That's a different definition of hedging from the one I'm used to then. Less bets doesn't lower your variance. I can get a variance of 0 by never betting. I can get a very high variance by placing the hard 6.

+ ~3.5 dime at Palazzo, CR, O'sheas last w/e. Up at all 3. [and at Pai Gow]

/variance

After all of this information, when is it better to make a place bet vs a buy bet? How do I know which of these is most advantageous?

Buy the 4 and 10, place the rest. Only placing the 6 and 8 are decent bets, though.

To figure that out, calculate the true odds of hitting the number vs what they pay and then see if a 5% commission is better to get true odds.

Also -- find out when the commission is paid.

3 nites of dicing at Cosmo, +750, -300, +625. ship the dime.

$39 buy bet on the 4 and 10, $1 commission paid on the win?

Should be paid on the win, yes. But I'd charge $2 on $21

Since this was bumped, I hope somewhere in there somebody corrected the fallacy being put forth in the thread that taking the odds is an advantageous play. It is not. Lowering the blended house edge just to win/lose the exact same amount of money (EV stays the same), while putting a greater BR fraction at risk on the bet, is not an advantage. Taking the odds is just more action, that's all. Your expected loss is the same taking it or not taking it.

Obviously. But OTOH:

1) Taking odds gives you action at a cost of $0. If you don't want action, why are you in a casino?
2) It's the least disadvantageous bet in town.
3) You'll gain respect from discerning observers (dealers, women) who will see that you are above-average in intelligence compared to other gamblers, or at least not as stupid.
4) If there's a hot roll, you'll be one of the people who make out big.
5) Some casinos include your odds bets for purposes of calculating comps, thereby gaining you comps at a cost of $0.