Cosmo counts odds bet at Craps

Can anyone actually confirm that Cosmo counts odds bets in their comp calculation?

There is a message in this thread posted 1/4/11 10:50 PM that answers your question in detail.

speck';s question is not as simple as you think, and I also raised this. the question really is "how are they counted?" and by that I mean "what value is attached to the odds?"

as I pointed out, comp rankings in craps are not exact -- unlike slot machines where a card is inserted and a computer counts coin in and assigns values to each play.

at a craps table a floor person has to monitor your betting (does he do it correctly?) and then you need to know the formula used by the casino. for example, I will give you the Caesars formula: more "value" is given to middle table bets than to outside place bets which have more value than inside place bets, which have more value than line bets, which have more value than odds bets. If I were to rank which bets on a craps table earn the most "points" the rank would look like this:

one roll bets for horn, hop numbers
one roll bets for field
hard way bets
place bets on 4 and 10
place bets on 5 and 9
place bets on 6 and 8
pass line, dont pass, come and dont come
odds

In fact at Caesars the comp formula breaks down players into three groups -- A being the players making the most conservative bets, passline with odds plus 6 and 8; B being the players making other place bets plus hardways; C being the players making the one roll bets. Then each amount bet is rated.

Sure, Cosmo might rate your odds, but if your average odds bet on the passline is $100 ($25 minimum table) just what are you getting for that particular bet?

Actually, the comps on your odds might be a lot of "nothing." In other words, "yes sir, we count your odds but we can't comp your stay."

I am now convinced. There just has to be something wrong with you.

spek72 asked, "Can anyone actually confirm that Cosmo counts odds bets in their comp calculation?"

I answered that specific question in the message in this thread posted 1/4/11 10:50 PM, which I referenced in my answer to speck72. In the 1/4/11 message, I gave specific answers and amounts based on a $100 bet size, an easy number to use to calculate different wager sizes and hence, comp ratings or value. Information I took the time to gather via telephone calls to hosts, etc, so that I would provide accurate information, and gain a true understanding of the Cosmo system.

And you than say, "Sure, Cosmo might rate your odds, but if your average odds bet on the passline is $100 ($25 minimum table) just what are you getting for that particular bet?"

The exact answer to your statement is also in the thread message I've referenced. You even acknowledged it in a later message.

Than, you go off topic to Caesars "as an example", without any idea whether Cosmo and Caesars use the exact method to rate odds. And the question asked was about odds being rated, not craps rating systems.

Maybe you should see a doctor and get checked for Alzheimer's. Because you either suffer from short term memory loss, or speak just to hear what you have to say.

Sheesh.

Through the entire discussion, I only spoke of the long term results. I provided a specific scenario, with expectation being the statistical norm, the true long term expectations.

Yet you would constantly insist on short term, one or two rolls, that showed exact opposite results. You would than insiste that those short returns skewed the long term results. You either did not read what was written, or were unable to understand what was said, or chose to ignore statements to suit your agenda. You put words into peoples mouths. You attribute statements to others that are not truthful. And you do so frequently, in many different threads.

And when you see you will not get away with it, you tuck your tail between your legs and skamper off.

I stand by what I said. You may "know" the games and the betting, only as far as the "How to's".

But, from reading what you have written, and the things you've said, there is no way I am going to think that you have a true and correct understanding of the math, the odds, what statiscal norm is, the long term results, or a strong and complete understanding of the total picture for the games you play. The inner workings of why things are what they are.

Memorizing the contents of a book and being able to recite it from memory may be a good trait in some instances, but if you do not understand what the author was saying, you've got nothing more than a parlor trick.

This was evident when the "cost of playing" was discussed for comp value earlier in the thread.

You skew facts to suit your own approach, and do not seem capable of approaching situations with an open mind. You just pretend you do, but you are married to your opinions, no matter how much they cost, or how incorrect they are.

You are unable to admit you are wrong about anything.

Neither one of us may reach the "long term", but my journey should/will be much much less volatile.
Some of us "math guys" realize that losing less is also a small win of sorts. A wager saved is the same as a wager won.

That is what these discussions are about. If "Thrifty" & "Bankroll" both lose the same amount of money, as has been repeatedly proven, in the long run when statistical normalcy is reached, and "Bankroll" has gained much more in comps, free rooms, meals, etc, is he a better gambler?

"Thrifty" is spending cash for most of his meals and hotel. "Bankroll" is comped. When they get home, Thrifty has lost the exact same amount of money as Bankroll, plus has paid additional money for other expenses Bankroll did not spend.

BOTH players are still negative for the trip. But, one is still better off. In the end, he lost less, so to speak, by betting more. When the perfect statistical norm was reached.

roadtrip, why do you have to be an asshole and turn this into a personal attack? I didnt attack you? I didnt attack or even criticize your comments or observations or earlier post. I never even said what you posted a week ago was incorrect?

the point I was making was that comp values vary. that was number one. but another important point is there is no exact science for comps at a craps table which depends on the observations of the pit critters.

you have no guarantee that they will get it right when they observe your bets and mark your rating. by the way, NO ONE has an rfid enabled craps table yet that will allow computers do to this-- but in the future this might change.

yes, I thanked you for your information. but Ive been around the rodeo for a long time, and I know what to watch out for.

so, are you going to be playing the $25, $50 or $100 table at the Cosmo with full odds?

Oh, and thanks for your post and fcuk you.

edited to change spelling.

I selected "ignore" for roadtrip and shlomo.

Actually, you did "attack" me when you lied and attributed statements to me which I've never said.

Once again, you've forgotten the things you've written, especially regarding criticism, etc.

But I've not taken those things personally.

As for being an "AH", once again when you get flustered, you resort to name calling and childish behavior.

I will not be playing any tables at Cosmo. In fact, I will not be playing any negative expectation games anywhere, unless I have a promotion which changes that situation to a positive expectation.

There may be an occasion, or several, where I will play a table game, even negative expectation, for recreation or other considerations. But if/when I do, I will always play that game to reduce the house advantage to the bare minimum.

As previously proven in this thread, full odds does not change the house advantage in the long run. I will probably not play full odds, because the comps do not interest me.

I "gamble" smart. I play live cash game poker, and sometimes VP, depending on the pay tables and promotions.

I could care less about the size of your bankroll compared to mine. I'm frugal, and you seek to impress. I stay downtown you seek the strip.

So what. That does not make you a better person than me, or better gambler. I hardly think so.

I consider myself too intelligent, and work to hard for my money, to throw it away with bad choices.

And as for your last request, ....

Sorry, this is not my decade for men. But, I'm sure you won't have too much difficulty finding a boy toy to fulfill your fantasy.

Oh well.

My LVA experiences will never again be the same.


Edited to add:

BTW....

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a stop loss.