Question About Craps

[nelvitt]

I dont understand why one would take odds on the dont pass
line. You are getting a payoff where you need to risk more money than your
getting paid, for example 1 to 2 on the 4/10. Wouldn't it make more sense to use
the odds money and just put it on the dont pass line where you are getting a
better payout of 1 to 1?

[happygobrokey]

with my limited experience of the game, i would say because laying it all on wrong for the come-out can kill you if you make 7/11. after there is a point, you take the odds on the don't because now it is more likely to win, because the seven-out pays you. like waiting til halftime to bet on a match. you don't want to risk 200 on the comeout when there are eight losers and three winners. but you do want to play 50 on the comeout and take 3x odds on the don't because now there are six winners and only 3-5 losers depending what the point is. i know you still lose 200 either way if you lose, but you are just holding back 3/4 of your intended wager on the comeout when the don't bet is most vulnerable. one of these days i am going to examine craps strategies so i can give it a whirl live next time i head up to NF.

oh another way to say it and much easier is that odds bets carry no house edge. so playing 50 on wrong and taking 3x odds, you are only subjected to a HE on the initial 50. playing 200 on the wrong with no odds means you must bear HE on the entire bet. the wiz says the HE on don't alone is 1.364%. so betting 200x.01364= 2.728 is what you stand to lose of your 200. if you bet 50 on don't, 50x.01364= 0.682. having odds bets which are zero HE means that that money pays just as much as it takes in. so the odds are a coin flip, and you win 1/1 for the don't bet on a seven-out, and you reckon to lose 68 cents on a 50 dollar bet. it's the edge that matters not the payout. isn't it better to take true coin flips all day at <1 to 1 than play a game designed to beat you down in the long run all day even at even money? bet on the heavy favourite at 8/9 and not on the longshot at 5/1? if you were to keep betting vulnerably, sooner or later you would go broke. the frequent losses would outweigh the better payscale.

[lojo]

I got a good knack for the game by studying this TABLE when playing online.

Being a high variance guy, I don't follow his rules, I play the fool. I will go hops and horns now and then.

[aka23]

Originally Posted by nelvitt

I dont understand why one would take odds on the dont pass
line. You are getting a payoff where you need to risk more money than your
getting paid, for example 1 to 2 on the 4/10. Wouldn't it make more sense to use
the odds money and just put it on the dont pass line where you are getting a
better payout of 1 to 1?

The odds bet has a house edge of 0%. The don't pass bet has a house edge of 1.36%.

Over time your expected losses will be smaller, if you substitute odds bets for don't pass bets.

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by nelvitt

I dont understand why one would take odds on the dont pass
line. You are getting a payoff where you need to risk more money than your
getting paid, for example 1 to 2 on the 4/10. Wouldn't it make more sense to use
the odds money and just put it on the dont pass line where you are getting a
better payout of 1 to 1?

There is a reason why you are not allowed to make or to increase don't pass bets after the point has been established.
The house edge on odds bets is always 0, the don't pass odds have greater than 1/2 chance of winning, so they must pay out less than 1 to 1.

[Scooter7]

Originally Posted by nelvitt

I dont understand why one would take odds on the dont pass
line. You are getting a payoff where you need to risk more money than your
getting paid, for example 1 to 2 on the 4/10. Wouldn't it make more sense to use
the odds money and just put it on the dont pass line where you are getting a
better payout of 1 to 1?

I've played and/or dealt craps for 24 years.
Considering the fact that I only play craps for fun these days, I think that qualifies me as an expert on the subject

On the pass line, the house edge is 1.41%, but after the point has been established as, for example, a 10, the flat (or original pass line bet) now has an EV of -50% since there are 6 ways to lose (with a 7) and 3 ways to win (with a 10). Taking full odds is essential at this point to reducing the overall house edge
When you add the odds bet after a point is established, the combination of the original bet and the odds bet effectively lowers the edge. The more money you place on the odds, the closer to an overall house edge of zero you get (you won't get all the way there, but theoretically, the house edge approaches zero as the odds bet approaches infinity).

Conversely, on the don't pass, I believe the opposite should be true.
While it makes perfect sense on the surface to say that laying odds is a zero-edge bet that the player should avail themselves of, it is worth noting that after the point has been established, the don't pass bet now has a positive expectation for the player (i.e. you are better than 50/50 to win an even money bet after 'escaping' the 7/11 on the come out roll. After the come out, if the point is 10, you are a 2:1 favorite to win even money (6 ways to win, 3 ways to lose).
This is significant because laying odds at this point produces the opposite effect of the limit equation that I alluded to in the pass line/odds example above. Combine the 0.00% lay odds with the (now) +50% EV don't pass bet and the more you lay, the lower your EV.

[happygobrokey]

but the comeout is way more dangerous to the dp bettor, and as was stated you can't take more money on the dp line after the comeout, only the odds. as such, at triple odds, you have to bet the line for $8 instead of $2, and prior to the comeout. well the don't is most vulnerable on the comeout, after a point is established you just have to wait for the seven to come in. but on the comeout you lose on 8 ways, win on only 3, and push on 1. so on the comeout, you're twice as likely to lose your entire bet than to win or break even, and non-point rolls are 1/3 of the dice combinations. 2/3 of the time you go into a situation where your line bet is favoured to win, but you have to sweat the comeout for four times the amount than if you took triple odds after the comeout, when the odds are already in your favour. it makes sense to get more money out when you're favoured to win, like doubling down in bj or placing a midmatch (even for less than 1:1) in football when one squad is up by three goals at half. you just can't lose. when the point is 4/10, you also almost can't lose, you're 2/1 favourite. take odds, because in the short term you can expect this to hit for you.

the 6 and 8 are a little dangerous, and in order to cut down on the volatility, a don't bettor can bet $2 line, take triple odds ($6) and then place the point for $6. this nets minus one if the point comes, and plus one if a seven comes. placing the 5/9 for $5 or buying the 4/10 for $5 when they are the point can do the same thing, but there's really no sense hedging away your profits when you're odds on to win. the 6/8 carry only 1.5% edge though so they make a nice way to cut down variance without sacrificing too much. you seven-out only 55% of the time on a point of 6/8, compared to 60% on 5/9 and 67% on 4/10. or rather, i'll hedge when i'm 6/11, but play the odds only when in 3/5 or 2/3.

i've been trying to establish some sound strategies, and i find it way easier to calculate for the wrong side than the right. i suppose you could bet the pass and then bet don't comes after, to be with the shooter but playing for the wrong team still. and there is a temptation to play right, because the comeout is much more favourable and the odds bets pay >1 to 1, and for the "social" reasons when playing live. but i think the maths dictate we should bank on seven as much as possible, or in other words on every non-comeout roll. but the seven is still favoured to hit on the comeout over any other number, so it seems right to bet right. does anyone prop the naturals on the comeout when they play wrong, and in what proportions is this feasible? craps is a very complicated game. in all my claculations i could never come up with how to find the house edge. i think i got close to finding the weighted ev's of all the outcomes and the average loss per series, but i could not derive the edge as posted on the wiz etc. speak up, dice players! how do YOU play to try and win?

[MPB]

Originally Posted by Scooter7

This is significant because laying odds at this point produces the opposite effect of the limit equation that I alluded to in the pass line/odds example above. Combine the 0.00% lay odds with the (now) +50% EV don't pass bet and the more you lay, the lower your EV.

Regardless of what the odds of winning are after the point is established, the don't pass bet still has an overall -EV for the player. So you can still minize your HA by adding bets without a HA.

[EasyRhino]

Sure, betting big odds has the advantage of lowering the aggregate house advantage. However, it also puts a lot more money at risk. Also, you're already "losing" the same amount from the initial pass/don't pass bet.

If you want to get your gamble on in the most efficient way possible, take monster odds.

If you're trying to stretch out money as long as possible, I'd probably just avoid the odds entirely, and stick with a tiny pass or don't pass bet.

[Slotster!]

I liked this article on that "Golden Touch" craps site:

"You’ll notice some casino ads, events and/or press releases that promote the idea of "responsible" gambling. Just as there is no "creature under the bed" in little Timmy’s room (except if little Timmy is in a horror movie or a novel), there is no such thing as "responsible" gambling, at least not in this world -- nor need the casino industry pretend that there is to make itself appear socially conscious or to justify its existence.

Gambling in and of itself is an irresponsible act, a frivolity, like miniature golf, or going to the movies, or dining out or watching most television shows. Anytime you give up "X" amount of money in order to receive a return of "X-Y" amount of money ("Y" being the amount the casino edge extracts), you are acting irresponsibly. Yes, you are having fun; yes, you are experiencing a thrill ride; and, yes, some nights you might even go home or back to your hotel room with more money than when you started.

Still, no one would invest in a stock if they were guaranteed it would lose money in the long run. We would say such an investor was irresponsible. In fact, we’d say he was a jerk.

So why do casino industry people promote the idea that there is such a thing as responsible gambling when they know (or should know) that any gambling against a house edge is irresponsible?"