so called vig reduction. Three losses in a row and
he is out approx. $55 (give or take a few dollars).........The straight
don't player would be out $15
You put too much emphasis on the reduction of vig, and completely over look
the REALITY of gambling...........people do not have the funds to put small
bets on the Don't Pass and lay 3-5-10 time odds.
I am more interested in warning these people to stick strictly to the Don't
Pass and no odds...........because I know a short losing streak wipes them
out.
Finally I personally play the Richochet where the 7 NEVER can beat
me.......and have been imploring people for years to do it. (again the
laying of $41 and $31 causes them to back off). Sooooooooooo I tell the to
play the Patrick System (doey/don't ) and get railed for it............yet
it completely eliminates the 7 from beating the player on the don't
side...........and was it not you who proclaimed 22% house edge vs the don't
player on the DP?
So what do you people want...........fight the 7 or get away from fighting
that come out 7..........you gotta make one choice.
I am still vehemently opposed to laying odds but still commend you on an
excellent explanation of people who desire to risk X number of dollars and
your idea as to what is MATHEMATICALLY correct (although not logically
correct IMHO)................JOHN PATRICK
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael
>
>
>>
>>
>> I say DON'T LAY ODDS and you say do lay them.............let the player
take
>> both sides of the discussion and make their own
>> choice....Cheers..........JOHN PATRICK
>> >Cheers,
>> >Alan Shank
>> >
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael
>
John L. Patrick
I saw that difference but didn't wanna make a big deal out of it because he
did make a good point breaking the explanation down. My objection is in the
over all laying of odds at all..........regardless of whether the player is
trying to stay within a pre determined amount .......as to how to spread
the bet. It is moot anyway, because there are no $1 tables in most casinos
and this example wouln't or couldn't possibly apply to most $5 bettors.
Ken Cross wrote in message <86ini...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
>"John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:86iemt$37m$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>
>[snip]
>
>> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
>> come..........and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike
>laid
>> $8 odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk
>by
>> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5
>
>No, apples-to-apples would be John bets $5 Don't Come, and Mike bets $1 DC
>with $4 odds (to win $2). Both are willing to risk up to $5. Once the
>point is made, John is risking $5 to win $5, and Mike is risking $5 to win
>$3.
>
>But (this is a Big Deal) the initial DC bet is where the biggest risk is
>(22% chance of losing). John will lose $5 and Mike will only lose $1.
>
>FWIW, I take the middle approach. I'm a die-hard Darksider, and always lay
>single odds. That almost cuts the house edge in half, but isn't as
>expensive as more odds, which only reduce the house edge a marginal amount.
>
>To each his own...
Right...............If you like laying single odds and are successful with
it ........by all means do it. Even if it was $6 to win $5 on no 6 or
8..........you still took a $5 to win $5 bet to $11 to win $10 bet but still
did nothing to increase your chances of winning...........only reducing the
value of that first wager that was 50-50 and you having a 6-5 edge for the 7
to come before that 6 (or 8)........But, to each his own..........
Ken, one quick question..............Reducing that vig (1.41) that you are
fighting with just the naked $5 Don't Pass Bet to eight tenths of 1 percent
with the laying of the single odds.................(a reduction of
approximately six tenths of one per
cent)......................................do you really think its worth
risking $6 to win $5 extra, after you already are sitting at $5 to win $5?
Why turn it into now $5.50 to win $5 (twice)
Don't you consider that a blowing of .50 per $5 bet???????????????/ Sounds
expensive to me............JOHN PATRICK
>Ken
>
>
>
John L. Patrick
You're missing the whole point ............completely missing what I am
saying
I, personally do not play the Don't pas line and I play don't all the
time..........I've said it over and over........I play the Richochet and the
Patrick (do/don't) because of that terrible edge against us on that come
out................I am NOT advocating the playing of the don't pass line in
itself............What I am saying is tha tIF these players with short
bankrolls insist on playing the DP, then when the point is established ,
they should refrain from laying odds.
THAT is what I am trying to get across.........DON'T LAY ODDS........better
still don't play DP
I am making my point for the benefit of the small heeled player that cannot
lay against a number when he is operating with a small
Bankroll...........but telling him to lay odds is even a worse drain on his
Bankroll
I will say it one more time, John...............I am NOT advocating playing
the Don't Pass..Line...........The Richochet is much much better and your 5%
lay is in jeopardy for only ONE roll...........not the length of an entire
game when you lay odds...........you're misreading my stance on this
thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,JOHN PATRICK
bigjohnATlasvegasDOTcom (Big John) wrote in message
<388cfb35...@goliath.newsfeeds.com>...
>John, how can you say this?
>
>The come-out disadvantage can't be ignored. Anything can happen in a
>single session, but the expected results are 3 immediate wins to 8
>immediate losses every 36 come-outs. That's a $25 loss for John and a
>$5 loss for Mike.
I AGREE...............I AGREE
>
>Your contention is that John is in a better position once a point is
>established, which will happen 24 of 36 come-out rolls. In that 24
>are 5 sixes and 5 eights, 4 fives and 4 nines, and 3 fours and 3 tens.
>Let's consider the 4, 5, 9, and 10 as power numbers and the 6 and 8 as
>weak numbers. So there are 14 power numbers and 10 weak numbers.
>
>Since John expects to lose $25 on come-out rolls, he needs 5 shooters
>to 7-out before making their point just to break even. If we allocate
>5 of our power numbers to this as "guaranteed" winners, what's left?
>9 power numbers and 10 weak numbers.
>
>Sorry, but I don't like John's method of play.
See above.......I'm not saying do it........I am comparing it to the laying
of odds IF you do it...........(bet DP)
Ken Cross
news:86ksfc$84m$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Ken, one quick question..............Reducing that vig (1.41) that you are
> fighting with just the naked $5 Don't Pass Bet to eight tenths of 1
percent
> with the laying of the single odds.................(a reduction of
> approximately six tenths of one per
> cent)......................................do you really think its worth
> risking $6 to win $5 extra, after you already are sitting at $5 to win
$5?
> Why turn it into now $5.50 to win $5 (twice)
>
> Don't you consider that a blowing of .50 per $5 bet???????????????/
Sounds
> expensive to me............JOHN PATRICK
John:
No, I don't think of it that way once I'm behind a number and contemplating
taking odds.
I think: "If I have an *additional* $5 or $6 to bet, would I rather risk $5
with a 22% chance of losing but winning $5, or risk $6 with a 6:5 chance of
winning but only winning $5?"
I take the latter. Over a period of time with 100's (or 1000's) of bets, it
makes a difference.
Ken
Bulldog
John L. Patrick <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:86krmp$42q$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
portion ie seven eleven.
The flat bet part of the dont bet with say double odds does not mathmaticaly
EXIST after a point is established .Sure your chip is right there in front
of the eyeballs but mathmatics say it aint.
Because of the PAYOFFS for the odds portion we stay even with the house in
the long run for the ODDS side of the dont pass bet only.
How we lose is on the come out rolls...Hence we need full odds behind
the point to combat the naturals encounterd on the come out rolls for a
short run contest...ie session
Without laying odds tell me how u would increase your flat bet in a cold
shoot on the donts without being picked off by the seven eleven?
HAL
Having shown what an idiot John Patrick was over on r.g.bj, I guess I
need to clean house here in the craps world. All quotes are from
J. Patrick:
> There is a thread developing that contends that you should lay odds vs
> the don't number and that is erroneous information ..............FROM
A
> GAMBLING STANDPOINT
So from what kind of a standpoint IS it correct information? Craps and
laying odds ARE gambling. And from a gambling standpoint Patrick is
dead wrong.
> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
come...
> .......and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike laid
$8
> odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk
by
> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5.
Since John is math impaired I will perform the same example here as I
did
in BJ when comparing whether to split or double two fives against a
dealer
six. The only math you need is to be able to add and subtract. If that
is too much for even John then he is beyond all hope. I have pitted the
two players above, "Mike" and "John", against each other and run a
simulation of one hundred million games. John bets $5 on Don't and Mike
bets $1 on Don't and always takes 4x odds. They each come to the table
with a $200 bankroll and play 100 games per session for a million
sessions.
Here is what happened:
Total no. rolls = 337609892
Total no. games = 99999014
Total no. points = 66672578
John Mike
---------- ----------
Games won = 47930144 47930144
Games lost = 49292262 49292262
Games tied = 2776608 2776608
Net units = -6810590 -1367613
Busted banks = 62 40
So not only does "John" lose five times the amount of money "Mike" does,
he also ruins his bank 50% more often. Obviously J. Patrick does not
test his hypotheses with actual results or he would see that his advice
makes his disciples lose 5 times more than they could. He also didn't
test the BJ example with actual hands or he would have seen that his
advice (split) makes his followers win 5 times less than they could (by
doubling.)
> [Regarding putting money out on the comeout roll:]
> ........why go and change from a winning situation, for a situation
that
> I truly believe doesn't give me an edge at all.
You claim that you are playing a winning game and that YOU have an edge.
This is a bald-faced lie that cannot be backed up with statistics,
logic,
or actual results. Explain to your students why you are a liar.
> He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I am
> talking REALITY.
So according to you statistics have no basis in reality.
I didn't know they have Usenet access in the insane asylum.
> Stop with the lower risk of ruin nonsense. A don't player not laying
odds
> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
......has
> less chance of ruin...........so why do you people go on with the
double
> talk "Less chance of ruin"......gimme a break, can't you count.
Can't you count? Look at the 62 sessions (out of a million) you lost
your whole bankroll above, versus only 40 sessions the smart bettor
lost.
> I tell people NOT to gamble unless they are perfect.........I do NOT
tell
> people to gamble until they are perfect,
Then why don't you take your own advice?
You are so far from perfect it is a joke.
You even admitted to the BJ folks that you were an idiot, so why don't
you do us all a favor and get the hell out of this newsgroup also.
I got some flak for spanking John out of the BJ group because the card
counters NEED the kind of fools John recruits to lose more money so that
the casinos don't put heat on those playing BlackJack.
The same thing can be said for craps: if the casinos notice that all
bettors are playing minimum on the line and taking a lot on odds then
they may eliminate the free odds bet altogether.
I think there are enough idiots out there who don't read Usenet to fuel
the casino's coffers. And for those fortunate enough to come here to
get advice, they should get advice that saves them money instead of the
half-thought-out swill that Patrick passes off as his advice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Midnight Skulker
> of 6 or 8] to eight tenths of 1 percent with the laying of the single
> odds.................(a reduction of approximately six tenths of one
> per cent)......................................do you really think
> its worth risking $6 to win $5 extra, after you already are sitting
> at $5 to win $5? Why turn it into now $5.50 to win $5 (twice)
Ah, the "laying odds dilutes your advantage" argument, the fallacy of
which is that the flat and the odds bets are two separate bets, made at
different times, under different circumstances, and on different things.
(When you lay odds behind a number you are betting Dugan will show
before ->that<- number; when you make a Don't Pass/Come bet you are
betting that the first roll will be 2 or 3, or that Dugan will show
before ->whatever<- point rolls again.) Whether or not you lay odds
you will still be paid even money on your initial $5 bet, hence your
advantage on that bet is not being diluted.
> Don't you consider that a blowing of .50 per $5 bet???????????????
Still want to treat the two bets as a combination, eh? OK, we'll play
it your way then. For the purposes of only this discussion I will
stipulate that the combination of a flat Don't and its odds are one bet,
and that by laying odds you have diluted your advantage. (You may want
to hold your applause because I'm not done yet.) By the same logic,
however, ->any<- bet you make with the $6 you didn't use for odds is in
combination with the $5 flat, and no matter what additional bet you make
it will dilute your advantage (because there is no bet you can make now
that offers you an advantage). So unless that $5 flat is the last bet
you will ever make, the question is not whether or not you should dilute
your advantage on it, but rather how much dilution you are going to
experience. Since the player is at a disadvantage when he/she places
any bet except odds, laying odds will produce the minimum dilution.
Did I say "the last bet you will ->ever<- make"? Yes, I did. Waiting
for a decision on the flat bet before making another bet is no different
from going to another table and making a bet while that first bet is
still in action. The possible outcomes are different because hedging is
eliminated, but the dilution effect is still there. The player is at
the same disadvantage making a bet at one table as he/she is making the
same bet at any other table.
Speaking of hedging, I can think of one special case: something somebody
called "booking the house" in a thread a while back. In case you're not
familiar with the method ;-) an example would be placing the 8 for $6
after going behind 8 with a $10 flat Don't. Possible outcomes: win $4
if the 8 misses, lose $3 if the 8 makes. On the surface it appears that
by hedging the player will be paid 4:3 on a bet on which the player has
a 6:5 advantage.
Wow! If the player can get paid 4:3 then, let's see, that player should
be paid $13 and change for the $10 flat if the 8 misses, right? What's
that, Boxperson? You say you're going to pay ony $4? Oh, yeah, the
Place Bet diluted the flat bet on which the player had an advantage, and
hence the payoff was also diluted.
OK, now that we've laid this dilution idea to rest (yeah, right), should
we lay odds or not? I'm in the "it depends" camp. An adequately funded
risk taker can't do better than allocate as much of his/her bankroll to
odds as feasible. Other players who have smaller bankrolls or who value
table time above profit should take your advice and lay off laying odds.
And then there's all that room in between. My disagreement with your
advice is that you said, "Don't ->ever<- lay odds."
--
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van_...@mk.com
6
quan...@webtv.net
as a player that is Not afraid to play the Dark side, it just seems [ as
has already been stated ] It depends.
I have a problem with odds on 6 or 8. The maths been done, so enough of
that. 5 & 9, maybe, again depending. Now 4 & 10, thats a little
different story. If that is the point [ 4 or 10 ] your on some decent
ground there.
J.P. seems to say he favors the DC, I do to.
A Small [ where's it written you Gotta take Full ] odds bet against 4 or
10 is to My liking.
Thats my $0.02 worth.
Q2
Bob Wilson
THANKS!!! My simulations didn't play the two strategies in parallel
(i.e., the same dice rolls) and this has really helped. However, are the
distribution of positive results in "John's" game have a higher result
but less frequent occurance compared to "Mike's" game?
Regardless, I'll have to practice to get used to this style but I think
I've got it.
Bob Wilson
Ken Cross
It's strange -- I feel just the opposite. 4/10 odds seem very expensive to
me, while 6/8 odds are close to an even payout, so seem "cheap".
Regardless, I always take single odds for any number. But I'm more nervous
about laying out that much on 4/10 and getting such a small return, even
though I get the return much more often.
I guess it's all in the mind of the beholder...
Ken
<quan...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10111-38...@storefull-287.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Robert Grabowski
they figured together in "reducing" the house advantage on the Don't
Pass? If they are two separate bets on different things, then isn't
it misleading to say that laying the odds reduces the house advantage
on the Don't Pass? It seems to me that it shouldn't have anything to
do with the Don't pass house advantage at all.
Bob
Mason Clarke
bubs...@pop.mindspring.com says...
>But if the don't pass and odds are two separate bets, then why are
>they figured together in "reducing" the house advantage on the Don't
>Pass? If they are two separate bets on different things, then isn't
>it misleading to say that laying the odds reduces the house advantage
>on the Don't Pass? It seems to me that it shouldn't have anything to
>do with the Don't pass house advantage at all.
>
>Bob
>
John's position other than it always conforms to Guru John's
opinion. (He should be so lucky!)
The Krigman essay pointedly did NOT use the house advantage
argument and simply pointed out that by transferring money from
the flat portion to the odds portion of the bet, a player
increased his likelihood of winning and decreased his likelihood
of losing. This seems a very simple concept with a simple proof.
It is NOT so simple according to Guru John.
Guru John held as how Krigman was right about a player winning
more and losing less, but said that he had taken ... math to a
... higher level .... and applied it to REAL ... REALITY ... for
real.
REAL REALITY (not the mathematical kind) includes the WHACK
FACTOR. Guru John said that winning more and losing less is not
as important as the WHACK POTENTIAL PHENOMENA. If you make the
dumb bet of laying odds on the don't, you are more likely to get
WHACKED. This is an experiential thing, not a mathematical
thing.
Guru John says that just as sometimes you gotta get bit by a
doggie .... to know that it bites, you gotta ...... get WHACKED
.... to know what REAL ..... REALITY .... really feels like. So
go ahead ... slide those cheques from the line to the odds ...
your gonna get WHACKED .... until you learn to listen to Guru
John.
Guru John approves of back line odds only as a hedge. This is OK
because ..... you only lay it out there for one roll ..... so
there is much less chance to get WHACKED .... and the HEDGE
FACTOR overrides the ODDS WHACK FACTOR ... because you are
fighting the bigger BIG RED WHACK FACTOR ... which can really
WHACK you up the side of you head .... you gotta learn to balance
the WHACKS and .... AIN'T nobody but a rambling, gambling guy ...
... certainly no math guy .... gonna know how to WHIP them
WHACKS. You may disagree but you can't argue with Guru
John's LOGICS and METHODS.
It is a tough choice. Win more and lose less according to
mathematics or get WHACKED according to Guru John.
Life is full of these kind of quandaries.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
"When you believe in things
That you don't understand,
Then you suffer.
Superstition ain't the way!"
- Reverend Steven Wonder
John L. Patrick
Ken Cross wrote in message <86lgq...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>"John L. Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:86ksfc$84m$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> Ken, one quick question..............Reducing that vig (1.41) that you
are
>> fighting with just the naked $5 Don't Pass Bet to eight tenths of 1
>percent
>> with the laying of the single odds.................(a reduction of
>> approximately six tenths of one per
>> cent)......................................do you really think its worth
>> risking $6 to win $5 extra, after you already are sitting at $5 to win
>$5?
>> Why turn it into now $5.50 to win $5 (twice)
>>
>> Don't you consider that a blowing of .50 per $5 bet???????????????/
>Sounds
>> expensive to me............JOHN PATRICK
>
>John:
>
>No, I don't think of it that way once I'm behind a number and contemplating
>taking odds.
>
>I think: "If I have an *additional* $5 or $6 to bet, would I rather risk $5
>with a 22% chance of losing but winning $5, or risk $6 with a 6:5 chance of
>winning but only winning $5?"
>
>I take the latter. Over a period of time with 100's (or 1000's) of bets,
it
>makes a difference.
I see where you're coming from................but 3-4-5 whacks in a row
where the shooter makes his point.......you got a long road back
Forget the 6 and 8 odds lay and forget the 4 and 10 odds lay for a
second..............one is heavy (4 or 10)........the other is less dollars
lay (6 or 8)...........we'll say you're betting $10 don't pass and the 5 or
9 becomes the point three times in a row and you lay $15 odds each time and
just for the sake of this example, you lose ................all three
Thats $75 you are behind. Based on the same scenario (no fives or nines
with $10 bet and $15 odds)............you gotta win 4 times to show a profit
of $5
That means you gotta win 4 out of 7 shooters ..........more than 50% of the
time to just about break even
If I was in the same position and merely lost the 3 don't bets...........I
need win only 3 times (50%) of the time to be even
I know, I know.................I left out the come out roll..........but
that makes up for the fact you are leaving out the possibility of what could
happen .........IF the come out roll does not result in a craps or
7-11.................JOHN PATRICK
>
>Ken
>
>
>
John L. Patrick
Bulldog wrote in message <86ln0v$tki$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
Of course I realize that the 7-11 is a killer (minus the craps)..........but
you people that scream so loud about the power of odds forget that in order
to be able to lay odds..........you gotta FIRST establish an umber and how
else can you do that except by coming thru the don't...............
To reat for the umteenth time.........I DO NOT PLAY THE DON'T PASS
LINE...............yet play don't about 50% of the time............I by
pass, and lay vs the number for one roll, put bet in DC , establish a
dominant don't , remove lay bet and I never NEVER have the 7 beat me
So you people who scream that the odds are so great........must come thru
that terrible don't pass or don't come box and THEN you wanna lay odds
If I played thru the don't Pass, I still wouldn't lay odds..........because
I ain't giving back that even money pay off where I have a 6-3 6-4 or 6-5
edge.
You wanna lay odds........go ahead.......I find that most people don't have
the capital to do it..........and I will continue to try and set them
straight...........................JOHN PATRICK
>
>
>
Alan Shank
> But if the don't pass and odds are two separate bets, then why are
> they figured together in "reducing" the house advantage on the Don't
> Pass?
They are separate, but you can't make the odds bet without a line bet,
whether it's Don't or Do.
> If they are two separate bets on different things, then isn't
> it misleading to say that laying the odds reduces the house advantage
> on the Don't Pass?
That's true. It doesn't change the odds on the line bet, but it changes the
house advantage on the entire amount bet, both line and odds. Look at it this
way: if you bet $1000 on Don't Pass, you expect to lose $14. If you lay odds,
you still expect to lose $14, because there is no loss expectation on the
odds bet. However, you are now betting more, so the house advantage is
$14/($1000 + all odds bets), which is, obviously, less than $14/$1000. OTOH,
if you bet $500 on the line and lay the other $500 in odds, your expected
loss is only $7. You haven't changed the house advantage on the line bet, but
you've exposed less of your money to it.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
John L. Patrick
I wasn't about to applaud because it was obvious where you were
going.........laying out the carrot while holding the meat
cleaver..........see below
The Midnight Skulker wrote in message <388E8412...@mk.com>...
>> Ken, one quick question..............Reducing that vig (1.41) that
>> you are fighting with just the naked $5 Don't Pass Bet [with a point
>> of 6 or 8] to eight tenths of 1 percent with the laying of the single
>> odds.................(a reduction of approximately six tenths of one
>> per cent)......................................do you really think
>> its worth risking $6 to win $5 extra, after you already are sitting
>> at $5 to win $5? Why turn it into now $5.50 to win $5 (twice)
>
>Ah, the "laying odds dilutes your advantage" argument, the fallacy of
>which is that the flat and the odds bets are two separate bets, made at
>different times, under different circumstances, and on different things.
>(When you lay odds behind a number you are betting Dugan will show
>before ->that<- number; when you make a Don't Pass/Come bet you are
>betting that the first roll will be 2 or 3, or that Dugan will show
>before ->whatever<- point rolls again.) Whether or not you lay odds
>you will still be paid even money on your initial $5 bet, hence your
>advantage on that bet is not being diluted.
>
>> Don't you consider that a blowing of .50 per $5 bet???????????????
>
>Still want to treat the two bets as a combination, eh? OK, we'll play
>it your way then. For the purposes of only this discussion I will
>stipulate that the combination of a flat Don't and its odds are one bet,
>and that by laying odds you have diluted your advantage. (You may want
>to hold your applause because I'm not done yet.) By the same logic,
>however, ->any<- bet you make with the $6 you didn't use for odds is in
>combination with the $5 flat, and no matter what additional bet you make
>it will dilute your advantage (because there is no bet you can make now
>that offers you an advantage). So unless that $5 flat is the last bet
>you will ever make, the question is not whether or not you should dilute
>your advantage on it, but rather how much dilution you are going to
>experience. Since the player is at a disadvantage when he/she places
>any bet except odds, laying odds will produce the minimum dilution.
Hold the phone, Van, you can't skip over it that quickly.........."SINCE THE
PLAYER IS AT DISADVANTAGE WHEN HE OR SHE PLACES ANY BET...........LAYING
ODDS WILL PRODUCE THE MINIMUM DILUTION................................."
Come on look what you're saying sounds good in a sentence but look at the
REALITY of it all. There is no bet on that table Pass or Don't Pass where
your great odds bet can be made on its own......................The casino
allows you to make that odds bet to dilute.....as you say...........the edge
that the house has on the Pass or Don't Pass............................>but
the laying of odds may mathematically reduce your figures, but they demand
that you lay proper odds and get paid proper pay-offs..........ONLY because
the bite on the original bet is so great for them
And they don't let you make odds or take odds bets unless you play the line
(do or don't)
So you may like the reducing of vig from 1.41 to eight tenths of one per
cent............but you also gotta lay out extra money.............WHICH
AFTER THE DON'T HAS BEATEN THAT COME OUT..........lessens the value of that
first bet.
Van......lets go a step further......since YOU brought up this subject of
odds bets and reducing house vig.
You and I go to a craps table to play Do. You put $5 on the Pass Line and 4
becomes the point...........you take double odds ($10 because you want that
vig reduced to six tenths of one per cent and you're right....you have a
great bet.
I.......who know diddedly about vigorish place the 4 for $15.......fighting
a vig of 6.67 (as opposed to your six tenths of one percent.........because
you know how to take advantage of odds)
Shooter rolls a 4 and they pay you $5 for your Pass line and $20 for your
odds bet. You collect $25 for your six tenths of one percent wager.
The dealer [pays me 9-5 for each of my three bets and I collect $27. Isn;t
that odd?..... I got more than you whille fighting a vig of more than 10
times of what you had.................the amount of odds the casino lets you
take behing that number..................will never give you more money if
they allow you 10 times odds and I buy the 4 for 5%
You will say you have a 8-4 edge on the come out with the 7-11 vs
craps................But, go a step further, where by the average number of
numbers thrown by the shooter after the point is set and until completion of
that game is ...........THREE
You are locked while I can remove my place bets any time I want.
You still think odds are the second coming?????????????????
>Did I say "the last bet you will ->ever<- make"? Yes, I did. Waiting
>for a decision on the flat bet before making another bet is no different
>from going to another table and making a bet while that first bet is
>still in action. The possible outcomes are different because hedging is
>eliminated, but the dilution effect is still there. The player is at
>the same disadvantage making a bet at one table as he/she is making the
>same bet at any other table.
>
>Speaking of hedging, I can think of one special case: something somebody
Van................et tu Brutus???????????/ I expected a little more out
of someone with your class..............what's the matter with you
people.........don't know people names?????????
In case your memory has slipped ......I said you were booking the house when
you established that $10 no 6 or no 8 and by placing the 6 or 8 for
$6.......you are booking the house ........AT THAT EXACT
MOMENT.................and IF you understood or took the time to understand
the RICHOCHET system..........you understand that the 7-11 does not beat you
on the come out and the lay bet protects the bet in the DC to establish your
dominant.......and IF that dominant is a no 6 or 8........it was established
without the worry of a 7-1 and IF that don't bettor (me and my name is JOHN
PATRICK) wanted to place that 6 or 8.......he would be booking the
house...........so go explain that to your box person and maybe one of you
would grasp it.........you're booking the house, Van..........work it out
>called "booking the house" in a thread a while back. In case you're not
>familiar with the method ;-) an example would be placing the 8 for $6
>after going behind 8 with a $10 flat Don't. Possible outcomes: win $4
>if the 8 misses, lose $3 if the 8 makes. On the surface it appears that
>by hedging the player will be paid 4:3 on a bet on which the player has
>a 6:5 advantage.
>
>Wow! If the player can get paid 4:3 then, let's see, that player should
>be paid $13 and change for the $10 flat if the 8 misses, right? What's
>that, Boxperson? You say you're going to pay ony $4? Oh, yeah, the
>Place Bet diluted the flat bet on which the player had an advantage, and
>hence the payoff was also diluted.
Wow.........the player does get paid $4-$3 and the chances are 6-5 in his
favor (the chances of making a 7 vs the 6 (or 8). Yeah....work it out
>
>OK, now that we've laid this dilution idea to rest (yeah, right), should
The dilution was negated by the process I explained to you........(no,
wrong) you just didn't understand it
>we lay odds or not? I'm in the "it depends" camp. An adequately funded
>risk taker can't do better than allocate as much of his/her bankroll to
>odds as feasible. Other players who have smaller bankrolls or who value
>table time above profit should take your advice and lay off laying odds.
>And then there's all that room in between. My disagreement with your
>advice is that you said, "Don't ->ever<- lay odds."
There, even you qualify your advice with .............."an adequately funded
risk taker"...............don't you people ever go to a casino.......don't
you ever check the small Bankrolls that many people are forced (thru
economic situations) to work with. Giving them high goals based on long
range analysis will hurt these people becasue they are not adequately
funded.......and those people have to be taken into consideration
OK OK..........................I DID SAY................ DON'T EVER LAY
ODDS..........and I have to admit I could be wrong lumping everyone,
regardless of Bankroll........into that same category.
So I will apologize to the ng for erroneously saying
that...............because the larger heeled player can have reasons for
doing just that
I myself will NEVER lay odds for the reasons given and I hope that the
shorter funded players will take my advice........because believe me, you're
leaving yourself open for disaster
To the others...........those with higher Bankrolls, just think for a second
about laying odds ........it is MY opinion that it is wrong........but the
math people have laid out a sensible reason for doing so.............you
decide for yourself.................JOHN PATRICK
Michael
"John L. Patrick" wrote:
> Michael
>
> Good message..........very clear and simple to understand. It still answer
> the question because we're talking a $1 table but from a math
> standpoint.....you made an excellent point
>
> However, a few comments below
> Michael wrote in message <388CDC50...@yahoo.com>...
>
{snip material from previous post...}
>
>
> Michael.........you passed right over the example I gave about two players
> betting don't and one laid odds .........reducing the value of that original
> Don't bet, where he was risking $5 to win $5 and by laying $10 odds to win
> an additional $5.......he put himself in a position of risking $15 to win
> $10, when he WAS in a position of risking $5 to win $5.............why do
> you wanna give back the edge garnered by establishing that don't
>
I don't believe I passed over your example concerning John and Mike, with John
betting $5 on the don't pass, laying no odds and Mike betting $1 on the line,
laying odds. In my remarks concerning that specific example, I gave the
following results (among others):
1. John loses $20 more than Mike on the come-out decisions.
2. John wins $18.04 (on average) than Mike on the don't decisions after the
come-out.
John is still down nearly $2 versus Mike when the total bet is considered.
The only way to consistently obtain a bet on the don't after the come out is to
make one on the come-out. What you lose on the come-out exceeds what you win on
the points don'ting out. In the case of John, he loses a total of $25 on the
come out and wins $22.56 (on average) when the points don't out. By decreasing
the amount bet on the don't line, we can decrease the amount lost. We then need
less "luck" to overcome the expected loss to put us in the winner's column.
After the come out, you're in a good position: you get paid even money on a bet
that, at that point, has a better than even chance of winning. But you cannot
ignore how much it cost you to get into that position. In the case of John, it
cost him $20 to get in a position to win $18.04. In the case of Mike, it cost $5
to get into a position to win $4.52. Neither is a favorable trade, but Mike
loses the less in terms of dollars.
Ok, why lay odds on the don't? The reason is that we do not want to put the
money at risk on the come out, where the don't line bet essentially gets
clobbered (it loses 8 of the 11 come out decisions, and the don't wins after a
point is established do not make up for this--see the calcualtion above). When
we bet more on the come out, we are exposing more of our money to the house
advantage on the come out (and the entire bet). You ask why we want to "give
back an edge garnered by establisheing that don't." The reason is: (a) the price
of establishing the don't is greater than the advantage we have once it is
established (see calculation above) and (b) it enables us to bet an amount of
money that enables us to reach reasonable win goals. We can win more when we
win and lose less when we lose by putting the least amount of money possible on
the line (compatible with our win goals, etc.).
Generally speaking, when we make a bet at the craps table, we do one of three
things;
1. increase the amount of money exposed to the house edge (betting more on the
line than you might otherwise, making simultaneous pass/don't bets).
2. increase the house advantage for all our combined bets (place betting,
proposition betting, etc.)
3. both of the above (starting with a line bet this will generally be the case,
except in one instance).
All three of these things put the player at a greater risk. The primary
exception to the above is the odds bet. By shifting money from the line to the
odds bet, we can:
1. Increase the amount bet, and therefore the variance, without increasing the
money exposed to the house edge.
2. Increase the amount bet while decreasing the weighted average for all our
combined bets.
Both these things are good for the player.
Suppose our player brings $300 to the table and decides that he's willing to
risk about $10/decision playing the don't, with a win goal of $50 and a stop
loss of $150. The player then has a decision to make. Shall he bet the $10 all
on the don't line, laying no odds, or shall he bet $5 on the line with $6 odds?
The mathematics, simulations and analysis of actual play results all show that
(a) he has a better chance to reach his win goal by laying odds and (b) his
chance of hitting his stop loss is less by laying odds over a given playing
time.
Now, suppose our player, having read my posts :-), decides to lay the odds. He
puts his $5 on the line and a point is established. Now, he thinks, I have a big
advantage and (remembering your posts as well), he starts thinking "why should I
dilute my advantage--I already have a nice edge, why muck it up with the odds
bet?" Part of the reason is that it will be easier for him to achieve his win
goal with $10 bets than $5 bets. If he only bets $5 on the line, he needs to
win 10X his bet size to achieve his win goal--he needs to win ten more bets than
he loses. This is hardly impossible, by slightly on the unlikely side. If he had
bet $10 on the line to start with, he would have need to win 5 more bets than he
lost; but, in that case, he is exposing more of his money to the house edge, and
the cost to the player of putting that extra $5 on the line is not compensated
by the extra point wins. By laying odds, the player is able to bet more money
without either (a) increasing the amont of money exposed to the house edge or
(b) increasing the weighted house advantage on all the combined bets. Betting
more money increases variance and makes it more likely that he'll reach his win
goal without the drawbacks of just betting more money on the line.
In this discussion, I'm talking about shifting money from the don't line to the
odds. The amount of money you can bet relative to your bankroll depends on your
playing goals, and different people have very different goals. Someone who goes
to Vegas once a year might be willing to play with a higher risk of ruin (and
bet bigger units) than someone visiting the casino on a weekly basis. Once the
bet size is established and you've decided to go with line bets, we can then
ask: how much should I bet on the line and how much on odds to maximize my
chance of winning?
> And since you used the example of the $1 table................where outside
> of Vegas can a short bankrolled player find a $1 or $2 table??..........All
> craps players in AC would be eliminated........its hard enough to find a $5
> table , especially on week ends and even $10 tables are crowded with people
> having to play there with short bankrolls.........just to play
>
I believe the example was yours. However, if one's bankroll size, the available
table limits and one's playing goals allow only table minimum bets on the line
with no odds, then obviously taking odds is not available to you. Laying odds
may increase the risk of ruin for a short bankrolled player over your playing
time, stop wins, etc. beyond what he may want (which again is a playing goal;
for some risk of ruin might be a less important factor than others). Many
players do play Vegas where low minimum tables are easily found. Some of the
posts here have indicated low minimum tables in other parts of the country (I
don't know--I play Vegas). If a player shows up with a $100 at a $10 table in
AC, he may well find that laying the odds will increase the risk of ruin beyond
what he is will to tolerate relative to how long he wishes to play and other
considerations. Many players, however, do have sufficent bankrolls to support
laying odds--do you advise such players not to lay odds because some other
players may not have the bankroll for it?
> A $5 bettor , taking double odds has to risk approximately $17 to $25 to
> take advantagge of this so called vig reduction. Three losses in a row and
> he is out approx. $55 (give or take a few dollars).........The straight
> don't player would be out $15
>
If he's a $5 player, playing at a $5 table, he may not have the bankroll to lay
the odds without increasing his risk of ruin beyond what he wants. Others may
have the bankroll; if the player does have the bankroll, what is your advise to
him--lay odds or not? Remember, in this discussion I'm considering the effect of
moving money from the line to the odds, not just adding money to the odds. How
much you want to risk on a per bet basis can be determined by your bankroll,
session length, tolerance for ruin, and perhaps some other things. Once you know
these things, a bet size relative to your bankroll can be determined--that kind
of calculation isn't guesswork. Once you know your bet size, you then have to
decide how to divide it up: lay the odds or not. If your bet size is determined
to be the table minimum, then laying odds won't be for you without adjusting
some of the parameters on which the bet size was based.
>
> You put too much emphasis on the reduction of vig, and completely over look
> the REALITY of gambling...........people do not have the funds to put small
> bets on the Don't Pass and lay 3-5-10 time odds.
>
Some do, some don't. Most of the reduction in house edge for the combined bet
comes from single odds, so players needn't take 3-5-10 times odds to get most of
the benefit.
>
> I am more interested in warning these people to stick strictly to the Don't
> Pass and no odds...........because I know a short losing streak wipes them
> out.
>
This again is a bankroll, table minimum, issue, and the reason won't apply to
everyone. It's better to calculate what the bet size should be for a given risk
of ruin, bankroll, bet size, session length, etc. The player can then decide
whether he wants to play with a 10%, 20% or whatever risk of losing his session
stake, with various possible upside outcomes. We then want to make the bets
requiring the least postive variance to achieve the desired results. These
decisions cannot be made in a vacuum, and there is just no "one size fits all"
answer to the question of "how much should I bet?" or "What risk of ruin should
I tolerate?"
>
> Finally I personally play the Richochet where the 7 NEVER can beat
> me.......and have been imploring people for years to do it. (again the
> laying of $41 and $31 causes them to back off). Sooooooooooo I tell the to
> play the Patrick System (doey/don't ) and get railed for it............yet
> it completely eliminates the 7 from beating the player on the don't
> side...........and was it not you who proclaimed 22% house edge vs the don't
> player on the DP?
No, I never said the house enjoys a 22% advantage on the don't pass in its
entirety. On the come out, the don't player will lose 8 of the 36 rolls, or
22.2%, of the come out rolls. I don't think I posted that number previously,
either. He'll win 3 of 36 or 8.3%. You can make lay bets/place bets, etc.
arranged in such a fashion that you can just pick whatever number to beat you
that you want. Suppose, for instance, that one wants to be beaten only by the
ten. Then lay the ten with sufficient funds to cover losses on the other bets no
matter what number (other than the ten) that comes up. The seven won't beat you
because of the lay bet. You can do this kind of move for any of the numbers: the
problem is, that come will come up often enough to bring you near the expected
value over sufficient trials.
>
>
> So what do you people want...........fight the 7 or get away from fighting
> that come out 7..........you gotta make one choice.
>
The don't player can get away from fighting the seven by minimizing his line bet
and keeping most of what he intended for the bet for the odds. When the come out
seven rolls, he won't lose much, because he hasn't bet much. Most of the
winnings, in terms of dollars, will come from the odds bet.
>
> I am still vehemently opposed to laying odds but still commend you on an
> excellent explanation of people who desire to risk X number of dollars and
> your idea as to what is MATHEMATICALLY correct (although not logically
> correct IMHO)................JOHN PATRICK
>
Thank you, and it's fine to be opposed to laying odds. If for your session
bankroll, your bet size relative to your session bankroll, your session length,
etc. implies too high a risk of ruin for you on the session (if the risk of ruin
really is higher), or for the people you are writing to in your books, you don't
have to lay odds. Just recognize that how much money such a playing style is
costing. For such people who want to play the game, the price of admission is
higher than those able to lay odds on the don't. There are other styles of play.
Some who post to this group make extremely high vig bets because of their very
high variance and the associated chance of a big win. Parlaying hardways is one
such system. Recognize, however, that your considerations (small bankroll, etc.)
won't apply to everyone. Some have sufficient bankrolls to lay odds, or are more
tolerant of higher risks of ruin for a session.
Regards,
Michael
John L. Patrick
Ken
I just gotta make a small comment here.........not to criticize but to
comment........see below
Ken Cross wrote in message <86mld...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>Q2:
>
>It's strange -- I feel just the opposite. 4/10 odds seem very expensive to
>me, while 6/8 odds are close to an even payout, so seem "cheap".
>
>Regardless, I always take single odds for any number. But I'm more nervous
>about laying out that much on 4/10 and getting such a small return, even
>though I get the return much more often.
THIS is what I'm trying to say...........even you admit that it seems a
little scary laying that much money......even on a "hard to make 4 or 10"
If you believed it was such a good bet you would be laying all the odds you
could.
There are many people with probably smaller bankrolls than you who THINK it
is supposed to be done......so they lay the odds with short bankrolls
Both you and Q2 indicate a scary position in laying odds.......yet you do it
because mathematically it is correct
I thinkpersonal Bankrolls should have a bigger say in the
decision.............JOHN PATRICK
>
>I guess it's all in the mind of the beholder...
>
>Ken
>
>
><quan...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:10111-38...@storefull-287.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> I'm not gonna quote here, due to all the pro and con going on. IMHO, and
>> as a player that is Not afraid to play the Dark side, it just seems [ as
>> has already been stated ] It depends.
>> I have a problem with odds on 6 or 8. The maths been done, so enough of
>> that. 5 & 9, maybe, again depending. Now 4 & 10, thats a little
>> different story. If that is the point [ 4 or 10 ] your on some decent
>> ground there.
>> J.P. seems to say he favors the DC, I do to.
>> A Small [ where's it written you Gotta take Full ] odds bet against 4 or
>> 10 is to My liking.
>> Thats my $0.02 worth.
>>
>> Q2
>>
>
>
John L. Patrick
My sincere apologies for being tardy (that means late) in replying to your
post.............but I had to find out how to intelligently respond to a
post written by (obviously) a 7 year old
Again I ran over to the local grammar school and talked with the third grad
teacher , showing her your post............She corrected me and said it
looked like the doodlings of a 9 year old but that I could sit in the 4 th
grad class room for awhile and learn how to adapt my messages to a person of
this intelligence level.
She warned against my dropping to the level of such a person and cited that
she has ample opportunity every day to want to rant and rave at their
level..........but told me to just realize what type person I was dealing
with
So, Hal......let me try to get to your level and reply to your
post..........
HAL wrote in message <86m1m8$l9i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>Having shown what an idiot John Patrick was over on r.g.bj, I guess I
>need to clean house here in the craps world. All quotes are from
>J. Patrick:
I didn't realize I was an idiot, Hal, in the weeks spent there.............I
admit it was spirited at times........but the people I mostly corresponded
with never called me that name............I was under the impression that I
was explaining my Theories and they were explaining why they felt I was
wrong
>> There is a thread developing that contends that you should lay odds vs
>> the don't number and that is erroneous information ..............FROM
>A
>> GAMBLING STANDPOINT
>
>So from what kind of a standpoint IS it correct information? Craps and
>laying odds ARE gambling. And from a gambling standpoint Patrick is
>dead wrong.
No, Hal, I am not dead wrong...........and why did you cut off the whole
explanation..............you merely took out the part you wanted to comment
on...........anyhow, you should have said :"It is MY opinion that Patrick
is dead wrong " (you would have been wrong........but that's another
story)
>
>> If Mike and John walked up to a craps table and John bet $5 Don't
>come...
>> .......and Mike bet $1 don't come (4 became the point) and Mike laid
>$8
>> odds to win $4........both would have same potential win but the risk
>by
>> John is $5 to win 5, while the risk by Mike is $9 to win $5.
>
>Since John is math impaired I will perform the same example here as I
>did
>in BJ when comparing whether to split or double two fives against a
>dealer
>six. The only math you need is to be able to add and subtract. If that
>is too much for even John then he is beyond all hope. I have pitted the
>two players above, "Mike" and "John", against each other and run a
>simulation of one hundred million games. John bets $5 on Don't and Mike
>bets $1 on Don't and always takes 4x odds. They each come to the table
>with a $200 bankroll and play 100 games per session for a million
>sessions.
Wow........a hundred million hands.. Gee, Hal, I'd be almost 73 years old
to not only play a hundred million hands...........but to have the situation
(two fives vs a dealers 5 or 6 ) come up that many times. I asked one of
the tots in the class to figure out how long it would take for that many
situations to unravel and she said roughly the year 6843, so I hope those
people get a look at your findings
>
>Here is what happened:
>
> Total no. rolls = 337609892
> Total no. games = 99999014
> Total no. points = 66672578
>
> John Mike
> ---------- ----------
> Games won = 47930144 47930144
> Games lost = 49292262 49292262
> Games tied = 2776608 2776608
> Net units = -6810590 -1367613
> Busted banks = 62 40
>
>So not only does "John" lose five times the amount of money "Mike" does,
>he also ruins his bank 50% more often. Obviously J. Patrick does not
>test his hypotheses with actual results or he would see that his advice
>makes his disciples lose 5 times more than they could. He also didn't
>test the BJ example with actual hands or he would have seen that his
>advice (split) makes his followers win 5 times less than they could (by
>doubling.)
Well, Hal, the value of the dollar in the year 6843 probably won't be the
same as today..........so you better run off a couple hundred million more
hands...............who knows those people in the year 6843, realizing JOHN
PATRICK is costing them $693 a hand on a $5 bet might get a little ticked
off at me and pour burning earl (I spell as bad as i know math, Hal) and
feathers on my grave
>
>> [Regarding putting money out on the comeout roll:]
>> ........why go and change from a winning situation, for a situation
>that
>> I truly believe doesn't give me an edge at all.
>
>You claim that you are playing a winning game and that YOU have an edge.
>This is a bald-faced lie that cannot be backed up with statistics,
>logic,
>or actual results. Explain to your students why you are a liar.
Hal,........I realize you spent a lot of time disecting my every word (many
people just hang on it).............but if you took the time to grasp what I
was saying , maybe you wouldn't be in such a hurry to mis read my message
(which of course you shortened for your purposes)............When I said I
didn't put money out on the come-out............to make my place
bets......you only read into the fact I said it was a winning game. What I
said was.......it was working for me to by-pass the come out and THEN
THEN..........THEN Hal, I would place my numbers because it was working for
me. (get it Hal, that move was working for me, so why should I
change)..............Hal, you're just gonna have to understand what I'm
saying before you go off on one of your tantrums but...........when you're 7
years old...........
I showed this to the kiddies.........you know, where you misunderstood my
message.....they giggled......thought it was cute that you missed the
point.........I giggled too.
A liar? Why would I lie to my students? you called them?..........Good
grief, I wouldn't do that ..............do you think I'd want my nose to
grow like Pinochio??
I guess you didn't read about him yet.............yeh, the teacher says the
fourth graders get that in April..By the way, the other kiddies didn't like
you calling me a liar.............I told them you were only fibbin (they
got the connection and giggled again.)
>
>> He made a great point but he was talking statistically..........I am
>> talking REALITY.
>
>So according to you statistics have no basis in reality.
I didn't say that Hal..............I said I didn't use
statistics.............I use the Reality of gambling...................you
know the BIG 4............BANKROLL, KNOWLEDGE OF THE GAME..............MONEY
MANAGEMENT ........DISCIPLINE......you know, like I put in all my
books..........surely you've read them.......how else would you have the
means to criticize my writings? (you haven't read them....tch tch
tch...........might help you understaand what gamblings all about)
>I didn't know they have Usenet access in the insane asylum.
I'm on parole.........they must have put it in in my absence
>
>> Stop with the lower risk of ruin nonsense. A don't player not laying
>odds
>> at the same table with a player laying odds and both are losing
>......has
>> less chance of ruin...........so why do you people go on with the
>double
>> talk "Less chance of ruin"......gimme a break, can't you count.
>
>Can't you count? Look at the 62 sessions (out of a million) you lost
>your whole bankroll above, versus only 40 sessions the smart bettor
>lost.
wow........62 out of a million..........I'm gonna be broke before 6843
>
>> I tell people NOT to gamble unless they are perfect.........I do NOT
>tell
>> people to gamble until they are perfect,
>
>Then why don't you take your own advice?
Because I am a perfect gambler.(grin)........just a little funnin, Hal,
just a little funnin to relieve the tension I am under.........trying to
refrain from biting my tongue
>You are so far from perfect it is a joke.
How far is that???????????
>You even admitted to the BJ folks that you were an idiot, so why don't
>you do us all a favor and get the hell out of this newsgroup also.
Now, Hal......there you go again..........telling only part of the
story..............why did I say I AM AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!! Go ahead, tell the
whole part.........or does it do your post more good to only lay out what
you want people to think. No, I ain't gonna explain it, Hal.........I'll
let you wiggle out.......you know what they say, confessions good for the
soul
You want me out of this ng ,Hal.????????????????.............Well let me
slip a little (the teacher ain't looking, I think shes putting your
classmates into their pre-nap exercises)
Several weeks ago, a jerk (and I refrain from calling people names (at least
I try to)................posted an erroneous post that I would do the
unthinkable thing such as give out both sides of a sporting event to my
members............what I considered the LOWEST, rottenest accusation anyone
could say to a person........and it stands as the lowest kick in the teeth I
was ever accused of......naturally I never would reply to him
again..........but I will repeat to you what I posted at that time
Hal............if you find two other people who want me off this ng......all
they gotta do is say so and I am gone............so if that is what you want
Hal,.......go for it.........surely you can find two other people who will
back up your request........you can count to two, can;t you Hal???????????
>
>I got some flak for spanking John out of the BJ group because the card
>counters NEED the kind of fools
....................so now there are people you call fools...........tch tch
tch Hal, you're gonna have to take a chill pill............after all, you
must be tired of ............How did you put SPANKING JOHN OUT OF THE BJ
NG???????????.................I never realized you did this
Hal...........fact is........I don't wanna bust your bubble, but I don't
even remember corresponding with you before...(sorry)
John recruits to lose more money so that
>the casinos don't put heat on those playing BlackJack.
>
>The same thing can be said for craps: if the casinos notice that all
>bettors are playing minimum on the line and taking a lot on odds then
>they may eliminate the free odds bet altogether.
>
>I think there are enough idiots out there who don't read Usenet to fuel
>the casino's coffers. And for those fortunate enough to come here to
>get advice, they should get advice that saves them money instead of the
>half-thought-out swill that Patrick passes off as his advice.
As we near the end of our little chit chat, Hal........and I better hurry
because it must be getting close to your bed time..........may I just dwell
on a statement you made or maybe I mis read it (although perfect people
don't make mistakes, do they Hal..........another fun fun, hal, don'dt spit
out your gum all over your new knickers, you'll have to stand in the corner
in school tomorrow)
You indicated something about YOU .....yes YOU, Hal being ressponsible for
getting me out of the bj newsgroup...........and that YOU had to now clean
up the craps ng.........................I almost wet my pants with that one
Hal.
As I recall, most of my conversations were with Harvey J. Cohen Phd. and
Steve Jacobs. Wilfo, Rusty, I think Abdul, Chris, Pete Moss Usenet and Q2
come to mind ..........I apologize for leaving anyone out........but I don't
recall any of those gentlemen telling me to get out..................we just
seemed to come to the end of the discussions, neither side relented and I
merely left because I felt that I was boring other readers......that's the
reason I left, Hal.......not for something some kid (excuse me) some flame
thrower hurled at me...............if I missed the post where you chased me
out..................please send it along.........I'd like to show it to the
kiddies in the 4 th grade to let them see the power one of their classmates
have............but I think you slipped a little on this one (let's call it
a little white one.........you know a little white...)
By the way, you seem entranced by associating me with the word idiot
......you know, that thing you said I made of myself over in bj ng. Tell
you what I'm gonna do Hal..........I'l give you a shot at getting me to call
myself an idiot.......you like that?
Since most of my conversation (and spirited it was) was with Harvey J. Cohen
Phd. and Steve Jacobs..........you get either one of them to say I acted
like an idiot............and whammo........I;ll call myself an idiot.
Don't forget, Hal, they don't have to say that I am an idiot.........they
merely have to say I ACTED like one..... So go ahead Hal, make your
day........get one of those two men to back up your
statement......................who knows...............maybe you won't only
have the fable to state you CHASED ME OFF THE BJ ng............you can say
you even got me to leave the craps ng.
Well, Hal.........I listened to the teacher and buried my initial impulse to
strike back at your post and tried to answer you
civilly..................but I gotta run...........because one more second
and I'm either gonna bust ........................or bite my tongue off
completely...........JOHN PATRICK
Ken Cross
> I think personal Bankrolls should have a bigger say in the
> decision.............JOHN PATRICK
Egad! We're in total agreement!
I agree completely that people who don't have the bankroll shouldn't be
placing odds. Or line bets, for that matter. In fact, I think most
everybody in the newsgroup will agree with that.
However, if you DO have sufficient bankroll, then the odds bet is the best
place to put your next bet, because the return is the best you're going to
find in the casino.
Ken
Alan Shank
> Van
> Van......lets go a step further......since YOU brought up this subject of
> odds bets and reducing house vig.
>
> You and I go to a craps table to play Do. You put $5 on the Pass Line and 4
> becomes the point...........you take double odds ($10 because you want that
> vig reduced to six tenths of one per cent and you're right....you have a
> great bet.
>
> I.......who know diddedly about vigorish place the 4 for $15.......fighting
> a vig of 6.67 (as opposed to your six tenths of one percent.........because
> you know how to take advantage of odds)
>
> Shooter rolls a 4 and they pay you $5 for your Pass line and $20 for your
> odds bet. You collect $25 for your six tenths of one percent wager.
>
> The dealer [pays me 9-5 for each of my three bets and I collect $27. Isn;t
> that odd?..... I got more than you whille fighting a vig of more than 10
> times of what you had.................the amount of odds the casino lets you
> take behing that number..................will never give you more money if
> they allow you 10 times odds and I buy the 4 for 5%
>
> You will say you have a 8-4 edge on the come out with the 7-11 vs
> craps................But, go a step further, where by the average number of
> numbers thrown by the shooter after the point is set and until completion of
> that game is ...........THREE
>
> You are locked while I can remove my place bets any time I want.
No, the odds bet can be removed at any time.
It's very easy to come up with a scenario where betting one way turns out better
than another. Here's one:
Van bets $5 on the pass line, while John Patrick waits for the comeout.
The shooter rolls a 7. Van collects $5 while John stands there. Van leaves his
$5 pass line bet.
The shooter rolls an 11. Van collects $5 while Johns stands there. Van leaves
his $5 pass line bet.
The shooter rolls a 3. Van loses his $5, while John stands there.
Van is $5 ahead (with the expected ratio of comeout winners to losers) while
John has yet to make a bet.
John Patrick keeps comparing a bet like a lay bet against a line bet AFTER a
point has been established. That's not how it works! The pass line bet, with or
without odds, must be considered in its entirety, from comeout, to point
established (33% of the time) to seven-out.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
HAL 9005
John Patrick scribbles:
> Wow........a hundred million hands.. Gee, Hal, I'd be almost 73 years old
> to not only play a hundred million hands.
Once again the idiot speaks as to his knowledge of statistics. Who ever
said the simulation was simulating a hundred million hands or decisions
one after the other? Why does your pea brain envision a lone bettor
playing out his miserable life one game after the other until he has the
hundred million?
I envision a hundred million faithful followers of guru John placing just
ONE bet. John is always talking about the gambling INSTANT instead of the
long run. Deal with this one instant experienced by millions of followers.
How do these 100 million who bet $5 on Don't-come fare with the 100
million who bet $1 on the same but laid 4x odds? I ran another sim:
Total no. rolls = 337587722
Total no. games = 100000000
Total no. points = 66667975
John bettor Smart bettor
----------- ------------
Games won = 47929994 47929994
Games lost = 49292538 49292538
Games tied = 2777468 2777468
Net units = -6812720 -1365794
So let's say John is very generous to his students and gives each one
$5 to play that ONE game, and then they give the winnings back to John.
After shelling out $500 million he gets back all but $6.8 million (which
is nothing compared to the billions he got initially by fleecing these
people of their money.) Now I, being philanthropic, give those same
people $1 plus any extra needed to lay 4 times odds should a point be
rolled on ONE more game. I may have to come up with more than $500
million to cover the odds, but after the winnings come back to me I get
it all back minus $1.4 million. If I had taken John's advice it would
have cost me FIVE TIMES more money. And that is John's honest advice
that the casino's can take to the bank!
>> Can't you count? Look at the 62 sessions (out of a million) you lost
>> your whole bankroll above, versus only 40 sessions the smart bettor
>> lost.
>
> wow........62 out of a million..........I'm gonna be broke before 6843.
Once again John misses the point. His argument was that his way provided
for a REDUCED chance of ruin. I showed that his way actually DOUBLES the
chance of ruin (no matter how small it may be in this instance.)
So what is it, John? Are you still going to lie to your followers by
telling them your advice is safer to their bankrolls?
> How did you put SPANKING JOHN OUT OF THE BJ NG???????????.............
> ....I never realized you did this Hal...........fact is........I don't
> wanna bust your bubble, but I don't even remember corresponding with
> you before...(sorry)
Well fortunately the memory on Deja.com is a lot better than yours. As I
remember, someone called you an idiot and you said that if just one more
person called you that then you would admit it to the world. So I called
your bluff, you kept your word and told the truth for once -- that indeed
you ARE an idiot. Soon after that you stopped posting to the newsgroup
leaving all those people wondering how you justify telling people to
essentially throw away more of their gambling dollars.
> You wanna lay odds........go ahead.......I find that most people don't
> have the capital to do it..........and I will continue to try and set
> them straight.
You think most people making $5 bets don't even have a $200 bankroll?
No matter what a person's bankroll is, playing your way (without odds)
will cost them more money (FIVE TIMES MORE) than my way. And they will
bust their bankroll more often playing your way than mine, regardless
of the size of that bankroll. Since this is a fact, when you say you
will continue to try to set them straight you are admitting that you
are telling them a lie and that you don't care about the truth.
This doesn't surprise me given how dishonest you are, but I just thought
the others who pass by this newsgroup deserve to be told the truth and
whom they should distrust.
> Hal.......if you find two other people who want me off this ng......all
> they gotta do is say so and I am gone............so if that is what you
> want Hal,.......go for it.........surely you can find two other people
> who will back up your request........you can count to two, can;t you Hal??
I am not in the business of recruiting people -- that is your scam. If
people want to come forward let them. If you stick around, I'm not going
to let you get away with lying. Most people don't have much of a clue
about craps and come here for help. So if you are going to continue to
help them (by helping them give more money to the casinos) then don't
expect people to blindly accept your nonsense as the truth.
> Well, Hal.........I listened to the teacher and buried my initial impulse
> to strike back at your post and tried to answer you civilly........but I
> gotta run...........because one more second and I'm either gonna bust ...
> ................or bite my tongue off completely...........JOHN PATRICK
Well, who is the one acting like a 3rd grader? It must be you since
that is the level of your math and logic skills. Go back to your teacher
and reenroll in class along with the other 8 year olds.
Charles Duncan
question, the two bets that worked great for me were:
(1) The Ricochet (taking no odds - lay bet only to protect your Don't
Come)
(2) $44 Inside by John Patrick (come down to $6 ea. 6-8 after first hit)
The Midnight Skulker
> >combination of a flat Don't and its odds are one bet, and that by
> >laying odds you have diluted your advantage. (You may want to hold
> >your applause because I'm not done yet.)
>
> .........laying out the carrot while holding the meat cleaver.
Truth to tell, I wasn't expecting any. My point, of course, was that
laying odds is a good thing to do even if one considers it as a part of
an established flat Don't. The big "but" with combining the flat and
the odds is that then one must also combine the flat with all bets that
a player will ever make in the future, and evaluate the expected change
in the player's position.
> Hold the phone, Van, you can't skip over it that quickly..........
> "SINCE THE PLAYER IS AT DISADVANTAGE WHEN HE OR SHE PLACES ANY BET...
> ........LAYING ODDS WILL PRODUCE THE MINIMUM DILUTION................
> ................."
>
> Come on look what you're saying sounds good in a sentence but look at
> the REALITY of it all. There is no bet on that table Pass or Don't
> Pass where your great odds bet can be made on its own................
> ......The casino allows you to make that odds bet to dilute.....as
> you say...........the edge that the house has on the Pass or Don't
> Pass............................>but the laying of odds may
> mathematically reduce your figures, but they demand that you lay
> proper odds and get paid proper pay-offs..........ONLY because the
> bite on the original bet is so great for them
>
> And they don't let you make odds or take odds bets unless you play
> the line (do or don't)
They don't book no-field bets, either. So? These are known constraints
of the game, ones that must be considered at each decision point.
> So you may like the reducing of vig from 1.41 to eight tenths of one
> per cent............but you also gotta lay out extra money...........
> ..WHICH AFTER THE DON'T HAS BEATEN THAT COME OUT..........lessens the
> value of that first bet.
And your point is? I made the decision to accept a .8% house advantage
rather than 1.41% when I made my flat bet and withheld the amount I
anticipated using for odds.
Remember, we are considering bets in combination here. Hence, we must
consider the player's position at the time he/she is about to make a
bet, and evaluate the expected change in position that bet will bring
about. At the time a player decides whether or not to lay odds he/she
has an advantage on a flat Don't. Laying odds ->or making any other
bet<- will dilute that advantage. The question, then, is what bet can
the player make now that will dilute his/her advantage the least?
> Van......lets go a step further......since YOU brought up this
> subject of odds bets and reducing house vig.
>
> You and I go to a craps table to play Do.
I am constrained to point out that heretofore we have been discussing
the diltuion effect laying odds alledgely has on the Dont', but no
matter.
> You put $5 on the Pass Line and 4 becomes the point...........you
> take double odds ($10 because you want that vig reduced to six
> tenths of one per cent and you're right....you have a great bet.
>
> I.......who know diddedly about vigorish place the 4 for $15.......
> fighting a vig of 6.67 (as opposed to your six tenths of one percent
> .........because you know how to take advantage of odds)
>
> Shooter rolls a 4 and they pay you $5 for your Pass line and $20 for
> your odds bet. You collect $25 for your six tenths of one percent
> wager.
>
> The dealer [pays me 9-5 for each of my three bets and I collect $27.
> Isn;t that odd?..... I got more than you whille fighting a vig of
> more than 10 times of what you had.................the amount of odds
> the casino lets you take behing that number..................will
> never give you more money if they allow you 10 times odds and I buy
> the 4 for 5%
Can I take 20x odds ($100) while you buy the 4 for $105? Now I get paid
$205, which is what you net after paying the 5% vig. (I of course am
assuming buy bet vig. is charged only on a win so that we have the same
amount at risk.)
> You will say you have a 8-4 edge on the come out with the 7-11 vs
> craps................But, go a step further, where by the average
> number of numbers thrown by the shooter after the point is set and
> until completion of that game is ...........THREE
>
> You are locked while I can remove my place bets any time I want.
And I can remove my odds at will also.
> You still think odds are the second coming?????????????????
No, merely an oasis in the middle of the desert. A wanderer will not
die from dehydration, but he/she is still in the middle of the desert.
Even though you put me in a hole by waiting until I had a Pass Line bet
established on 4 before putting any of your money at risk, I was able to
make up the deficit by taking enough odds.
I was going to wait until the end to bring up this next point, but now
seems like an appropriate time since you will surely do so yourself (if
you haven't already) in your response. To pull even with your place bet
I had to put at risk on a single decision a significant portion of most
players' bankroll. If I am in that majority, and if I have any desire
to continue playing for any length of time, then taking 20x odds is,
well, at odds with my goals for the session and is, therefore, a
questionable play at best. More on this later.
> >Speaking of hedging, I can think of one special case: something
> >somebody called "booking the house" in a thread a while back. In
> >case you're not familiar with the method ;-) an example would be
> >placing the 8 for $6 after going behind 8 with a $10 flat Don't.
> >Possible outcomes: win $4 if the 8 misses, lose $3 if the 8 makes.
> >On the surface it appears that by hedging the player will be paid
> >4:3 on a bet on which the player has a 6:5 advantage.
>
> Van................et tu Brutus???????????/ I expected a little
> more out of someone with your class..............what's the matter
> with you people.........don't know people names?????????
It seems the winking smiley was insufficient to identify my anonymous
attribution as an attempt to inject some humor into this discussion.
Of course I know your name, and of course I know "booking the house" is
a concept of yours. I meant no disrespect, and I point to my history of
postings to this forum as evidence that I have no meat cleaver in hand
when I say that. Tell you what: as retribution you are feel free to
refer to me as "that guy who needs his clock cleaned".
> In case your memory has slipped ......I said you were booking the
> house when you established that $10 no 6 or no 8 and by placing the 6
> or 8 for $6.......you are booking the house ........AT THAT EXACT
> MOMENT.................
My memory is fine, but I thank you for confirming it. Now I ask you to
recall our discussion of this situation last April. I threw no stones
at the method, and in fact I believe I agreed that by reducing variance
it had its appeal for players wishing to stabilize table time. What I
and others pointed out, however, was that this reduction in variance
came at a cost in expected value.
> and IF you understood or took the time to understand the RICHOCHET
> system..........
I must admit you have the advantage of me there. All I know about the
RICHOCHET system is what you and others have posted to this newsgroup.
Good thing for me the subject of this thread is "DON'T LAY ODDS" and not
"The RICHOCHET system", eh?
> you understand that the 7-11 does not beat you on the come out and
> the lay bet protects the bet in the DC to establish your dominant....
> ...and IF that dominant is a no 6 or 8........it was established
> without the worry of a 7-1 and IF that don't bettor (me and my name
> is JOHN PATRICK) wanted to place that 6 or 8.......he would be
> booking the house...........so go explain that to your box person and
> maybe one of you would grasp it.........you're booking the house, Van
> ..........work it out
>
> Wow.........the player does get paid $4-$3 and the chances are 6-5 in
> his favor (the chances of making a 7 vs the 6 (or 8). Yeah....work
> it out
Been there, done that. Whether or not you're "booking the house" is not
the issue here, JOHN PATRICK. Since you coined the phrase I have to
assume it applies to this situation. My point was that this example
recognizes only the remaining $3 (net) at risk while ignoring the other
$7 on which the player has given up a 6:5 advantage on an even money
bet. The overall advantage has therefore been diluted.
> The dilution was negated by the process I explained to you........
> (no, wrong) you just didn't understand it
That process would be the RICHOCHET system? I was hoping to avoid this
tangent. Well, here goes, based on my possibly incomplete knowledge of
that method. I hope you don't mind if I double the stakes to avoid
partial vig. on the lay bet. I am also going to assume lay bet vig. is
collected only after a win, which is to your advantage.
Step 1: wait for the shooter to establish a point. Of the twenty-four
possible outcomes there are three each 4/10, four each 5/9, and five
each 6/8. With no money at risk we cannot win or lose anything.
Step 2: lay the point to win $20 and bet $20 DC. Of the 36 possible
outcomes three win the DC outright, one bar (2 or 12) is a wash, six 7s
are washes but lose the lay vig., two 11s lose the DC, the line point
(three, four, or five chances) lose the lay, and the rest (nineteen,
twenty, or twenty-one depending on the line point) establish a DC point.
Step 3 (if required): take down the lay and wait for the DC to be
resolved. If we get to this step we have the opportunity to book the
house.
The calculations get a little messy (not to mention boring), but I get
an absolute expected value of -$0.44 per cycle (compared to -$0.28 for a
straight $20 Don't). The killer, of course, is having the line point
make on the turn: this snuffs the lay bet, which guarantees a loss, and
you're still not a cinch on the DC. I leave it to the less challenged
numerically to figure out a percentage EV (and I would welcome a check
of the absolute value as well); because of the variable and transient
lay bet that calculation is beyond me. Nevertheless, I would hazard the
guess that it is in the neighborhood of an extra percentage point.
So, JOHN PATRICK, unless I have completely miscalculated, certainly a
possibility, it appears that the advantage you have on that Don't bet
which you established without risking a comeout 7 has been "pre-diluted"
by your lay bet. Losing the lay bet, although it is a less frequent
occurrence than a comeout 7, more than offsets the protection it affords
from that 7 because of the bigger loss, not surprising since we know the
lay bet carries a higher house advantage than a DC. (I reiterate,
though, that my calculations are subject to verification. Just in case,
anybody know where I can pick up an inexpensive crow?)
Meanwhile, back on the topic, ...
> >An adequately funded risk taker can't do better than allocate as
> >much of his/her bankroll to odds as feasible. Other players who
> >have smaller bankrolls or who value table time above profit should
> >take your advice and lay off laying odds. And then there's all that
> >room in between. My disagreement with your advice is that you said,
> >"Don't ->ever<- lay odds."
>
> There, even you qualify your advice with .............."an adequately
> funded risk taker"...............don't you people ever go to a casino
> .......don't you ever check the small Bankrolls that many people are
> forced (thru economic situations) to work with. Giving them high
> goals based on long range analysis will hurt these people becasue
> they are not adequately funded.......and those people have to be
> taken into consideration
>
> OK OK..........................I DID SAY................ DON'T
> EVER LAY ODDS..........and I have to admit I could be wrong lumping
> everyone, regardless of Bankroll........into that same category.
>
> So I will apologize to the ng for erroneously saying that............
> ...because the larger heeled player can have reasons for doing just
> that
Well, well. We agree after all. None other than the oft-quoted Al
Krigman has said (on his web site I think) that a majority of players
set too lofty a win goal for their bankrolls. I would guess that almost
as many players overbet their bankrolls pursuing those lofty goals. To
lay odds in addition to overbetting with too high a win goal invites,
perhaps almost assures, ruin. Nevertheless, if a quick exit in a blaze
of glory is acceptable to a player, taking or laying odds is still the
best bet in the house.
> I myself will NEVER lay odds for the reasons given and I hope that
> the shorter funded players will take my advice........because believe
> me, you're leaving yourself open for disaster
Again we agree. A point of 4 is supposed to make one time in three.
The worst that can happen to the front-side player is to lose all three
bets, one more loss than expected. With double odds that is nine units.
The worst a dark-sider can do is also to lose all three bets, but that
is ->two<- more losses than expected, and with double odds adds up to
fifteen units. With more room on the down side and having to ->lay<-
the odds, dark side disasters can indeed achieve nuclear proportions.
> To the others...........those with higher Bankrolls, just think for a
> second about laying odds ........it is MY opinion that it is wrong...
> .....but the math people have laid out a sensible reason for doing so
> .............you decide for yourself.................JOHN PATRICK
And that, JOHN PATRICK, is the best advice I have ever heard you give,
and if memory serves, I believe it matches what your friends and foes
alike have been saying. "It depends."
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van_...@mk.com
a.k.a. The Guy Who Needs
6 His Clock Cleaned
John Sorrentino
> > ........why go and change from a winning situation, for a situation
> that
> > I truly believe doesn't give me an edge at all.
>
> You claim that you are playing a winning game and that YOU have an edge.
> This is a bald-faced lie that cannot be backed up with statistics,
> logic,
> or actual results. Explain to your students why you are a liar.
In defense of Mr. Patrick, he did not in any way claim that craps
was a winning game, i.e., one that favors the player. He only stated
that in this *situation* -- when you have a Don't Pass bet and a point
is established -- the odds of you winning that particular bet are now in
your favor. In a way, it's kind of like you already won -- percentagewise,
not dollarwise -- by beating the come out 7/11.
Incidentally, I don't personally agree with Mr. Patrick on not laying odds
on the Don't Pass. But I do respect his opinions, agree with his overall
conservative gambling philosophy, and believe he is well-intentioned.
Calling him a liar and questioning his motivations is way over the top.
-js
John L. Patrick
Excellent response............I love the way certain people have the ability
to intelligently get their point across to me in such a way that I have no
retort............even though I vehemently disagree with their thinkings.
Over on the BJ ng I was in long exchanges with Dr. Harvey Cohen and Steve
Jacobs and they too had the ability to respond like gentlemen like you, Mike
Berlyn and several others do.............and leave me grasping for straws.
Well, now that I've commended you for an informative post, let me close my
thoughts on this subject with just a couple of comments.............mostly
chewing on the crow, that you mentioned
The Midnight Skulker wrote in message <3891F760...@mk.com>...
No......the field bet operates strictly on its own..........it is not two
separate bets like a Don't Pass Bet..........THEN an odds bet. As good as
the odds bet in itself is............it NEEDS the sting of the betting of
the Don't Pass Line to allow this odds bet.
>
>> So you may like the reducing of vig from 1.41 to eight tenths of one
>> per cent............but you also gotta lay out extra money...........
>> ..WHICH AFTER THE DON'T HAS BEATEN THAT COME OUT..........lessens the
>> value of that first bet.
>
>And your point is? I made the decision to accept a .8% house advantage
>rather than 1.41% when I made my flat bet and withheld the amount I
>anticipated using for odds.
Ah!!!!!!!, but you are not taking into consideration that the lower heeled
playerafter getting past that come out...........now has the casino (I'm
dying to say we are now booking the house, but I won't). in a backed against
the wall situation....................and many players also lack funds to
lay proper odds.
>Remember, we are considering bets in combination here. Hence, we must
>consider the player's position at the time he/she is about to make a
>bet, and evaluate the expected change in position that bet will bring
>about. At the time a player decides whether or not to lay odds he/she
>has an advantage on a flat Don't. Laying odds ->or making any other
>bet<- will dilute that advantage. The question, then, is what bet can
>the player make now that will dilute his/her advantage the least?
..............But if you opt to dilute the bet by taking odds you cause
player to lay out extra funds........that he/she may be unable to cope with
(this is NOT an isolated situation)
Yes you can...........and that will bring you back to the situation of
booking the house (darn, I didn't wanna say that) ......because you already
beat the come out...............
I leaped before I read.............I surely don't mind the obnoxious posts
from those of lesser intelligence ............but from you, Jacobs, Cohen
and several others, I am surprised when they slip.............believe me , I
give enough flak, so am not against receiving it, unless from certain people
who I REALLY do respect. Enough of that.....I was out of line missing the
smiley face...............
>
>> In case your memory has slipped ......I said you were booking the
>> house when you established that $10 no 6 or no 8 and by placing the 6
>> or 8 for $6.......you are booking the house ........AT THAT EXACT
>> MOMENT.................
>
>My memory is fine, but I thank you for confirming it. Now I ask you to
>recall our discussion of this situation last April. I threw no stones
>at the method, and in fact I believe I agreed that by reducing variance
>it had its appeal for players wishing to stabilize table time. What I
>and others pointed out, however, was that this reduction in variance
>came at a cost in expected value.
Yes, I do remember those posts and if you recall, I did not respond to them
because you were right on the mmoney
>
>> and IF you understood or took the time to understand the RICHOCHET
>> system..........
>
>I must admit you have the advantage of me there. All I know about the
>RICHOCHET system is what you and others have posted to this newsgroup.
>Good thing for me the subject of this thread is "DON'T LAY ODDS" and not
>"The RICHOCHET system", eh?
RICHOCHET is for another time and place...........but it is a fabulous move
whereby the 7 NEVER again can hurt the don't bettor..........nor can the 11
on any subsequent Don't come move..........grreat play IIDSSM
Yes, we're booking the house eventually..........but to take it a step
further (RICHOCHET)...........after point is established the lay does not
necessarily have to be against the point........it could be vs the 4-5-9 or
10.......leaving the Don't bettor fighting the hard to make numbers as his
protection bet.........just as I implore the right bettors to allow the 6
and 8 to always be included in their right betting moves
>
>The calculations get a little messy (not to mention boring), but I get
>an absolute expected value of -$0.44 per cycle (compared to -$0.28 for a
>straight $20 Don't). The killer, of course, is having the line point
>make on the turn: this snuffs the lay bet, which guarantees a loss, and
>you're still not a cinch on the DC. I leave it to the less challenged
>numerically to figure out a percentage EV (and I would welcome a check
>of the absolute value as well); because of the variable and transient
>lay bet that calculation is beyond me. Nevertheless, I would hazard the
>guess that it is in the neighborhood of an extra percentage point.
>
>So, JOHN PATRICK, unless I have completely miscalculated, certainly a
>possibility, it appears that the advantage you have on that Don't bet
>which you established without risking a comeout 7 has been "pre-diluted"
>by your lay bet. Losing the lay bet, although it is a less frequent
>occurrence than a comeout 7, more than offsets the protection it affords
>from that 7 because of the bigger loss, not surprising since we know the
>lay bet carries a higher house advantage than a DC. (I reiterate,
>though, that my calculations are subject to verification. Just in case,
>anybody know where I can pick up an inexpensive crow?)
You're very quick..........but surely not subjected (at least by
me)........to any reference to a diet of crow...................
Al Krigman is right..............players have no clue as to how to properly
handle their money at a table.......they have to be spoonfed........and then
they claim the methods I suggest is too slow..........they revert to their
stupid play, geyt whacked and then cry that gambling can't be beat
.......even on occasion
>
>> I myself will NEVER lay odds for the reasons given and I hope that
>> the shorter funded players will take my advice........because believe
>> me, you're leaving yourself open for disaster
>
>Again we agree. A point of 4 is supposed to make one time in three.
>The worst that can happen to the front-side player is to lose all three
>bets, one more loss than expected. With double odds that is nine units.
>The worst a dark-sider can do is also to lose all three bets, but that
>is ->two<- more losses than expected, and with double odds adds up to
>fifteen units. With more room on the down side and having to ->lay<-
>the odds, dark side disasters can indeed achieve nuclear proportions.
>
>> To the others...........those with higher Bankrolls, just think for a
>> second about laying odds ........it is MY opinion that it is wrong...
>> .....but the math people have laid out a sensible reason for doing so
>> .............you decide for yourself.................JOHN PATRICK
>
>And that, JOHN PATRICK, is the best advice I have ever heard you give,
>and if memory serves, I believe it matches what your friends and foes
>alike have been saying. "It depends."
Van.........I guess in the long run, we have a somewhat similar
thinking.........you get their by intelligent analysis..............I get
their by "the seat of my pants...........I think that was what one poster
indicated...........::
Anyhoo.............you gave a very very good response and I thank you for
it..........JOHN PATRICK
The Midnight Skulker
> ability to intelligently get their point across to me in such a way
> that I have no retort............even though I vehemently disagree
> with their thinkings.
It has been a pleasure giving you the business, Sir. ;-)
> Over on the BJ ng I was in long exchanges with Dr. Harvey Cohen and
> Steve Jacobs and they too had the ability to respond like gentlemen
> like you, Mike Berlyn and several others do.
My philosophy is that when the name calling starts the discussion is
over.
> >> So you may like the reducing of vig from 1.41 to eight tenths of
> >> one per cent............but you also gotta lay out extra money......
> >> .......WHICH AFTER THE DON'T HAS BEATEN THAT COME OUT..........
> >> lessens the value of that first bet.
> >
> >And your point is? I made the decision to accept a .8% house advantage
> >rather than 1.41% when I made my flat bet and withheld the amount I
> >anticipated using for odds.
>
> Ah!!!!!!!, but you are not taking into consideration that the lower
> heeled playerafter getting past that come out...........now has the
> casino (I'm dying to say we are now booking the house, but I won't).
> in a backed against the wall situation....................and many
> players also lack funds to lay proper odds.
Not to belabor the point, but it is important for a player to decide
whether or not he/she is going to lay odds ->before<- making the
original flat Don't bet lest that player face the situation you
describe, namely of having to overbet his/her bankroll to do so.
> >> You are locked [on the Pass Line] while I can remove my place bets
> >> any time I want.
> >
> >And I can remove my odds at will also.
>
> Yes you can...........and that will bring you back to the situation of
> booking the house (darn, I didn't wanna say that) ......because you
> already beat the come out...............
Point of order: your example had us front side.
I suppose I should confess that on rare occasions I have (wince) booked
the house myself. In 1998 and the first half of 1999 going behind 4
with green was the kiss of death for me. After watching 15 rolls or so
and having a shooter make several non-4 Line points I would chicken out
by pulling my odds and buying the damn thing for $20, thereby locking in
a profit no matter what happened.
> >It seems the winking smiley was insufficient to identify my anonymous
> >attribution as an attempt to inject some humor into this discussion.
> >... Tell you what: as retribution you are feel free to refer to me
> >as "that guy who needs his clock cleaned".
>
> I was out of line missing the smiley face...............
I'll write it off to combat fatigue. Of course now I'm stuck with a
dirty clock.
> ... to take it a step further (RICHOCHET)...........after point is
> established the lay does not necessarily have to be against the point.
A reasonable variation, though picking the "harder" numbers to make
means having to put more at risk on the lay bet. I also had the
afterthought that laying to win $24 or $25 would shave the EV by a penny
or two since the vig. would be the same. And if the lay bit the felt
the truly adventurous could (shudder) lay odds on the DC to try to
recover. (These would also be anti-thematic, however, since the idea is
to ->reduce<- risk.)
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van_...@mk.com
6
Mason Clarke
want...@aol.comSeeBELOW says...
>
>To reduce it to .8% you must also mathematically include the times
>that a natural or craps is rolled on the comeout. The point that I have
>trouble with is that I am watering down a winning bet when I make the
>odds bet... so what do I gain? I ran the gauntlet and got past the part
>that is the house's advantage... the comeout roll. Now, the odds are
>in my favor, so why do I want to add money that is only an even money
>bet? This reduces the odds that are in my favor to less odds in
>my favor !! I could understand it if we were watering down the odds
>on the comeout roll, but we never can do that. There is no house
>advantage... it is a player advantage... at the time that we made the
>odds bet that pays only the correct odds.
>
>On the other hand... this is reversed when we are talking about a
>pass bet. The odds are in our favor on the comeout roll. We can
>only lose with craps, but we win with either 7 or making our point.
>However, if we don't win this favorable bet, then the odds are
>against us making the point. We can reduce that house advantage
>by taking free odds. This makes sense. Doing it on the don't side
>does not make sense... to me. I may be missing something, but
>if I am then I am certain that somebody will call it to my attention ;-(
>
You are missing -
(.) When comparing equal amounts at risk
(.) The flat with odds wins more and loses less than the flat bet
alone
If laying the odds diluted some sort of advantage, this could not
be true. Therefore, what makes sense to you is not verified.
This should cause you to rethink your position. The reason is
doesn't is ....... ?
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Nixon in 2000 - He's not as stiff as Al Gore
Jim Ferr
writes:
>> >> So you may like the reducing of vig from 1.41 to eight tenths of
>> >> one per cent............but you also gotta lay out extra money......
>> >> .......WHICH AFTER THE DON'T HAS BEATEN THAT COME OUT..........
>> >> lessens the value of that first bet.
>> >
>> >And your point is? I made the decision to accept a .8% house advantage
>> >rather than 1.41% when I made my flat bet and withheld the amount I
>> >anticipated using for odds.
>>
>> Ah!!!!!!!, but you are not taking into consideration that the lower
>> heeled playerafter getting past that come out...........now has the
>> casino (I'm dying to say we are now booking the house, but I won't).
>> in a backed against the wall situation....................and many
>> players also lack funds to lay proper odds.
To reduce it to .8% you must also mathematically include the times
that a natural or craps is rolled on the comeout. The point that I have
trouble with is that I am watering down a winning bet when I make the
odds bet... so what do I gain? I ran the gauntlet and got past the part
that is the house's advantage... the comeout roll. Now, the odds are
in my favor, so why do I want to add money that is only an even money
bet? This reduces the odds that are in my favor to less odds in
my favor !! I could understand it if we were watering down the odds
on the comeout roll, but we never can do that. There is no house
advantage... it is a player advantage... at the time that we made the
odds bet that pays only the correct odds.
On the other hand... this is reversed when we are talking about a
pass bet. The odds are in our favor on the comeout roll. We can
only lose with craps, but we win with either 7 or making our point.
However, if we don't win this favorable bet, then the odds are
against us making the point. We can reduce that house advantage
by taking free odds. This makes sense. Doing it on the don't side
does not make sense... to me. I may be missing something, but
if I am then I am certain that somebody will call it to my attention ;-(
Jim Ferr.......
When your mail is returned to you
and you wonder why it happened,
re-send it to Jim...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/jimferr/JimTheSystemMan.html
Jim Ferr
<ma...@onramp.net> writes:
>You are missing -
>
>(.) When comparing equal amounts at risk
>(.) The flat with odds wins more and loses less than the flat bet
>alone
>
>If laying the odds diluted some sort of advantage, this could not
>be true. Therefore, what makes sense to you is not verified.
I am only talking about don't pass bets. What you say is correct
for bets on the pass line, but I don't believe it is correct for don't
pass bets and laying odds. You definitely have the advantage
once you are past the comeout roll... then you are adding
more money that has no advantage and no disadvantage...
therefore you are diluting the advantage.
The reason that your description works for you is that you are
risking less total money. On the comeout you are risking less
money and therefore you did not lose it to the naturals, and did
not win with the craps. So, by risking less money, you therefore
lose less money... of course.
I am saying that if you do not make the lay odds bet at all
then you are in exactly the same position and risk less money.
Mason, ask your guru... I'm sure that he will tell you the same
thing that I am saying... but maybe you will understand it better
coming from him.
The only thing that you are doing is jugling numbers. You are
diluting red dye so that you end up with more pink dye instead
of less red dye, but using more water to do it. I would rather
just not risk the extra odds money at all.
Now, this topic is called "Don't lay odds" which could be interpreted
to say that you should not lay odds... but "lay" is by definition
on the don't side... so it is probably saying that it is talking about
laying odds on the don't side, rather than telling you not to lay
odds. I am just saying that I don't think there is any advantage
to laying odds... you are risking more money to get back the
same payoff.
On the pass line you are taking odds. There, the advantage is
against you after the comeout and with you before the comeout.
Therefore, you are then diluting the disadvantage by taking odds
(not laying odds). I don't say that this is a good thing either,
because there is no real advantage... you are risking money
to gain nothing... but at least you are not diluting your advantage.
This is solid, Mason. I'm absolutely correct. Just try to understand
it and then tell me that I am right. You are not wrong... you merely
misunderstood me... but I am right.
>This should cause you to rethink your position. The reason is
>doesn't is ....... ?
Nothing to rethink... I'm correct.
The Midnight Skulker
> >
> >(.) When comparing equal amounts at risk
> >(.) The flat with odds wins more and loses less than the flat bet
> >alone
> >
> >If laying the odds diluted some sort of advantage, this could not be
> >true. Therefore, what makes sense to you is not verified.
>
> I am only talking about don't pass bets. What you say is correct for
> bets on the pass line, but I don't believe it is correct for don't
> pass bets and laying odds. You definitely have the advantage once you
> once you are past the comeout roll... then you are adding more money
> the advantage.
I addressed this argument in my post to this thread on 1/25, Jim, so I
will simply refer you there rather than repeat it here.
> I am saying that if you do not make the lay odds bet at all then you
> are in exactly the same position and risk less money.
IMHO you two are talking about two different situations. Suppose a
player is down to his last $17 that he has allocated for the current
session, and he goes all in on the Don't Pass. Jim recommends the
player not dig into his pocket for more ammo to lay odds.
Mason advises that player not to wager his entire $17 on the Don't Pass
initially. Rather the player should bet $5 on the DP, reserving $12 for
laying odds when a point is established.
Jim agrees that the player might want to bet only $5 initially, but
still argues against laying odds. This strategy prolongs the session
because if the player loses he will still have sufficient funds for two
more bets.
I think you're both right. A profit-oriented player should take Mason's
approach; a table-time oriented should take Jim's.
Mason Clarke
>want...@aol.comSeeBELOW says...
>>
>>(.) When comparing equal amounts at risk
>>(.) The flat with odds wins more and loses less than the flat bet
>>alone
>>
>>If laying the odds diluted some sort of advantage, this could not
>>be true. Therefore, what makes sense to you is not verified.
>
>I am only talking about don't pass bets. What you say is correct
>for bets on the pass line, but I don't believe it is correct for don't
>pass bets and laying odds. You definitely have the advantage
>once you are past the comeout roll... then you are adding
>more money that has no advantage and no disadvantage...
>therefore you are diluting the advantage.
>
That is the don't bet. I asked you to demonstrate the effects of
this "diluting the advantage". All you have provided is an
assertion.
>The reason that your description works for you is that you are
>risking less total money. On the comeout you are risking less
>money and therefore you did not lose it to the naturals, and did
>not win with the craps. So, by risking less money, you therefore
>lose less money... of course.
Wrong again. I specified "when comparing equal amounts at risk".
You quoted it. Were you unable to comprehend it?
See below for the confirmation that a comparison of total amounts
at risk is used to support my statement.
>I am saying that if you do not make the lay odds bet at all
>then you are in exactly the same position and risk less money.
I understand you, Jim.
>Mason, ask your guru... I'm sure that he will tell you the same
>thing that I am saying... but maybe you will understand it better
>coming from him.
See below. Your post is an example of the bettors that find the
facts to be counter intuitive that Al Krigman mentions in the
first paragraph of his essay. Mathematics was created so that
what is thought to be true by intuition could be verified by
systematic logic.
(Have you been living in a freezer during this thread?) :)
>The only thing that you are doing is jugling numbers. You are
>diluting red dye so that you end up with more pink dye instead
>of less red dye, but using more water to do it.
A really bad analogy when you offer nothing to support your
position but your own chain of logic founded on a
misunderstanding of the process. If your argument were valid,
you should be able to provide supporting data. You do not. You
simply repeat your intuition and insist that no one understands
it.
Does your intuition take mathematics "to a higher level" as Guru
John often claims for his intuition?
>I would rather just not risk the extra odds money at all.
That is your choice. If you are risk averse, you are risk
averse. If the odds money exceeds the amount that you want to
risk and you do not wish to bet it because the effect of the
increased wager doesn't serve part of your particular goals,
don't bet it. That is smart gambling.
Your contention that you are somehow "diluting your advantage"
and that laying the odds is not beneficial to you is what is not
supportable by facts and is what is in dispute.
>Now, this topic is called "Don't lay odds" which could be interpreted
>to say that you should not lay odds... but "lay" is by definition
>on the don't side... so it is probably saying that it is talking about
>laying odds on the don't side, rather than telling you not to lay
>odds. I am just saying that I don't think there is any advantage
>to laying odds... you are risking more money to get back the
>same payoff.
>
This thread was established by Guru John to explicate his
instruction to his followers that "Laying odds on the Don't
...... always was.........is now .......... and always wil be
.......... a dumb bet."
He has since somewhat modified his position (while you were in
your freezer apparently) :).
>On the pass line you are taking odds. There, the advantage is
>against you after the comeout and with you before the comeout.
>Therefore, you are then diluting the disadvantage by taking odds
>(not laying odds). I don't say that this is a good thing either,
>because there is no real advantage... you are risking money
>to gain nothing... but at least you are not diluting your advantage.
>
>This is solid, Mason. I'm absolutely correct. Just try to understand
>it and then tell me that I am right. You are not wrong... you merely
>misunderstood me... but I am right.
>
Your entire argument is reason (2) in the essay below. It is well
understood by all who contributed to this thread. It is not
supportable by facts.
Your insistence on your position is grounded in a basic,
intuitive, misunderstanding of the process.
I am repeating this post because your comments show that you have
not read it.
(I say this regardless of the fact that you have quoted it in
another post on another thread. That may well indicate that you
can't comprehend it. I prefer to think that it means that you
did not read it carefully, so I will provide it for a more
careful examination. I think you will find that Al Krigman makes
every effort is made to avoid "jugling numbers".)
This essay clearly shows that your intuitive position is not
supported by the facts.
Should You Lay Odds on "Don't" Bets at Craps?, by Alan Krigman
Playing It Smart, Volume 6, Number 52, 27-Dec-99.
Craps players who follow "don't pass" or "don't come" strategies
hotly debate whether it's preferable to lay odds after the come-
out roll, or simply start higher and stick with their flat bets.
Most dice doyens declare that laying as much as possible in odds
is optimum because it minimizes the house advantage in the game.
Bettors, however, sometimes find this counter-intuitive.
The reasoning behind the contrary opinion is twofold:
(1) Money laid as odds against a number returns less than is at
stake. For instance, $30 yields $25 on points of six or eight,
$20 on five or nine, and $15 on four or 10. So, why risk more to
win less?
(2) The original flat bet is favored to win even money after a
point is established. Chances are 6-to-5 on points of six or
eight, 3-to-2 on five or nine, and 2-to-1 on four or 10. So, why
not get 1-to-1 on more money flat, instead of fractional payoffs
for the same amount laid as odds?
These arguments are reinforced by a third point. Namely, the
relatively small sums represented by house advantage on every
wager mean something to the casino. After all, the house earns a
penny or two per dollar bet, roll after relentless roll, from
player upon impassioned player. But individuals, in games of
reasonable duration, don't really notice the effect. Generally,
winning only a few bets over the statistically correct number
more than covers the edge in craps.
An alternate way to view the options for don't pass or don't come
bets is to consider how a set of solid citizens, using the two
approaches, can anticipate finishing sessions of various lengths.
For this purpose, say a thousand flat bettors drop $25 on the
layout and quietly await their fate, while this many odds layers
start with $5 and augment it with $30 regardless of which number
the shooter is trying to repeat. The totals at risk are
equivalent since the averages for every 36 come-out rolls will be
$900 either way -- 36x$25 flat or 12x$5 plus 24x$35 with odds.
If break-even, $500 wins, and $500 losses are taken as reference
levels, here's how the immutable laws of mathematics say the
thousand stalwarts will fare after typical stints at the rail.
*100 rounds*: 445 flat bettors will be above break-even, 15 will
be ahead by more than $500, and 29 be below $500; 489 odds layers
will be above break-even, 19 will have won over $500, and 22 will
have lost more than this.
*200 rounds*: 422 flat bettors will be above break-even, 52 will
have won over $500, and 108 will have lost at least $500; 484
odds layers will be above break-even, 70 will have made in excess
of $500, and 81 will be this deep in the hole.
*500 rounds*: 379 flat bettors will be above break-even, 112 will
show profits greater than $500, and 275 will be wondering where
the steam roller came from; 475 odds layers will be above break-
even, 165 will be more than $500 to the good, and 198 will be
this far down.
Purists should know that the casino's theoretical earnings on
each player are $0.34 per round with $25 flat, compared to $0.07
per round with $5 flat and $30 odds. After 100-, 200-, and 500-
round sessions, respectively, the totals are $34, $68, and $170
for flat fans and $7, $14, and $35 for odds buffs.
Applying the traditional criterion of house advantage to bets on
don't pass or don't come, apportioning money between the flat and
odds portions of a wager is clearly superior to betting an
equivalent amount flat. And guess what, considering where you're
likely to be after a session of representative duration, the
conclusions are the same. Of course, if shooters happen to roll
long runs of twos and threes on their come-outs, while sevens and
elevens only appear after points are established, the flat
bettors will be flush. But, that's where luck enters the picture.
All of which goes to show that the revered rhymer, Sumner A
Ingmark, was right when he wrote:
While only fanatics deny mathematics,
A player perverse doesn't always do worse.
© 1999 Alan Krigman. All rights reserved.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
Hunter S. Thompson
It occurs to me that some people will believe almost anything
that fits their preconceived notions.
Alan Shank
> To reduce it to .8% you must also mathematically include the times
> that a natural or craps is rolled on the comeout. The point that I have
> trouble with is that I am watering down a winning bet when I make the
> odds bet... so what do I gain? I ran the gauntlet and got past the part
> that is the house's advantage... the comeout roll. Now, the odds are
> in my favor, so why do I want to add money that is only an even money
> bet? This reduces the odds that are in my favor to less odds in
> my favor !! I could understand it if we were watering down the odds
> on the comeout roll, but we never can do that. There is no house
> advantage... it is a player advantage... at the time that we made the
> odds bet that pays only the correct odds.
>
> Doing it on the don't side
> does not make sense... to me. I may be missing something, but
> if I am then I am certain that somebody will call it to my attention ;-(
You're making the same mistake that John Patrick makes, which is considering the
Don't Pass bet after the point has been established as though it were a separate
bet. In order to get to the point where the odds are in your favor, you have
already subjected that SAME BET to the 22.2% chance of losing it on the comeout
roll. That's not the case with the odds bet. You don't risk that money on the
comeout, ONLY after the odds are in your favor.
For "dark-side" bettors, the comeout is the danger point. As in "right" betting,
the line bet carries all the house advantage, so the more of your bankroll you
allocate to the line bet, the more your expected loss. Let's compare:
$10 don't pass, no odds $5 don't pass, lay $6 6&8, $9
5&9, $10 4&10
average bet is $10 average bet is $10.33
roughly 8 hours' play
total bet handle $2370.37 total bet handle $2449.38
expected loss $32.32 expected loss $16.16
standard deviation $151.79 standard deviation $150.30
Since you're only exposing half the money to the line bet, you expect half the
loss, without increasing variance. The idea is not to make your usual line bet,
then decide whether to lay odds - it's, as John Patrick advocates, to decide in
advance how you're going to bet and stick to it. In this case, to decide in
advance to bet $5 line and lay odds, rather than bet $10 on the line.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Mason Clarke
>risking less total money. On the comeout you are risking less
>money and therefore you did not lose it to the naturals, and did
>not win with the craps. So, by risking less money, you therefore
>lose less money... of course.
>
to me that you will certainly find Al Krigman's explanation of
the mathematics involved in showing the results of the two
different strategies to be too difficult.
Here is a simplified problem for you to use to demonstrate your
intuition.
Frick and Frack always bet in $6 amounts.
They both have the same bankroll.
Frick makes only flat ($6) don't bets.
Frack makes flat ($6) bets and odds ($6) bets.
If laying the odds "dilutes the advantage of the don't bet after
the come out roll", Frick can be expected to be better off (on
average) after betting through his bankroll than Frack. They
have risked the same amount of money based on your definition
above.
Please post the figures that support your intuition that Frick
will be better off than Frack.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
"When you believe in things
Michael
Jim Ferr wrote:
> In article <MPG.12ffec5d9...@tx.news.verio.net>, Mason Clarke
> <ma...@onramp.net> writes:
>
> >You are missing -
> >
> >(.) When comparing equal amounts at risk
> >(.) The flat with odds wins more and loses less than the flat bet
> >alone
> >
> >If laying the odds diluted some sort of advantage, this could not
> >be true. Therefore, what makes sense to you is not verified.
>
> I am only talking about don't pass bets. What you say is correct
> for bets on the pass line, but I don't believe it is correct for don't
> pass bets and laying odds. You definitely have the advantage
> once you are past the comeout roll... then you are adding
> more money that has no advantage and no disadvantage...
> therefore you are diluting the advantage.
>
You certainly have an advantage on the don't once a point is established,
but you must also consider the cost of establishing that advantage. In a
previous post, I calculated the wins and losses for a don't player betting
$1 and $5 on the don't line. The results are as follows:
For the $1 bettor:
a. loses a net of $5 on the don't
b. wins a net of $4.52 on the points don'ting out.
For the $5 bettor:
a. loses a net of $25 on the don't
b. wins a net of $22.56 on the points don'ting out.
The $5 bettor loses more because he has more money exposed to the house
edge. The $1 bettor is down $0.48 while the $5 bettor is down $2.44; the $5
bettor is down nearly $2 more than the $1 bettor.
Here are some additional results from a previous post that might bear
repeating:
1. John loses $20 more than Mike on the come-out decisions.
2. John wins $18.04 (on average) more than Mike on the don't decisions
after the
come-out.
John is still down nearly $2 versus Mike when the total bet is considered.
The only way to consistently obtain a bet on the don't after the come out
is to
make one on the come-out. What you lose on the come-out exceeds what you
win on
the points don'ting out. In the case of John, he loses a total of $25 on
the
come out and wins $22.56 (on average) when the points don't out. By
decreasing
the amount bet on the don't line, we can decrease the amount lost. We then
need
less "luck" to overcome the expected loss to put us in the winner's column.
After the come out, you're in a good position: you get paid even money on a
bet
that, at that point, has a better than even chance of winning. But you
cannot
ignore how much it cost you to get into that position. In the case of John,
it
cost him $25 to get in a position to win $22.56. In the case of Mike, it
cost $5
to get into a position to win $4.52. Neither is a favorable trade, but Mike
loses the less in terms of dollars.
Ok, why lay odds on the don't? The reason is that we do not want to put the
money at risk on the come out, where the don't line bet essentially gets
clobbered (it loses 8 of the 11 come out decisions, and the don't wins
after a
point is established do not make up for this--see the calcualtion above).
When
we bet more on the come out, we are exposing more of our money to the house
advantage on the come out (and the entire bet). We lay odds because: (a)
the price
of establishing the don't is greater than the advantage we have once it is
established (see calculation above) and so we want as little money as
possible on the don't
and (b) it enables us to bet an amount of
money that enables us to reach reasonable win goals. We can win more when
we
win and lose less when we lose by putting the least amount of money
possible on
the line (compatible with our win goals, etc.).
Generally speaking, when we make a bet at the craps table, we do one of
three
things;
1. increase the amount of money exposed to the house edge (betting more on
the
line than you might otherwise, making simultaneous pass/don't bets).
2. increase the house advantage for all our combined bets (place betting,
proposition betting, etc.)
3. both of the above (starting with a line bet this will generally be the
case,
except in one instance).
All three of these things put the player at a greater risk. The primary
exception to the above is the odds bet. By shifting money from the line to
the
odds bet, we can:
1. Increase the amount bet, and therefore the variance, without increasing
the
money exposed to the house edge.
2. Increase the amount bet while decreasing the weighted average for all
our
combined bets considered in their totality.
Both these things are good for the player.
> The reason that your description works for you is that you are
> risking less total money. On the comeout you are risking less
> money and therefore you did not lose it to the naturals, and did
> not win with the craps. So, by risking less money, you therefore
> lose less money... of course.
>
Less money is exposed to the house edge, but we are betting the same total
amount; the remaining money is bet on the odds.
> I am saying that if you do not make the lay odds bet at all
> then you are in exactly the same position and risk less money.
>
We are not in the same position. By laying odds, we increase variance
slightly without exposing any additional money to the house edge. Further,
by not betting money on the base line bet, we do not expose that unbet
money to the house edge. This significanlty reduces our expected loss
($0.48 vs. $2.44 in the above example), and so requires us be less "lucky"
to overcome the expected loss and to make us winners. Betting $1 on the
line with no odds, I need to win 0.48 times my base betting unit for every
36 come out rolls (on average) to break even; by betting $1 on the don't
pass and (say) $6 odds, I need only win 0.069 times my base betting unit
for every 36 come out rolls (on average) to break even (my expected loss is
exactly the same), and the later will require less "luck" than the former.
> Mason, ask your guru... I'm sure that he will tell you the same
> thing that I am saying... but maybe you will understand it better
> coming from him.
>
> The only thing that you are doing is jugling numbers. You are
> diluting red dye so that you end up with more pink dye instead
> of less red dye, but using more water to do it. I would rather
> just not risk the extra odds money at all.
By referring to it as "extra odds money," you seem to be suggesting the
discussion involves betting odds money over and above what was intended for
the bet; that is, a $5 bettor would put $5 on the line and then bet an
additional $12 in odds, which may result in overbetting one's bankroll or
overbetting relative to one's win goal. In the discussion above, I am
considering shifting money from the base line bet to the odds bet. If a
casino allowed me to make don't bets after a point was established, I
wouldn't take odds, as the odds bet would reduce my advantage for the
combined bet.
Regards,
Michael
(rest of previous post below for reference)
>
>
> Now, this topic is called "Don't lay odds" which could be interpreted
> to say that you should not lay odds... but "lay" is by definition
> on the don't side... so it is probably saying that it is talking about
> laying odds on the don't side, rather than telling you not to lay
> odds. I am just saying that I don't think there is any advantage
> to laying odds... you are risking more money to get back the
> same payoff.
>
> On the pass line you are taking odds. There, the advantage is
> against you after the comeout and with you before the comeout.
> Therefore, you are then diluting the disadvantage by taking odds
> (not laying odds). I don't say that this is a good thing either,
> because there is no real advantage... you are risking money
> to gain nothing... but at least you are not diluting your advantage.
>
> This is solid, Mason. I'm absolutely correct. Just try to understand
> it and then tell me that I am right. You are not wrong... you merely
> misunderstood me... but I am right.
>
HAL 9005
> In a previous post, I calculated the wins and losses for a don't player
> betting $1 and $5 on the don't line. The results are as follows:
> For the $1 bettor:
> a. loses a net of $5 on the don't
> b. wins a net of $4.52 on the points don'ting out.
> For the $5 bettor:
> a. loses a net of $25 on the don't
> b. wins a net of $22.56 on the points don'ting out.
>
> The $5 bettor loses more because he has more money exposed to the house
> edge. The $1 bettor is down $0.48 while the $5 bettor is down $2.44; the
> $5 bettor is down nearly $2 more than the $1 bettor.
It's nice to know there are still some people who can think logically and
explain things mathematically. (Just to nit pick, the $1 bettor loses
$0.49 while the $5 bettor loses $2.45, still nearly $2 more.)
> After the come out, you're in a good position: you get paid even money on
> a bet that, at that point, has a better than even chance of winning. But
> you cannot ignore how much it cost you to get into that position. In the
> case of John, it cost him $25 to get in a position to win $22.56. In the
> case of Mike, it cost $5 to get into a position to win $4.52. Neither is
> a favorable trade, but Mike loses the less in terms of dollars.
Right, and then Mike can put those extra $4 behind his bet as odds.
> Ok, why lay odds on the don't? The reason is that we do not want to put
> the money at risk on the come out, where the don't line bet essentially
> gets clobbered. . . . [snip] . . .
> We lay odds because: (a) the price of establishing the don't is
> greater than the advantage we have once it is established (see
> calculation above) and so we want as little money as possible on the
> don't and (b) it enables us to bet an amount of money that enables us to
> reach reasonable win goals. We can win more when we win and lose less
> when we lose by putting the least amount of money possible on the line
> (compatible with our win goals, etc.).
This is what I've been saying all along, and this logic is lost on
TWGG (The World's Greatest Gambler) who thinks the odds bet is bad for the
player because he will eventually get whacked. Why can't he see that it
is the $5 line bettor who gets whacked five times more than the $1 bettor
on the come out, because any whacking that gets done on the odds bet is a
wash? Maybe he doesn't really believe the odds bet is "free" -- that as
soon as a point is established the shooter is more likely to make his
point than probability dictates. If this were true then laying odds would
be bad, but then taking odds on the Pass bet would be hugely advantageous.
As clear as Michael's reasoning is above, it is still amazing how many
other fools are taken in by the aforementioned snake oil salesman who
can't think his way out of a paper bag. But now that I have driven him
away from this newsgroup we may never hear his convoluted excuses.
Alan Shank
> In article <389723E1...@ix.netcom.com>, Alan Shank <mon...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes:
>
> >
> >Since you're only exposing half the money to the line bet, you expect half
> >the
> >loss, without increasing variance. The idea is not to make your usual line
> >bet,
> >then decide whether to lay odds - it's, as John Patrick advocates, to decide
> >in
> >advance how you're going to bet and stick to it. In this case, to decide in
> >advance to bet $5 line and lay odds, rather than bet $10 on the line.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Alan Shank
>
> Alan, for some reason people just don't understand what I am saying...
> or don't want to. Fine... I will make a don't pass bet for $5 and another
> $10 on the lay odds *if* I survive the comeout roll. So, I survive the
> comeout
> and now the odds are in my favor... Since I get no benefit and no
> disadvantage from the lay odds bet, I change my mind... it costs me
> nothing... I remain with the odds in my favor and live to make *two*
> more bets on don't pass with the same money that I would have used
> to lay odds.
Yes, but you are putting that money you "saved" into a bet that carries a negative
expectation, rather than on one with no negative expectation. You are basically
turning that $10 into $9.85. When you bet it on don't pass, the next time, you will
lose it 22.2% of the time.
> Somehow people in this group want to
> translate adding money to my don't pass bet as reducing the disadvantage,
> when I am *really* reducing the *advantage* at the time that I make
> this bet, which is *always* after the comeout roll. They want to think
> of it from the viewpoint of when you make your initial bet instead of when
> you make the lay bet.
That's because you cannot separate the don't pass bet on the comeout from the don't
pass bet after a point is established - they are one bet.
> Incidentally, I am not a follower of John Patrick, so I have no attachment
> to what he espouses. I have one of his books because he sent it to me as
> a courtesy copy. I think he is a gentleman, and I respect him.
I don't know whether he's a gentleman or not, but I read two or three of his books
several years ago and found them extremely aggravating. He "snears" at methods of
play other than his own favorites(come bets, in particular). He makes fun of his
own readers. His arguments are illogical and specious, particularly taking a
sequence of rolls and showing why his method of betting takes better advantage of
that particular sequence than, say , come betting. This seems to me to be a
basically dishonest argument method. He also fractures the English language pretty
badly, which most people probably don't care about, but it bothers me. He also
advocates charting, which means that he doesn't understand the concept of
randomity, a rather important thing is gambling, wouldn't you say?
> I do
> know that he favors money management, and I can't argue against
> that.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the only things his books have to offer.
> I also found in his book a statement that you cannot win in
> the long run. I really don't know why people pick on him... actually,
Really?
>
> I don't know why people pick on me ;-). I believe in all of the standard
> mathematical and statistical principles. I just have no "axe to grind" so
> I remain objective... nothing to sell... so no personal financial interests
> in any method of playing.
Nor do I..
Cheers,
Alan Shank
>
John L. Patrick
I will address this note to you but actually the object and substance of my
comments are in response to Alan Shank.........an obviously intelligent
individual who knows as much about gambling and the things people NEED to
know about gambling...........as the chair I'm sitting on.
His comments range from the ridiculous to the more dangerous idea of putting
the wrong idea in the heads of people who wanna learn how to gamble
properly.
Soooooooooooo, for you people who wanna learn about gambling, my suggestion
would be to hang on my every word.........my EVERY word because I know what
it takes to win.......and whether you like me personally or not doesn't
bother me in the least. If I gathered all the people who like me into a
group and threw them a party, I'd have to reserve a phone
booth...........but if I wanted to gather all the people who have benefitted
from my theories on MONEY MANAGEMENT and DISCIPLINE........I'd have to
reserve a state to fit them (Texas may be big enough.........maybe)
Lets go below and examine Mr. Shanks erroneous statements
Alan Shank wrote in message <389A32DD...@ix.netcom.com>...
Jim.....great point. Of course , for the short bankrolled player......he
has to bet the dreaded Don't Pass Line.......but once that come out is
gotten out of the way (and it is sometimes dangerous undertaking)......the
odds are in our favor. Laying odds in this case vastly reduces the value of
that Don't Pass bet and as you say............if the shooter ddoes make his
/her point......you have money to attack that Don't Pass line
again.......Stick to your guns.........you;re dead on right...........
>
>Yes, but you are putting that money you "saved" into a bet that carries a
negative
>expectation, rather than on one with no negative expectation. You are
basically
>turning that $10 into $9.85. When you bet it on don't pass, the next time,
you will
>lose it 22.2% of the time.
For you don't bettors with short bankrolls...........it is worth the risk to
bet small on the come out roll and sit with the est. number when it shows.
A small suggestion..........bet $10 on the Don't Pass Line..............and
when point is established, say it's a $10 no six. Now put $1 on hard six,
cutting the chances of losing from 5 ways to 4 ways, and putting a $5 bet in
the Don't Come. Even if 7 shows, you lose the don't come and hardways bet
but pick up on the no six. If that second don't is est, you can sit with
two don'ts or come thru don't come with a $10 DC......as long as it is lower
than the amount you have working for you (just don't lay the odds .......you
don't wanna reduce that power you picked up by beating the 7 11 on the C.O.)
>
>> Somehow people in this group want to
>> translate adding money to my don't pass bet as reducing the disadvantage,
>> when I am *really* reducing the *advantage* at the time that I make
>> this bet, which is *always* after the comeout roll. They want to think
>> of it from the viewpoint of when you make your initial bet instead of
when
>> you make the lay bet.
Right on, Jim........you have the advantage going for you......don't give it
back to the house
>
>That's because you cannot separate the don't pass bet on the comeout from
the don't
>pass bet after a point is established - they are one bet.
>
>> Incidentally, I am not a follower of John Patrick, so I have no
attachment
>> to what he espouses. I have one of his books because he sent it to me
as
>> a courtesy copy. I think he is a gentleman, and I respect him.
Oooooooooops........I just lost Jim, guess I have room for someone in that
phone booth............right now it is only my two daughters, my mother and
some guy wanting to make a phone call (is he nuts? Doesn't he know he's
associating with a dork like me?)
>
>I don't know whether he's a gentleman or not, but I read two or three of
his books
TWO OR THREE.........................? My goodness didn't you realize after
the first couple of chapters in the first book that I treat my readers so
badly??????????? I think you were so engrossed in my teachings of Money
Management and Discipline.........that you had to go back over and over and
over . TWO OR THREE........boy, if a couple other people would read two or
three of my books, I could retire. (GREAT messages in them, ain't their?)
You probably have the whole 12 book set by now.
>several years ago and found them extremely aggravating. He "snears" at
methods of
I prefer the term ..........RIDICULES instead of sneers
>play other than his own favorites(come bets, in particular). He makes fun
of his
>own readers. His arguments are illogical and specious, particularly taking
a
>sequence of rolls and showing why his method of betting takes better
advantage of
>that particular sequence than, say , come betting. This seems to me to be a
>basically dishonest argument method. He also fractures the English language
pretty
>badly, which most people probably don't care about, but it bothers me. He
also
>advocates charting, which means that he doesn't understand the concept of
>randomity, a rather important thing is gambling, wouldn't you say?
Well, lets look at the grievances of Mr. Shank............I'm always
aggravating people in my books.........but I get their attention........got
your attention eh Alan??????Of course I sneer (ridicule the use of) at come
bets. Why make a bet that you have to hit a number twice to get
paid.......when you can place bet and get paid after only ONE hit. One hit,
Alan...........or are you out of numbers after old numero uno? What a dumb
comment you made on that point. Moving on......
I make fun of my readers IF they are dorks who get ahead and give the money
back......I tell them they are jerks to do this. That bothers you
Alan?....that I would like people to leave the tables with a profit?
........ Strike two Alan
I am full of Logic and my theories are based on logically using Money
Management and Discipline with strong Loss Limits to protect the player. I
don't know what specious means..... but maybe you are saying I am a special
person (No?..didn't think so. Well, to hold my attention, you gotta get to
4 and 5 letter words that I can understand. You're not talking to a rocket
scientist you know.)
You don't like my English language either? Tch, tch, tch..........maybe its
because you don't understand what Muny Mennegemen is....................or
grasp the NEED for Dissiplane. Perhaps you just don'dt understand gambling
Mr. Shank, and by your posts..........you qualify my assumpdtions.. What
English has to do with gambling is what ignorance has to do with
genius...........and I'm sure you get THAT point.
Of course people care about what I do to the English
language..............about as much as they care about faulty and erroneous
gambling information they can get from people who don;t know diddedly squat
about what it takes to win in the casinos.........and it ain't about knowing
how to spell cat or kat....................by the way, if my ignorance of
the English language bothers you so much ........DON'T read my books but you
won't be able to stay away from them........not if you wanna learn about
gambling.......will you Alan?????????
Good grief, Alan.......you don't believe in charting either............Well,
I don't wanna go into that right now, but for you newcomers to gambling,
charting is one of the most important parts of your day......as far as I'm
concerned. Boy, I can't believe you don't believe in charting ,
Alan.......you'll have to read all I have to say about it.........it's in
the books!!!!!!!!!
I thought you understood a little about gambling Alan.........and I guess I
was right.......you do know a little!!!!!!!!
>
>> I do
>> know that he favors money management, and I can't argue against
>> that.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, that's the only things his books have to offer.
No........they also offer a new and brighter look into the handling of the
English Language and how to get people to like you.
>> I also found in his book a statement that you cannot win in
>> the long run. I really don't know why people pick on him... actually,
Jim...........let me count the ways. But seriously.................you are
on the right track and don't let these people frustrate you. Your web page
is great for people who wanna get the Theories of many many many people who
give you their ideas. My intent is to help those who could get side tracked
by those who lack the understanding of what it takes to cut losses and
accept small returns.
I am not here to win friends or impress people (See how good I am in that
area?)........................but I have positive proof that people are
agreeing with me.........just visit my e mail messages and that is where I
glean my satisfaction from.
>Really?
>
>>
>> I don't know why people pick on me ;-). I believe in all of the
standard
>> mathematical and statistical principles. I just have no "axe to grind"
so
>> I remain objective... nothing to sell... so no personal financial
interests
>> in any method of playing.
Alan.................I still have room in the phone booth ...........maybe
someday you can learn from me..........(not the gambling part, but the
English Language area.............or do I have that
backwards???????????).............JOHN PATRICK
Mason Clarke
>would be to hang on my every word.........my EVERY word because I know what
>it takes to win.
This is what he offers and this is what you'll get. His EVERY
word to hang on, his EVERY thought the TRUTH.
Alan Shank
> Well, lets look at the grievances of Mr. Shank............I'm always
> aggravating people in my books.........but I get their attention........got
> your attention eh Alan??????Of course I sneer (ridicule the use of) at come
> bets. Why make a bet that you have to hit a number twice to get
> paid.......when you can place bet and get paid after only ONE hit. One hit,
> Alan...........or are you out of numbers after old numero uno? What a dumb
> comment you made on that point. Moving on......
You can win on a come bet with no hits, John, i.e. the 7 or 11 on the comeout.
After No hits, John. No hits. The place bet is one-dimensional, you might say.
If your number comes up before the 7 you win; otherwise, you lose. The come bet
has two phases, just like the pass bet. In fact, this is really the exact same
issue as with don't pass/laying odds. You ignore the comeout, where the come bet
has a 22.2% chance of winning, before any point is established at all.I am full
of Logic and my theories are based on logically using Money
> Good grief, Alan.......you don't believe in charting either............Well,
> I don't wanna go into that right now, but for you newcomers to gambling,
> charting is one of the most important parts of your day......as far as I'm
> concerned. Boy, I can't believe you don't believe in charting ,
> Alan.......you'll have to read all I have to say about it.........it's in
> the books!!!!!!!!!
It seems to me that John Patrick is to Al Krigman as astrology is to astronomy.
Astrology is "in the books", too.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Jim Ferr
Patrick" <johnlp...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>> Incidentally, I am not a follower of John Patrick, so I have no attachment
>>> to what he espouses. I have one of his books because he sent it to me as
>>> a courtesy copy. I think he is a gentleman, and I respect him.
>
>Oooooooooops........I just lost Jim, guess I have room for someone in that
>phone booth............right now it is only my two daughters, my mother and
>some guy wanting to make a phone call (is he nuts? Doesn't he know he's
>associating with a dork like me?)
No, you did not lose me, John. I am just saying that I am not your "follower"
just as you are not my "follower." But, we agree with each other in a lot
of areas.