If nobody minds, I would like to sort of re-ask the question from the “how many points to play at once?” thread, since it got hijacked ten ways from Sunday. 

This is for don’t players:

Is there a statistical advantage to having DC points (w/odds bets, of course), in addition to your DP point and odds, or is it statistically better to play the DP point and odds only, and not make any DC bets?

Ruark

The house expects to win 1.4% of the total flat Don’t Pass and Don’t Come bets regardless of how this total is distributed.  Put another way, the bean counters will add $1.40 to “Profit” whether you make one bet of $100 or ten bets of $10.  Consequently, how many points you get behind does not affect your expected loss, only the total amount of your flat bets matters.

What making multiple bets does do is decrease variance.  A single $100 Don’t bet either wins or loses $100 on a single decision; ten $10 Don’t bets can also win or lose $100, but it is far more likely that the total win or loss will be somewhere in between those limits.  So, for equal total amounts at risk, single bets provide a higher profit potential at the expense of a higher risk of ruin, while multiple bets sacrifice profit potential to stabilize playing time.

...I explained to you the concept of flat bet…odds….and expected loss , in the other thread mentioned, 4th post down. Some people have a hard time grasping how bets and odds work…...which is fine and one of the reasons these boards exist. 

If you understood why people play multiple hands at a blackjack table you would understand the idea midnite is trying to get across.

The real thrust of your initial question in your other thread was, how can I lose not so fast. You are refusing to accept the obvious answer, which is ..............don’t bet alot i.e. don’t make so many bets. The way gambling normally works is….bet little, win/lose little; bet big, win/lose big.

If you understand how vig works you should know that no combination of bets reduce/eliminate the vig.  More bets means more vig…...more bets means the more you can lose.  More=more…...Less=Less

Hopefully you will be able to understand.

777

That’s an excellent answer, Midnight, although it doesn’t cover all the bases.  Your point about 1X100 vs 10X10 is very well made.

You talk only about flat bets. From there, where do odds fit into this picture?  For example, you’re playing in $10 units, and you want to maintain 3 points w/max odds at all times. You have:

The $10 DP bet.  Point is 9. Another $40 for odds on that point. Total $50.

On the next roll, you make a $10 DC bet, and get a 4. An additional $50 odds on that DC point. Total on the table is now $110.

On the next roll, another $10 DC bet. You get a 5. $40 odds on that point.

So you now have a DP point of 9, and DC points of 4 and 5, with max odds on all three. Total on the table is now $160.

Now it gets interesting.

Next roll is a 4.  You lose that DC point and its $50 odds bet. Total loss is $60. 

To maintain 3 points, you make another $10 DC bet, and roll a 10. Add $50 in odds on that point. So far you’ve spend $220. You’re back to playing 3 points, with max odds on all 3.

Next roll is a 5. You lose that $50. 

Make another $10 DC bet, get a 6. Add $30 odds to that bet. So far you’ve put $260 on the table, total. You’re now playing the 9, the 10, and the 6, max odds on each.

Next roll is a 7. Win. You get:

$40 on the 9
$35 on the 10
$35 on the 6

Total winnings: $110. You played $260, so you’re down $150.

What happened here is, you spent too much money “maintaining 3 points at all times” and it canceled out your gains when you finally rolled a 7. 

It can certainly work the other way, when you have all 6 points piled up with max odds, and roll a 7 and the money just pours in. Been there. But when you have a DC point of 10 with 5X odds and lose it several times before rolling a 7, it just kills you. Been there, too!

One thing: notice that this strategy doesn’t really allow you to limit each hand’s bet, e.g. $100 per hand, which seems to be the approach in your example. That really puts a different light on the whole thing.

So, I’m reflecting on this when I ask if it’s better to just play DP with odds, or DP/DC with odds, and if the latter, how to manage those additional DC points, again, everything with max odds. Again, your points about 10x10 vs 1x100 are excellent; I’m just kinda straining to work that into what I’ve said here. Can you help?

You are really talking about money management, and the first question you need to answer is, How much are you willing to risk at a time?  This will determine the size and number of your bets.  As your example shows, playing to get behind a fixed number of points while ignoring “losses-to-date” can lead to what’s known as chasing a hand and can eat up a bankroll in a hurry.

I suggest instead establishing a loss limit for a series.  Based on your example and assuming a double odds table you might choose $140.  That translates to a DP and two DCs, $10 flat with max odds.  (Of course that would add up to $140 only if your points were 4, 10, and either 5 or 9.)  If you die behind a point do not make another Don’t bet; instead wait for all of your remaining action to be resolved, then start a new series.  What to do after natural winners and losers, and how to handle money “left over” after going behind three points can be tailored to taste.

I personally let the dice determine how may points I will go behind, up to a maximum of four.  I do not bet DP lest the shooter take it personally.  After he/she establishes a point I start making $10 DC bets (with single odds) until
    1) the shooter makes the line point, or
    2) the shooter picks off one of my points, or
    3) the shooter rolls 11 (a natural DC loser), or
    4) I get behind four points.

The Midnight Skulker - 28 July 2011 01:39 PM

I personally let the dice determine how may points I will go behind, up to a maximum of four.  I do not bet DP lest the shooter take it personally.  After he/she establishes a point I start making $10 DC bets (with single odds) until…

Why only single odds?

A couple of reasons.  First and foremost, four points with $10 flat and single odds puts $74-$110 on the table.  That’s around 10% of my bankroll and enough action for my tastes.

Reason #2: I play a quasi-winning progressing which calls for fewer points with more odds under some circumstances.  Single odds gives me the head room for the odds increase.

Reason #2.1: When I’m wrong-siding it I toke the crew by letting the dealer choose one of my points and adding an odds increment to it.  Head room again.

These are all interesting, especially considering that always taking maximum odds is almost universally advised. That’s why Midnight’s mention of playing 4 points with single odds sort of jolted me.

777 - actually I wasn’t concerned about “not losing so fast.”  Yes, I did acknowledge that sometimes I lose very quickly when trying to maintain several points with max odds at all times.  However, I do recognize that that strategy can produce breathtaking win/loss swings, and I’m assuming that the bankroll or buy-in is big enough to accommodate it.

My central question regarded the general advisability of maintaining multiple max-odds points in the first place (“maintain 3 points at all times”), as opposed to just playing DP with max odds and no DC points at all.  I believe it was Midnight, or maybe it was 777, who advised a compromise: having, say, 3 points (e.g. a DP and two DC’s, with max odds), but NOT replacing them if they were hit, which can be a humongous money-eater.

Midnight also mentioned a suggested refinement of limiting the total amount bet per pass to a specific amount, instead of betting whatever the strategy called for at the moment.

Ruark - 28 July 2011 10:09 PM

These are all interesting, especially considering that always taking maximum odds is almost universally advised.

If your bankroll can handle it!  Odds increase variance without increasing expected loss; therefore the more odds you take the better your chances are of finishing farther away from your expected outcome.  Unfortunately, this distance can be either positive or negative.

Ruark - 28 July 2011 10:09 PM

Midnight also mentioned a suggested refinement of limiting the total amount bet per pass to a specific amount, instead of betting whatever the strategy called for at the moment.

Because you’re putting up the long end of the odds on the dark side, a hot hand can decimate a bankroll in very short order.  Of course the math says that it doesn’t matter when you make a bet, your expected value is the same.  Nevertheless, I personally abhor the thought of a single shooter wiping me out, so I’m not above sitting out a hot shooter, or even switching sides.

Ruark….If you look thru the posts me and midnite wrote and write a list 1,2,3, etc of the specific pieces of advise we wrote, I think it will help you. It won’t guarantee you will win but if you follow most of the items on the list it will definately help you play a stronger game. Don’t get too hung up on the math and independent rolls, etc, etc. Yes the math is important to know but sometimes common sense, your gut, ESP, and the “voices’ in your head must rule, and not the math. ( I hope I did not lose you with that last sentence ).

I don’t know how long you have been playing but between me and midnite I would guess we have close to 100 years of experience shooting dice. The non-math advice we render is born in the fires of experience. You can disregard it if you wish as it is non-scientific, however, it might be a mistake to do so. Understand, I am not speaking for midnite here and he can make whatever comments he wants.

777

PS:  disregard what I said about the 7 being due as that was half said in jest….....half.

basicstrategy777 - 29 July 2011 02:55 PM

I don’t know how long you have been playing but between me and midnite I would guess we have close to 100 years of experience shooting dice. The non-math advice we render is born in the fires of experience.

(been out of town a few days…)

Well, you’re way ahead of me, then, I have probably 6-8 hours of actual table playing, but I’m totally fascinated by the game, and have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of hours playing craps simulations.

But back to the subject.  I guess what I’m basically trying to do is develop a good strategy for playing craps that will allow me to walk away winning, however large or small.  I am more of a realist - a “math” person, and acknowledge that in ANY casino game, you will eventually lose.

My objective is to develop a playing approach that gives the house the smallest possible edge, while creating a large, if not the maximum possible, amount of variance, or volatility.  It is variance that allows you to reach a quitting point before the house defeats you, as it ultimately will. The key is to have a bankroll and play unit amount that will allow for this volatility until you reach that point.

Ruark - 01 August 2011 07:23 PM

But back to the subject.  I guess what I’m basically trying to do is develop a good strategy for playing craps that will allow me to walk away winning, however large or small.  I am more of a realist - a “math” person, and acknowledge that in ANY casino game, you will eventually lose.

 

Glad you are a realist. Some folks on here just dont get it. They’re grinders, trying to eek a living on dice.

You WILL lose in the long run. It’s a mathematical certainty. The best advice I can give you is to make bets with the lowest house edge, and wait for the time(s) when the hot shooter is at your table.

Most I know who are dark siders play the DP and try to get at least two DC numbers established and let the hand play out.

Im not a dark sider, and prefer the PL (when the table’s not icy) and run with two inside place or two come bets (depending how Im feeling, or how the bankroll is looking).

As place or come bets are hit, I usually press one unit every other hit. That way you’re pocketing some cash, and gambling with the house’s money if a nice roll gets going. If a nice roll gets going, ill expand the place or come bets as the house money falls in my rack.

Otherwise, dont expect craps to “give” you anything but a good time.

H8 and MS have some good info to pass along.

Ruark - 01 August 2011 07:23 PM

basicstrategy777 - 29 July 2011 02:55 PM

I don’t know how long you have been playing but between me and midnite I would guess we have close to 100 years of experience shooting dice. The non-math advice we render is born in the fires of experience.

(been out of town a few days…)

Well, you’re way ahead of me, then, I have probably 6-8 hours of actual table playing, but I’m totally fascinated by the game, and have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of hours playing craps simulations.

But back to the subject.  I guess what I’m basically trying to do is develop a good strategy for playing craps that will allow me to walk away winning, however large or small.  I am more of a realist - a “math” person, and acknowledge that in ANY casino game, you will eventually lose.

My objective is to develop a playing approach that gives the house the smallest possible edge, while creating a large, if not the maximum possible, amount of variance, or volatility.  It is variance that allows you to reach a quitting point before the house defeats you, as it ultimately will. The key is to have a bankroll and play unit amount that will allow for this volatility until you reach that point.

Ruark…..In gambling, you will win and you will lose. Short term, long term, it doesn’t matter. Your chance of winning short term is better as the edge does not grind for as long a period of time. Nothing says you can’t be a long term winner. As a matter of fact, you can win if the edge is against you and you can lose if you have the edge. Generally speaking, the edge is not why you lose at a 2 hour session at the table. People could have the edge and still lose. Other ‘things’ come into play to determine the final outcome of your session. Edge is one thing.

You must understand, there is no winning system. While making low edge bets is proper and the text book way to play and cannot be criticized, I believe you are too focused on that one aspect of the game. Money management, the rules you have developed,  and non-mathematical aspects, I believe, should be part of your overall strategy.

In my book in chapter 9 “Strategy” I write something that you might be able to use: ” In my mind, what is more important than a betting system is a philosophy of how to play. If you can develope a philosophy supported by core principles which never change because you KNOW they are true, and expand on these principles as you gain experience, than I think you will do exceedingly well at the tables. Once these core principles are in place, any system you encounter can be “strained” through them to see if this new system you are presented is sound or a hairbrain scheme.”

So figure out what is 100% true/correct about the game e.g. the DP bet is the lowest edge bet you can make at the craps table…......figure out the things that go on the Art side of the game and are not proven to be true but your experience tells you
it will help you e.g. do not replace DC bets if the shooter knocked out 2 of your DC #‘s. If you can come up with some rules and follow them, you should be well on the way to coming up with a strategy that fits your criteria.

You ask for a system that allows you to win alot or alittle everytime you step up to the table ; you won’t find one. If you want alot of variance, bet alot of money, but understand it cuts both ways.

Over time you will see impossible things occur ; the improbable will happen. Your DC #‘s can get knocked out 20 times in a row.
By you not getting off the shooter…..by you cannonballing into the pool and starting out by betting max odds .....these actions will knock you out of the game quickly. You should always stick your toe in the water and work your bets up to max odds ( not start off that way ).

These are a few of my thoughts. You can take them or leave them. I am sure you will develope a style of play that suits you, and will evolve/change as time goes on.

777

Ruark - 01 August 2011 07:23 PM

...  I guess what I’m basically trying to do is develop a good strategy for playing craps that will allow me to walk away winning, however large or small.  I am more of a realist - a “math” person, and acknowledge that in ANY casino game, you will eventually lose.

Point of order: you are only expected to lose eventually.  This expectation approaches, but never reaches, certainty the more you play.

Ruark - 01 August 2011 07:23 PM

My objective is to develop a playing approach that gives the house the smallest possible edge, while creating a large, if not the maximum possible, amount of variance, or volatility.  It is variance that allows you to reach a quitting point before the house defeats you, as it ultimately will. The key is to have a bankroll and play unit amount that will allow for this volatility until you reach that point.

House advantage is almost universally accepted as the measuring stick when comparing bets—the lower the better.  IMHO this is valid only when considering the long term, and only when disregarding non-monetary aspects such as utility.  For example, if the thrill of victory, by however small a margin, exceeds the agony of defeat, by however large a margin (within tolerable limits, of course), then the probability of success will be more important than the house advantage of a playing strategy.

I think I have posted this link before, but probably before you joined this forum.  It does not discuss what bets to make but does address the development of a betting strategy once those bets have been chosen.
    http://midnightskulker.casinocitytimes.com/articles/1453.html

Both interesting replies, and Midnight has an interesting web site.  Thanks.

Again, I try to use a strategy that produces enough volatility that I will have a chance to quit during an “uptick” and walk away with a win, however large or small.  Of course, sometimes that won’t happen.  But the point is, if there isn’t enough uptick, it is less likely to happen.

For example, my bankroll/buy-in is 100 units.  Its status goes through this sequence:

100
91
94
98
93
102
104
98
93
95
89
91
88
83
87
...etc.

While over time it gets smaller and smaller due to the house edge (it would eventually reach 0), a high volatility gives you a better chance of catching an uptick early in the sequence, before it has a chance to fall too low. In this case, I would have quit at 104, walking away with a win of 4 units. Upticks later in the sequence, when your bankrolls is down in the 60s or 70s, will be meaningless, so it’s critical to hit them early.  High volatility helps you do this.

This is where the calculated “quitting point” I described in an earlier thread comes into play. 

One strategy which, after a couple hundred comeouts, has produced a steady “income” using craps simulators is:

(100-unit buyin)
One unit on DP
Come out roll
Max odds on the point, one unit on DC
Next roll
max odds on the DC point
That’s it. Lean back and don’t do anything until both of those points play out.

I quit when it gets down to the low 80s, or it hits 102.
So far, I’ve been able to quit with 102 to 110 units within the first 10-15 plays about 80% of the time. 

Just wanted to share some of the concepts and strategies I’ve been playing with lately.

I must point out that the site to which I linked is not mine; it is Frank Scoblette’s Casino City Times e-zine.  I merely write articles for it occasionally.  And now back to our regularly scheduled comments.

1. In your example of bankroll swings you say you would have quit when it reached 104 units, the high-water mark and a profit of 4 units.  Why would you not have quit at the previous level of 102 units, which you later give as your win goal?  Did you somehow know you were going to win another 2 units?  And how did you know that 104 units was your high-water mark?

2. The rule of thumb is that in a fair game (i.e. one with no house advantage), the probability of reaching a win goal is obtained by dividing your starting bankroll by the desired ending bankroll.  You say you buy in for 100 units and will quit when you reach 102 units.  100 / 102 = 0.98.  Of course the house does have an advantage in craps, but I should think you still have at least a 96% chance of reaching your win goal of 2 units.  No wonder, then, that your experience, presumably limited, has been positive.