First, I can argue that the same number has to roll twice because thats the whole point. In a game where the average roll is about 7 (including the comeout and the 7-out) relying on a number to roll twice is.. well… gambling! I’m a gambler, but if I can go for collecting on one roll instead of gambling on two… makes sense to me. I believe you are a confirmed non-believer in DI… so it should make more sense to you than to me even.
SC, I must admit that I’m quite surprised that you are not understanding this. You cannot assume that there was no decision on the first roll of a Come bet. If you knew for sure that a natural would not be thrown when your money was in the Come, then of course the Come is worse than a Put bet (certainly a Put on the 6 & 8, at least). And again, you cannot assume that.
This “roll twice” argument is the position sworn Place bettors take. The same reasoning used to show that Come bets are better than Place bets is even easier to prove when comparing Come bets to Put bets. If you make a Put bet on the 6, and I make a Come bet… and an 8 is thrown, tell me… which bet now has a better chance of winning? The Put bet, because the 6 needs to be thrown once and the 8 has to be thrown once again? No… of course not. They both have the same chances of winning, and it does not matter which number was just thrown.
Maybe you say, “but what if a 6 was thrown?” Okay, but how did you know it was going to be a six? If you knew it was going to be a six, then you should have just hopped them. Furthermore, I could simply use the argument “but what if a 7 was thrown? And by the way… that’s more likely to happen than a six.”
I already argued this point in a Place bet vs. Come bet comparison in this post, but you can easily substitute the word Place with Put. In the example in that post, instead of a $30 Place bet, you would use a Put of $5 flat and $25 odds.
As far as the therory of the seven-advantage on an assumed comeout roll… it has no better chance of coming out than on any other roll… a one roll payoff over a two roll just seems more logical.
Yes, it has no better chance of being thrown than on any other roll… 6/36. So what? The advantage on the first roll is the fact that there are twice as many ways to win as there are to lose. When you bypass the Come, you bypass that advantage. The Come bet can win on one roll also. If the Come bet could only be won via the “two-roll scenario”, then again, of course the Come is worse than a Put bet (certainly a Put on the 6 & 8, at least). But in reality, the Come bet can win via the “one-roll scenario” also.
I don’t want to speak for SC but he was merely defending Blackchip in saying a put bet is more logical than a come bet.
I’m not quite sure what your position is, zmoney… but anyone who thinks that a Put bet is more logical than a Come bet is not using logic at all (unless they believe in DI… you can decide for yourself if you think DI is logical). This line of thinking is based on assumptions (the assumption that the Come bet will not win on the first throw), not logic.
The reason DI’s may have a valid argument is because if they can reduce the chances of a 7 being thrown, then this obviously reduces the advantage of the Come bet on the first throw.
As zmoney points out in his reply, I was merely pointing out that KST was kinda off center in his stating that a put bet is a really really really bad bet because he likes come bets better.
I am perfectly centered. My argument is based on facts, not my personal opinion about Come bets.
I think I may have to try Put betting.
Really? Do we have to get falcon back here to explain why Put bets may not be good bets? Depending on the odds multiple you’re taking and the number you’re betting on, the Put bet may or may not be better than its Place bet counterpart.