you go to the casino with $100 and
you want to get your money in with the highest chance of success

find a craps table with 10x odds

bet $5 on the dont pass
if a 5,6,8,9 comes up
dont lay any odds
wait for a 4 or 10 to come up
then lay odds
youre 2:1 to win on your bet

asides from poker

theres no other bet you can make in the casino
with that high a chance of success

if im going to the casino with just $100
thats what im gonna do with my money

get it allin a spot where youre the most likely to win the bet

Do you realize that flipping a coin for $100 paying even money would be a better bet? If not, why not?

Jimbo

thats 50/50 for an even money payoff

id rather bet 66/33 for a 1:2 payoff

theyre both equal in value

its just all a matter of preference

id also rather take the 50/50 bet for an even money payoff

than a 33/66 bet with a 2:1 payoff

still just a matter of preference

No it isn't it is a mater of fact. To get your "favorable" odds you must put $5 on the don't pass line. There is no fee to flip a coin at an even money payoff.

Please just admit you made a mistake and go on about something else.

Jimbo

my reply had nothing to do with craps or a dont pass bet

all i said was id rather take a 66/33 bet with a 1:2 payoff

than taking a 50/50 bet for even money payoff and

id rather take a 50/50 bet for even money than a 33/66 bet for 2:1 payoff

Then you don't understand math/probability if you really prefer any of those over the other.

Jimbo

they hold all exactly the same value
it doesnt matter which bet you take

its just personal preference

i prefer making bets with higher chances of success and lesser payoffs
than making bets with lower chances of success and higher payoffs

you have no personal preference

which is okay too

if i brought more money to the casino than just $100
id have no personal preference over which bet to take either

but only going with $100

id prefer to take the wager with a higher chance of success and lower payout
than taking the wager with a lower chance of success and higher payout

But the chance of success is equal for all three examples you offered. Please explain how it could be otherwise.

Jimbo

This isn't exactly true either. This whole discussion seems like the two of you are talking about two different things. In early post #3 Rudy began by stating "after a point is established " -- I think both of you would agree that it's preferable to be behind laying odds as opposed to front buying odds -- but this would only be true "after a point is established", then in a later post #10, Rudy states "if you only had one bet", and then goes on to describe a sequence of multiple bets (a back bet with odds).

If the name of the game is just survival, as Rudy seems to keep promoting, and you want to play every roll -- I would play the back at table minimum and lay no odds, as opposed to the line and the come. If you just want to play the come out roll -- it wouldn't make any difference. The reasoning here is pretty simple -- if you're playing every roll on the front, you win your -EV bets one at a time and lose them all on a single likely event. On the back, I lose my +EV bets one at a time and win them all on a single likely event. There's a lot less variance.

Again, at times Rudy seems to be talking about a case bet, as in post #10. With $100 making a case bet, playing $5 until you got behind and then laying the balance would be a lot more attractive than doing the same in the front -- again, assuming that surviving the bet is an important consideration which is the point Rudy seems to be making.

As for Jimbos question (DUCY?) about laying odds, I'm assuming that your argument would combine the expectation of the two bets to show that laying odds has reduced your overall expectation -- as opposed to buying odds which improves your overall expectation. But this argument also ignores the come out roll. I would agree that whether odds are in the front or back is meaningless -- odds really don't do anything except add volatility.

Thought it was clear that the only choices in that particular example were to either play the don't and lay the odds or bet the passline and take the odds, not to have a third choice. Agreed odds add variance.

Jimbo

If you're doing a blended bet -- such as in a club that offers 100x odds -- the chances of success are not equal, even though the expectations are.

Since all the examples assume you only have $100 I ignored this possibility. Also the example you referred to had nothing to do with a craps bet, did you miss that?

Jimbo

The amount doesn't really matter -- just that it's a blended wager. I only mentioned it because somewhere Rudy mentioned playing $5 -- I assume he wanted to play the entire balance as odds once a point hit, and he was describing that as one wager.

The examples I referred to sure seemed to be about craps. I'm not going to read the thread again -- what are you suggesting I missed?

Rudy used this example:

You quoted this response by me referring to the above example:

By saying this:

.


I wasn't disagreeing with anything you wrote by itself but in the context of the different discussions Rudy was trying to slip out of his prior positions by changing his own context, he used the above to avoid the initial bet required prior to the comeout roll.

Jimbo

I caught that. Rudy is talking about odds only. But since everyone agrees that the line bet is a virtual tossup, the choice of a flat bet -- front or back -- has little to do with the game -- except the variance you'll experience. Both players will get points, front and back. I caught Rudys point to be that if he was on a short bank or making a case bet, he'd rather be on the back so he could lay. I agree. I was really commenting on your position that they have equal probability of success, which is only true of the flat wager on the come out. Since he was talking about odds only, that's no longer true. So, if you want the majority of your action in odds -- and you want to play 'safe', the back becomes the better play.

i do this on a short bankroll too
bet $5 dont pass
once a point is established
lay double odds
bet $15 dont come $1 yo
once two points established
bet $30 dont come $2 yo
once three points established
take down all my odds
if two of my three points are hit
lay max odds on the third point

You're way too agressive trying to tame the variance -- your losses are primarily in those $1 and $2 yo bets. You've got to accept a short bank for what it is -- a short bank. If you cover yourself too much, they'll grind you down every time.

i understand what youre saying but when im playing short
i dont mind giving up a littlle in hedges
to get myself setup in the position i want to be in

having 3 dont bets out there

like in my previous posts you noticed
im mostly concerned about survival when playing short

if im not at a table with 10x or more odds
this is usually the way ill go about my wagers

It doesn't matter how you are playing...
Craps = -EV

Walk in the casino, inquire about the poker room or go home.

Rudeboi just likes to bet on the one that will win more often

even if it is a lower EV

but I didn't write this post to say that

I wrote this post to make fun of how he posts

because I find it annoying

when he posts like this

Give it up. Fine dining and golf are -EV as well. Some people don't mind paying for entertainment -- they just want to know what the price is.

That describes me to a T, the adrenalin rush from craps is about all I can take at my age.

Jimbo

And at our age, it's not a bad trade-off; unless you expected to live forever

hey im still young

And every year you get closer to the end without regrets is a good year.