Cosmo counts odds bet at Craps

road trip, lets use one hand as an example. the point is 6 with 5X odds on a $10 table.

in example A the 6 passes:

Thrifty bets $10 and wins $10
Bankroll bets $10 + $50 and wins $10 + $60 = $70

in example B the 6 does not pass:

Thrifty bets $10 and loses $10
Bankroll bets $10 + $50 and loses $60

In both cases the passline by itself had a house advantage of 1.4%, and the odds always had a zero house advantage. Yet, in the end, Bankroll with the odds either wins more or loses more.

Now, what happens after one win and one loss?

Thrifty, in our example, actually breaks even after one win and one loss.
Bankroll, in our example, actually makes a $10 profit after one win and one loss.

But that was in our "perfect world."

After one win and two losses Thrifty is behind $10 and Bankroll is down $50.

Moral is that it is better to win than to loose.

Kaypea is right on!

One win, or many does not matter, because in order to play in the perfect world, you have to be willing to accept the terms and conditions of that perfect world casino. All results will meet the exact statistical probability. There will be no deviation. There is no "one hand" or "two hands" results. That just does not allow for meeting the statistical perfection this discussion evolved into.

You need to read that last paragraph and understand it. Because you keep making changes with your "proof" that only makes you look like you are residing on Mars, not "planer perfect".

You keep putting a deviation of some sort or another into the thread that does not meet the criteria of the "trial". You refuse to accept the "perfect world" scenario, because, if you do, you will obviously prove yourself wrong.

Again, Those "terms and conditions" are that a complete cycle, 1980 individual rolls, must be played though before leaving the table. Expectation for that number of rolls is "easier" to predict, since each number would be rolled exactly 55 times, and each individual result ( a winner or loser for a point) would be achieved exactly according to probability and expectation. Statistical perfection.

If you first acknowledge that statistical perfection will be achieved, (this is Planet Perfect), than you will not be able to deviate from the anticipated and expected results. Those results are a statistical certainty.

Stick with the scenario, as intended and outlined, without nitpicking, and than try to prove me incorrect.

You won't.

I maintain that Thrifty, and Big Bankroll will have the same exact loss at the end of the session, which is 1980 rolls of the dice when there are statically perfect results.

I'd offer you a wager, but you have a history of not accepting them, telling people to take it to the casino, and wishing them luck. You know you are wrong. I think you're just trying desperately to save face and that you are never, ever able to admit you are wrong.

I also expect you'll answer this response by somehow trying to take this conversation in another different direction that does not meet the criteria.

Why not just accept the facts?

Thrifty, and Big Bankroll will both lose the exact same amount of money after one trial, or many, when the results are statistically perfect.

Therefor, in theory, taking full odds at the Cosmo, where the player receives additional rating value toward comps, it cost that player nothing, zero, nada in the perfect statiscal long run, in a world of perfect expectation to receive the additional comp value.

The proverbial something for nothing. IF comps are your thing.


Edited to add: A "trial" by my definition is 1980 rolls of the dice.

Road, you are banging your head against the same wall I was. Those arguing against that position are making bets based on fear of downside, not what's expected or hoping for upside. (*not realizing that any and all are equally probable).

Those people will *never* get it. And you know what they say, 'scared money never wins'.

Save your keystrokes.

Because the free odds are exactly that, free, if we use long term expectation that we will meet statistical probability, have the bankroll to afford minor deviations, never face risk of ruin, and eventually will find our results exactly the same as expected, the statistical norm, than there is definitely a significant benefit to betting full odds when additional comp rating is applied to those odds bets.

The free odds additional comp rating should be worth.....

If my original information is correct, and my calculations in this message also correct, than proportioning the $105/hour for full odds (3x,4x,5x and $100 bets as previously outlined in the message I previously posted after speaking with a host) downwards for $5.00 players, the comp values awarded should be:

Mr. Thrifty: .35/hour
Mr. Bankroll: 5.25/hour

The line bet “loss” (1.41%) for the full trial (1980 rolls @ $5.00) would be about $139.50

Both players will lose that amount of money per “trial” in our world of perfect expectation.

For the purpose of this message and simplicity, I used 100 rolls per hour for comp values, and accepted the numbers I acquired from the host when I telephoned as to what the “per hour” comp value rating would be. The actual numbers could be different.

At the end of 1980 rolls, Mr. Thrifty should be rated with $6.93 in comps after 19.8 hours of play and lost about $139.50

At the end of 1980 rolls, Mr. Big Bankroll should be rated with 103.95 in comps after 19.8 hours of play and lost about $139.50

By taking full odds whenever possible, Mr. Big Bankroll has increased his value by $97.00 in comps, over those 19.8 hours, without the risk of losing anything different than Mr. Thrifty.

Of course, this is in our Cosmopolitan Casino world with Perfect expectation and all trials ending at a statistical correct position.

So I maintain that under the circumstance that odds are rated for comps, it is correct for a long term frequent crap player to always play the maximum odds allowed, as long as the game will also be there tomorrow with the same rules and odds.

Of course, craps is still gambling, and this hypothetical situation will hardly exist for the “gamblers”.

The math guys who “gamble smart” will “get it”.

Those reading this forum and who gamble “recreationally”, but pretend or maintain they are smart players who want to learn, won’t get it, and never will.

Shlomo... you are probably right.

I'll still try to help a blind person cross the street, if they will accept it.

Edited to add:

I forgot to mention, this is still, and will always be a negative expectation game, as is almost everything else, so in the long run, everyone will still lose.

But, if you do want to gamble, and you realize that you will lose, the it would be "better" to gain some small advantage from the additional comps generated for odds bets. Again, presuming that your results will meet the statistical norm.

Unfortunately road trip, and shlomo, you miss the point that Kaypea quickly grasped. While the odds bet are paid at "true odds" and therefore have NO house advantage and NO player advantage, the house is still MORE LIKELY TO WIN the right way odds bets, and the house is MORE LIKELY TO LOSE the "dont odds bets."

this is in fact how the game is played.

there are two conditions attached to "odds bets." one is the basis of the payoff. the second is the CHANCE OF WINNING. You are concentrating on the basis of the payoff and, I think, disregarding the chance of winning (or losing).

Anyone who really plays the game has experienced a cold streak where all of those wonderful odds bets for the "right side players" have gone to the casino even though they have zero house advantage.

You are trying to deny that craps is a negative expectation game. You think that because the "odds bets" have no house advantage and no player advantage, that miraculously you will either win or break even. you are so confused.

by the way, Im writing this in my room at Caesars. I played craps for about a half hour tonight. took out a marker for $1,000 and cashed out $3660. Yes, I bet full odds, but I had one hell of a hand. Making 9 passes including 4 different points to get $250 on my $10 firebet. Yes, I made big money on my full odds because my numbers PASSED. Math didnt make me win-- but rolling the dice to make the points made me win.

And here's the funny thing-- there was another player at the table who also made money and he bet NO odds. He just kept pressing the numbers and his flat bet. And another player at the table, bless him, was a DP bettor who happened to bet the hard ways and place numbers on the right side. He had zero DP odds but walked away from table up $1200 because of his other right way bets. I mention those two players because NEITHER ONE bet odds and still made a lot of money BECAUSE THE DICE KEPT HITTING.

Money,

Open your eyes a read what has been said.

I have, throughout this entire thread, always stipulated that what I wrote pertains to "A Perfect World", a place where the statistical norm is expected, where deviation is not possible, and there is no short term. Every "session" is part and parcel of the long term results, and every 1980 rolls of the dice will result in the exact expectation per the math.

And the point your are trying to make is what?

Good for you. You gambled and got lucky. And so did the others. Nothing funny about that. It is a short term lucky result.

BUT, your temporary victory has absolutely nothing to do with whats been discussed in this thread.

I am on "Planet Perfect", and YOU, well, to put it politely, you are in a world of your own.

Road, I'm begging you. Save your breath. Money is a complete idiot. All he does in these threads in introduce strawmen (as you've now discovered) and change the subject.

His comments about the fact that true odds bets don't win as often as 50/50, therefore they are a bad bet somehow (notwithstanding the fact that they pay out in multiples that make the bet worth it) shows that he's the poster-bitch for Prospect Theory. He overestimates the effect of downside risk and underestimates the effect of upside.

Take a look at his last misguided rant, supposedly written from Caesars (I have my doubts - these types tend to be posers). He says

The correct response to this drivel is, as you have surmised, some approximation of 'big fckn deal'. There are cold streaks and hot streaks, you and I both know. At the end of the day they even out, as you and I both know.

Finally, notice how he argues one position then tells us all that the took full odds. So he enjoys a) building strawmen, b) changing the subject once he's completely owned in the conversation, and c) playing devil's advocate..... I even called him out on this at the beginning of this thread, because he did it once before, arguing one way then 'letting me in on a secret: I always take full odds!'.

What a douchebag.

Edit to add: I knew this thread would turn out this way with that poser. I said as much in my post from
1/3/11 8:55 AM, on the 2nd page of this thread.

No shlomo, you are a sheister. you are trying to mislead people into betting more into a losing game. you probably run casino trips and tours. if youre not a sheister, you are the idiot. From what Ive been able to gather from your posts is that you think that odds are going to make you a winner in a negative expectation game. Tsk Tsk. The more you bet, the more you lose. Dont give me any BS about lowering the house edge-- because the house is still more likely to win. So it doesnt matter if the edge is 1% or one-tenth of one percent. Because when your money is gone -- its gone whether it lost to a 1% edge or a 5% edge or an edge of one tenth of one percent. You still dont understand that the edge on your odds and passline bet has NOTHING to do with the chance of winning. If you want to know how to increase your chance of winning at craps I am going to tell you -- it has ZIP to do with how you bet or what kind of odds you bet.

Oh and shlomo, I take full odds because I know how to win. Thats why Ive been barred from MGM, NYNY and Bellagio. I take full odds not because it is such a wonderful deal but because I know the only way to turn craps from a negative expectation game into a positive expectation game.

roadtrip. I am sorry. I didnt realize that you agrree that craps is a negative expectation game and that everyone playing is going to be a long term loser!! you wrote: "I have constantly stated that there will only be losers in the long term."

Thats it. You got it right. Now, explain to me: if craps is a long term losing game, WHY would you bet more money to lose? Because thats exactly what the odds bet do-- the increase the flow of money from your pocket to the casino's.

Do you guys want to know how to win at craps? I can tell you. But youre not going to like it and youre going to say its a bunch of hogwash. And the truth is, it is hogwash for all but a select few players.

I keep telling you-- if the odds bets were really so wonderful for the players, why do the casinos promote them and book them? Gee, do you think the casinos want players to win? LOL