Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by scott22, Feb 5, 2012.
Ever fixated on waste products and material without ever posting a cogent intelligent thought to move along the dialogue.
slorch: To which "dude" are you referring and define the "no juice ... free odds" please.
kst: Been trying to catch up on the other stuff and will get to your post soon. No problem on the quote. I wrote it, but you need not be so selective and put the quotes in context less you be labeled as Nancy Pelosi's butt boy.
You know, it would really help if, in addition to what we are discussing, you would learn how to include only those parts of a post relevant to your replay, and include them only once.
So we can add reading comprehension to the list of your shortcomings. Once a point is established the PL bet acts like a Put bet: it has in effect bypassed the comeout roll, where it had a 2:1 advantage, and is now at a severe disadvantage because it will be paid only even money. Your Place bet also bypassed the comeout roll and is at a disadvantage, but not as severe because it gets paid better than even money. To make up the difference in payoffs now that the comeout roll has occurred without a PL resolution the PL bettor does indeed have to take 4x or 5x odds, which are paid at true odds (i.e. better odds than the Place bet) to get the same or better pay off than the Place bettor.
And vice versa. When the PL bet is resolved on the comeout roll, which happens 1/3 of the time, the Place bet gets no action while the PL bet nets a win. That is what I meant by performance: house advantage on a PL bet is 1.41%; house advantage on Place bets is between 1.52% and 6.67%. The PL bet is expected to outperform the Place bet because of the lower house advantage on it. If anybody is hitting the floor they are rolling around laughing their ass off that you cannot tell the difference between a PL bet and a Put bet.
I guess when one is wrong; affirms they were wrong by agreeing with me in a convoluted way, they must grasp at something that might give them cover. Thus the weak example above. I guess you forgot about the 7, and since the Hard 4 can be rolled one way and the easy 4 two ways plus the 7 can be rolled six ways, that is eight to one against such an occurrence and that is why the disparity. Which, of course, is lost in your math translation.
[q=MS]: Apparently visual acuity is not one of your strong points either. “.111”””note the absence of the percent sign””is the same as 11.1%””note the presence of the percent sign. And yes, half of 22.2% is 11.1%. All this says is that when the PL bet is resolved on the comeout it is expected to lose half as many times as it wins. Subtracting 11.1% from 22.2% to get 11.1% gives you a percentage, but a percentage of what?[/q]
While you are playing number games to obfuscate the truth as presented which you now affirm, we need to go back and remember that a craps loser is "meaningless" in your words because somehow your math creates a winner out of a loser bet. That 11.1% net win on the PL at come out is not much of an edge when one considers that 89% (rounded up) of the time the PL is now at the mercy of a 7 out 66% of the time and a craps loser 11.1% of the time, and you still get beat up on being shorted by the house on the low FO winners as affirmed by you above.
So here is the bottom line for me: When discussing the PL/FO, it is disingenuous not to bring up the minimum required 4x or 5x odds to out pay similar $$ Place bets on the same number just because one might win that very small (usually table minimum) PL bet at comeout 11.1% of the time - net. Why is there so much resistance to all that you have previously affirmed?
Ye shall not pass unrequited.
[q=MS]: You know, it would really help if, in addition to what we are discussing, you would learn how to include only those parts of a post relevant to your replay, and include them only once.[/q]
I absolutely agree. I just do not know how to accomplish the separations you make. So please, in really elementary easy steps, tell me how to do it.
The simplest way to start testing your theory is to measure it for the elementary standard of 36 rolls. Start with the comeout. Four ways to lose versus 8 ways to win. That is 1 in 9 chance of losing versus a 2 in 9 chance of winning. That is, using your construction, a 100 percent improvement.
you, and the odds bet in craps is paid correctly, or at TRUE ODDS/ no juice.
3 ways to roll a 4 or 10, respectively.
6 ways to roll a 7
payoff on odds bet is 2-1
4 ways to roll a 5 or 9, respectively
6 ways to roll a 7
payoff on the odds bet is 3-2
5 ways to roll a 6 or 8, respectively.
6 ways to roll a 7
payoff on the odds bet is 6-5
every other bet on the craps table contains a built in house advantage, or juice.
The place bets, the Yo, the 12, the hardways...EVERYTHING.
This is mathematically indisputable...yet you dispute it.
In addition to all of the questions I have asked you before....
Why does the PL/FO have to pay better than the Place bet in order for it to be better? The PL bettor will likely have already made some money from come-out winners. You think Place odds are going to outperform the flat PL plus the come-out winners already collected? Show us the math.
This is the dark side of the game that no one likes to talk about.
One time, I encounters 6 shooters in a roll, all went point-seven. But the next one shot a number and everyone started cheering and clapping again.
Our brain choose to ignore or block the pain of loosing, that is why even though we all lose in the long term, but we still go at it.
slorch: I appreciate the clarification. I do NOT dispute the FO as "true" odds. I absolutely know that what is paid for a point winner with the FO bet is "true" odds. The great equalizer and profit maker for the house is that the PL is paid at even money, so the reality is a payout shortfall on the total PL/FO vs a similar $$ wager on the Place bet.
The "dispute" as you call it is the indisputable fact that when the FO bets are place AFTER the point is established, the majority of players, maybe even the vast majority, bet 4x or less the basic PL wager. This results in a shortfall of ones expected payout performance, and that is almost never put forth in these or other discussions about the PL/FO strategy.
So here is the basic question, if one does not hold the dice; and one has a limited bankroll, as most do; and one cannot afford or wish to wager 5x or more on the FO bet; and the PL wager come out roll winner happens only 11.1% - net, what is the basic attraction of the PL wager and why should the player NOT place bet instead after the point is established??
Saying that the house does not have an advantage on place bets is sorely and sadly mistaken.
SP: After the point is established, all right side bets are at a disadvantage. I do not believe that I stated that Place bets have an advantage over the house. My correct statement is that Place bets of equal $$ amounts out pay PL/FO bets at 3X and 4X. So if the basic and unyielding strategy for any given player is to play at 3x or less, he would be better off playing the Place bet for that number, after the point is established for the same $$ to reap a higher payout.
Here is the math:
[q=scott22]: how can i stand a a full table and all of us watch the dice go around two full times and no one make more than one point? ugly!!!!
[q=G7]: And for a table full of people to make around 1 point each is really a expected night for the most part. It’s nice to be at the table when someone gets hot but do not expect average chicken feeders to kick the shit out of the house shooter after shooter all night long. [/q]
Now that i re-read what i posted let me clear it up a little. I should have worded it different. I meant to say that it is not uncommon for a table full of shooters to not make more than one point in a row. So betting the pass line with the shooter would just result in a loosing night because if you were to bet with them and they hit there point and you win X amount. then you turn right around and re-bet X amount on the same shooter to make the second point which did not happen even once as the poster had said. Best scenerio is it was a push for the house and the better wins nothing on the plus side but takes all the losses in the neg when the shooters fail to make the first point. So anyone betting the PL with the shooters had a loosing night which happens 98% of the time with this betting strat.[/q]
Try this too, shooter has two come out winners; the next toss establishes the point; player places 3x odds; shooter tosses a couple of numbers and then 7 out. Player won ($10 table playing table minimum for PL bet of $10) $20; player then loses $40 for a net loss of $20. That is the simple realistic math that happens a lot.
If you are looking for the "real" math, it does not happen on any level. If it did, the casinos would be out of business or they would not offer craps. Simple example: The 7 shows once every six rolls in the "real" math world, so why not just play the 7 on every sixth roll with a hop bet? You would be rich and retire in a Nevada brothel.
you are still including the PL bet with your analysis of F/O, while also dismissing/ ignoring the advantage the PL bet has on the come-out.
You have some freaky thinking on the math of craps. At least the real math is there to protect us...LOL.
That is not math. That's not even quoting. Please try again.
I see no comparison of bets here. What happens to the player that placed the point for $40? Net loss of $40. I asked you for comparisons between Place, Put and Pass Line bets, but I guess you are refusing to show the mathematical differences because you can't do the math and/or you realize that it proves your logic is unsound.
It does... you just don't understand what the "real" math means.
Exactly what I just said. That's not what the "real" math means or says. You've confused math with gambler's fallacy. The "real" math says that the 7 has a 1/6 chance of being thrown. That's all the "real" math says. What that means is that it will show close to once every six rolls ON AVERAGE.
Stop pretending that you understand the math.
Do you at least agree that the "real" math says that the Pass Line (without odds) is better than a Place bet?
slorch: Let's assume you are a really knowledgeable craps player and know that it takes at least a 5x bet to reap the full reward of the FO over a Place bet for the same $$ amount. What that means is that when the point is established you produce a 5x FO bet. Until that point is established, you bet the PL ($10 table minimum) and that occurs about 33% of the time. 67% of the time the come out produces a point. 22% of the time you are a $10 winner; 11% of the time you are a $10 loser, so 11% of the time - net you are a $10 winner. Approximately 67% of 67% of points are not converted which means that you are losing $60 (PL+ 5x FO). In order for your PL factor to catch up to the overall losers of 7 outs, you need at least six come out winners just to break even. Now the one-third point winners will help stave off bankruptcy for a time, but catching up is very difficult just to break even.
So what we have here is you dismissing/ignoring the reality of PL/FO losers trying to reel in a high volume of multiple PL come out winners which does not happen at an 11% clip.
That is the "real math" which does little to "protect" you.