# ugly night a the tables

Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by scott22, Feb 5, 2012.

1. The Midnight Skulker, Mar 15, 2012

### The Midnight Skulker Member

Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
Messages:
4,118
4,428
Gender:
Male
Location:
Idaho, USA
As I noted in my previous post, in order to compare these two bets (which BTW I did assume were being made by different players, though I did not make that clear, and may even have implied otherwise :-S ) the P6 bet must be split into two parts, the initial \$10 and the \$30 added after a point, if any, is established, and these two components compared to their PL/FO counterparts: the initial \$10 and the \$30 odds added after a point, if any, is established. Furthermore, if 6 becomes the point (i.e. P6 wins on the comeout) then the initial \$10 P6 bet is removed (because it has been resolved) and replaced only by the \$30 that would have been added to it had some other number become the point, thereby keeping the total amounts at risk equal to \$40 when a point is established.

Comparing the initial \$10 bets:
HA(PL) = 1.41%
HA(P6) = 1.52%

Comparing the \$30 added:
HA(FO) = 0.00%
HA(P6) = 1.52%

QED
And as I have shown, when the (equal) amounts at risk are compared to each other during the time each is at risk the PL/FO combination carries a lower HA than P6.
Agreed. The typical P6 player would take the default of off on the comeout and would therefore not win if the point became 6, and if overriding that default would leave the initial \$10 up to win again.
Agreed again, which is why a true comparison must have the P6 player taking down the initial \$10 when that happens so as not to have more action than the PL/FO player.
And vice-versa. As I said before, if a betting strategy can win then a series of results can be composed to show that it does win.

#141
2. falcon, Mar 15, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
7
[[q=MSK]: As I noted in my previous post, in order to compare these two bets (which BTW I did assume were being made by different players, though I did not make that clear, and may even have implied otherwise ) the P6 bet must be split into two parts, the initial \$10 and the \$30 added after a point, if any, is established, and these two components compared to their PL/FO counterparts: the initial \$10 and the \$30 odds added after a point, if any, is established. Furthermore, if 6 becomes the point (i.e. P6 wins on the comeout) then the initial \$10 P6 bet is removed (because it has been resolved) and replaced only by the \$30 that would have been added to it had some other number become the point, thereby keeping the total amounts at risk equal to \$40 when a point is established.[/quote]

I thought that I had split the P6 bet into two parts, i.e., \$10 Place active on the come out and add \$30 after the point is established just as a PL player would add the FO bet. Once the point was established, assuming the 6 was the point, both wagers would be on an equal footing. I made a differentiation only if the point was a 9 by turning the 9 Place bet to \$40 and taking down the P6 again producing equal risk for the same possible win or loss. Even though the P9 would imitate a "put" bet, the object would be similarities of the wagers and the P6 is now not subject to a 7 out which would increase the loss over a PL bettor just playing the PL. We both already have agreed that the come out 7 provides a double jeopardy for the P bet wherever it is positioned. That advantage is indisputable. However, I do not see the logic of taking down a P bet at comeout if the bet happens to win. A PL bet is not taken down when it wins at comeout. The win goes to the player's tray and the PL bet would stay and be renewed as would the P bet win. The P bet would then be active again at the next comeout with the same risk as before.

Replacing a winnning P6 bet at comeout with a \$30 bet would be just like increasing the winner \$10 PL bet with a new \$30 PL bet. As long as the active P bet is the same as the PL bet at comeout the two stage additions for both is available for scrutiny and play. The PL bet still has the jeopardy of a craps loser which does not effect the P bet, and it also has the advantage of the 11 winner which does not adversely impact the P bet as an outright loser.

The object of this discussion was to clarify the fact that a P bet that eventually reaches an equal \$\$ amount of a PL/FO will outpay that combo bet at 3X or less using a two step approach similar to how a PL/FO bet takes shape. We have done that. The last small p.s. in my discussion shows and acknowledges how the PL can be a more advantageous bet because of the comeout edge of eight ways to win/ four ways to lose vs (P6) five ways to win and six ways to lose although the P6 bet winner of \$10 will pay \$11 as opposed to the PL \$10 winner paying \$10. That has to count for something although I am not sure what.

[q=MS]: Comparing the initial \$10 bets:
HA(PL) = 1.41%
HA(P6) = 1.52%

Comparing the \$30 added:
HA(FO) = 0.00%
HA(P6) = 1.52%

I have no problem with quoting the HA above revolving around the fact that at comeout the PL bet has a distinct advantage as acknowledged. For me and for others producing the second series of HA's, while mathematically correct, is lacking in full disclosure, the point became a 9, that being (a) a 7 out produces a \$40 loss for both players, or (b) a point conversion gives the PL/FO player a \$55 win and the P9 player gets a \$56 win. A P6 would result in equal \$\$ wins for both at \$46 and in that event the advantage would revert to the first set of HA's shown giving the PL the initial advantage.

Going back to page 1 of this thread and other anecdotal evidence shows that either strategy would be predominant losers without multiple, consistent point conversions or multiple, consistent shooters throwing any given 10+ numbers prior to a 7 out, and all the odds put forth of such occurences are quite high. I recall a post at the WOO stating that 28 numbers thrown prior to a 7 is at 165 to 1.

falcon

#142
3. The Midnight Skulker, Mar 21, 2012

### The Midnight Skulker Member

Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
Messages:
4,118
4,428
Gender:
Male
Location:
Idaho, USA
To me "equal amounts at risk" means equal total bet handles, which in turn means an equal number of decisions. Consequently, to compare PL/FO to Px (a single Place bet on any number, working on the comeout), when one bet wins or loses while the other is unresolved, the resolved bet should not be replaced until the other bet is also resolved. This approach gives the following scenarios.
Comeout 7:
PL wins
Px loses
Both bets are replaced
Comeout 11:
PL wins
Px unresolved
PL not replaced pending resolution of unpressed Px
Comeout craps:
PL loses
Px unresolved
PL not replaced pending resolution of unpressed Px
Point established as x:
PL unresolved
Px wins
FO taken, Px pressed to amount of FO only
Point established as not-x:
PL unresolved
Px unresolved
FO taken, Px pressed by amount of FO
This is an exhaustive set of resolutions and ensures that 1) the bets will have an equal number of resolutions, and 2) each player will have the same amount of action. I concede that this is a simplified comparison that does not reflect what typical players would do, but the math to equalize the amounts at risk when winning bets are left up involves infinite series (e.g. once a non-x point is established Px can win any number of times before PL/FO is resolved) and is a little more tedious than I have the interest to perform. (BTW the reason Px is not pressed when PL is resolved and it is not is that FO cannot be taken in this case.)
But these results are not equally likely. PL will net many more wins on the comeout than will P6, a discrepancy partially, but only partially, offset by the discrepancy in payouts.
We have done that only when both bets reach the point cycle.
And the point I have been making is that PL's comeout edge overshadows Px's edge during the point cycle when the amounts at risk are equalized over the same number of decisions.

#143