Question of the Day - 26 June 2021

Here's one thing you can count on: the higher the potential payout on any kind of bet like this, the greater the house edge. I've asked myself why this should be, and the only sensible answer I can think of is that back in the day, it was actually plausible that someone who got really lucky on bets like this could bust the house--so to compensate themselves for that usually negligible risk, the casinos awarded themselves a really high vig. That custom persists, even though all the casinos could now easily take such a licking and keep on ticking.

We all know that the one thing the casinos absolutely do NOT want to do is gamble. So if you're in a casino and see some kind of newfangled bet that pays 100-1 or 450-1 or something like that, you can just walk away laughing, secure in the knowledge that the bet sucks.

In most cases, including where it’s offered in Vegas, the bet loses when any seven is rolled, including a come out seven. 

“Most cases” because the math, and the patent, supports a version where all come out rolls are ignored. 

150-1 is a joke.  But it "sounds" good so people jump on it.  My local casino pays 175-1, which still has a high house edge.  As Kevin rightly states, the higher the payout the higher the vig.  But it falls on gamblers to educate themselves and make smart bets, which most don't.  Just watch most blackjack players.  I figure if I'm going to gamble (and I do love to gamble) I want to know the vig on every bet I make and stay away from the carnival bets.  Sure I'll still lose in the long run but my money will last a lot longer.  

I have seen these types of extra big winners over the years.  The house vig may be in the 7 to 10 %.  After it becomes popular they lower some of the payouts without publicizing the reduction and many players will bet the now with much higher vig (17%) and will be getting killed.  Example if you set & make 4 or 5 of the box numbers for the fire bets, you get killed betting it.

I am always amused when "braniacs" like Kevin and Vic bray about how dumb it is to play side bets IN A NEGATIVE EV GAME. Yes, the chances of winning are lower in the so-called "sucker bets." But if you play craps long enough, you will eventually lose your bankroll anyway, even if you just bet the pass line and maximum odds.

If you are playing craps, you should be playing because (1) you enjoy it and (2) you hope to sometime come away with a winner. Bonus Craps is a fun side bet. It adds excitement to the game. And you can just bet a dollar on each if you want to, so the effect on your variance and risk of going bust is minimal.

In terms of house edge, the analysis both here and on Wizard of Odds seems incomplete to me. Very rarely do I see anyone bet only the Small, Tall, or All. It's almost always an "all three proposition." Because winning the All necessarily means that the bettor also wins both the Tall and Small, the house edge for betting all three should be somewhat lower.

Brent, you're incorrect in so many ways, it's breathtaking.

First of all, craps is a negative EV game, but some bets are much worse than others. Saying that it doesn't matter what bets you make because you'll lose anyway is like driving your car into a tree because it's bound to break down eventually.

The fact that you can usually make small bets on these propositions doesn't alter the fact that they are sucker bets. And they're not as inexpensive as you claim! For instance, a $1 All bet (at a 150-1 payout) costs you as much in expected loss as a $15 Pass Line bet!

You cannot decrease the negative EV of a bet by combining it with other -EV bets. This is basic math, and basic gambling strategy. You don't have to take the word of us "brainiacs." The Wizard of Odds can verify this simple fact for you.

a few YEARS  ago , at the GN , i was lucky enuff to 'catch'a hot shooter , i bet 1-3-1 , AFTER IT HIT , i asked the dealer how many times has this come in today ? Her reply was 'this is the first time today ' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was 545 pm , i tipped and left the table ,   rf

Kevin and Brent, I suggest you are both correct, to a degree.
  
Recognizing that the house odds will work out in their favor in the long run, the only sane reason to gamble is because you find it entertaining.  If you are only really entertained when you win, then Kevin's take is right on, and you should run away from a bet like this.  If the game, the process, and watching those long odds possibilities hit or miss is entertaining for you, then take your shot and see how it goes.  You will likely be paying more for your entertainment, but may have more fun along the way.  It comes down to preference and playing the game of your choice.  

Wherever you fall in this spectrum, learning just what odds you are facing will be valuable, and make it a worthwhile QOD for a lot of folks.  Thanks LVA for another good one.

I never said combining the bet lowers the individual house edges. My point is simpler: the individual house edges are not useful when hardly anyone just makes individual bets. Better information would be what is the combined house edge  for all three bets, which would definitely be lower than the individual house edge for the All, and higher for Small and Tall. I would like to know the combined house edge, because that's how I (and everyone else) make the bet.

I also never claimed that the expected loss is less due to the smaller bet. But the impact on a recreational gambler's bank roll is minimal. For many (most?) recreational gamblers the real concern is the amount of play one can reasonably expect from a typical buy-in, not an expected return on play.

Attempting to apply AG principles to recreational gaming, and then acting superior to those who don't, when you are talking about a negative EV game makes you look dumb, not the recreational gamblers you are slagging.