Taking odds at Craps

[flatline]

Wow, you guys are still at it, huh? I admire your endurance.

[SheetWise]

Very nicely written. Has nothing to do with what we were talking about, but very nicely written. I'm not sure why you posted that -- I assume it was because you were looking for some advice -- so I'll correct it for you.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The outcome of the Insurance wager is totally irrelevant to the original wager. You may win or lose the original bet, but the Insurance wager is resolved only when the dealer turns up his hole card.

[/ QUOTE ]
The insurance wager is not "irrelevant" to the original wager, the original wager determines the amount you are allowed to wager, usually up to 1/2 of the original wager. If you know of any clubs that allow table limit wagering on insurance, please include in your next post. The wager is generally not "resolved" when the dealer turns up his hole card -- it is generally resolved after the dealer checks his hole card, and before the hand is played (assuming no 10). This is sometimes done visually, sometimes electronically. I say generally, because the scenario you describe would apply in the rare game where the dealer did not take a second card until after the hands were played -- but in that case, it would not be called a "hole" card. It would also apply in a game where the dealer did not check the hole card until after the play of the hands -- but both of these variations are rare.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The advantage player * takes Insurance when it is a positive-EV wager and/or in consideration of his Risk tolerance, in order to strictly improve his overall EV or to improve his EV/risk ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]
Close. In my opinion, consideration of risk tolerance independent of EV in an insurance decision would indicate the player is not an "advantage player" -- it would indicate that they are over-betting their bankroll. I also believe that EV and risk should be considered to determine how to bet your bankroll, not incorporated into a ratio (?) to make insurance decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Despite the fact that Insurance is practically not related to the original hand, the Insurance play is at (or near) the top of the list ** of the most important plays for the card counter. The reason is that the weighted gain expected from this play alone accounts for the largest percentage of the advantage player's advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like the word "practically" here, as it does allow for the original hands contribution to the running count. I disagree that the Insurance wager is near the top of the list in plays for a card counter given the rule variations that currently exist. BTW- Why did you link to a critical index chart as a source here?

[ QUOTE ]
* You would be a fool to take Insurance if you are not, at the very least, keeping track of Tens-versus-non-Tens. But I'm sure you knew that already. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just wrong. Even most single level counts have an adjusted index which will provide a +EV using the true count. While a "Tens-versus-non-Tens" count will deliver the best insurance decisions, 10 counts have a terrible betting correlation. I would agree with you if there were two people counting at the table, or the player was capable of tracking two counts at once. In reality, only a fool would wager using a 10 count.

[ QUOTE ]
You were saying ?

[/ QUOTE ]
That was fun.

Now let's get back to the subject at hand. Describe how you would calculate the HA and EV of a casino game. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
You wanna add "instead of", alright? (As in "betting on smaller neg-EV or higher pos-EV wagers instead of betting on a neg-EV wager, etc".) Otherwise you are merely a con artist, who wants to confuse his mark with variance.


[/ QUOTE ]
We were talking about overall expectation, why do you want to change the subject to variance?

[ QUOTE ]
Betting $100 on the Pass line has a fixed mathematical expectation.

Adding on top of that $X on the Odds bet does not change the expectation on the Pass line, it merely changes the expectation of the total money wagered - which is (IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, what in the hell do you think overall expectation is? We've agreed that it's a percentage a long time ago -- what do you now propose that overall expectation is a percentage of?

HINT: I'm going to select total money wagered. But don't let me influence your decision.

[ QUOTE ]
(The pass line bet) can't be changed. You're fast but not that fast.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I understand what you're saying here. Let's see. So, if I bet $10 and roll a point of 4, I have a bet of $10 to win $10 on the 4. But if I add $30 odds, I now have a bet of $40 to win $70 on the 4. So if I understand you correctly, I can modify my wager from 10:10 to 40:70 but I have not changed my bet or my overall expectation -- is that it? If so, we disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
The $100 you have riding on your Pass line bet is gona be losing $1.40 on average - and the fact that you're gonna fork over some $500 more to take the Odds does not change that fact in the slightest!

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it doesn't. Nobody ever said it did. Do you write this stuff yourself?

The other stuff you added I responded to earlier. On to the QUIZ ...

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that you have $1000 riding on a hand of 16vT. That hand has a negative expectation for you, the player. Now you are offered the chance by the casino to wager an additional $1000 on a separate, zero-expectation wager (we can easily construct one such wager).

Would you take the additonal wager, my dear tax consultant, and if you would, pray explain to us, why?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would probably depend on my mood. Sometimes I make zero expectation wagers, but I'm not a big fan. Why would I take the wager? I don't know ... sometimes it's just sentimentality, like when the Packers are playing the Patriots. I really like the Packers, but I know very little about football. That might be -EV, but I'll take your word for it that you could construct it as 0 EV.

BTW- What makes you think I'm a tax consultant?

[Cyrus]

I'll cut to the chase, because I have lost interest in the subject. (As I said, feel free to keep piling it up on the Odds bet and "lowering the HA"! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) But first I will quote this gem:

[ QUOTE ]
We were talking about overall expectation, why do you want to change the subject to variance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because, my tax consulting genius, variance is the only thing that changes when you are ADDING on top of your original wager a crapload of bucks to wager on the Odds bet.

As to your insinuation that I wanna "change the subject", I will quote your other gem:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you take the additonal wager, my dear tax consultant, and if you would, pray explain to us, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would probably depend on my mood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, utility! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] He dribbles, he shoots and he ...misses!

Guess what? We were NEVER talking about utility maximization, wise guy! This was about maximizing EV all the way. So, who is changing the subject here ?

OK, the QUIZ, one more time, since you did not answer it. Strictly from the point of view that this debate has been, well, raging [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], i.e. from the point of view of EV maximization, think and respond:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> SPECIAL QUIZ FOR SHEETWISE:
Imagine that you have $1000 riding on a hand of 16vT. That hand has a negative expectation for you, the player. Now you are offered the chance by the casino to wager an additional $1000 on a separate, zero-expectation wager (we can easily construct one such wager).
<font color="white"> . </font>
Would you take the additonal wager, my dear tax consultant, and if you would, pray explain to us, why? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

I see that after educating us on Wordplay, you are now on a crusade to educate me on the game of Blackjack. Fair enough. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The insurance wager is not "irrelevant" to the original wager, the original wager determines the amount you are allowed to wager, usually up to 1/2 of the original wager

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many things that I left unmentioned. That's because they are so trivial as to be implied. The maximum amount of what the player can bet on Insurance is one of them. I left it out because I assumed you and everybody else know the basics. (In other words, I was doing you a compliment. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

Yet, your only recourse seems to be pedantry. E.g.

[ QUOTE ]
The wager is generally not "resolved" when the dealer turns up his hole card -- it is generally resolved after the dealer checks his hole card, and before the hand is played (assuming no 10).

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. No kidding. Wait, let me get a-hold of pen and pencil and take all this down.

I was gonna say that, again, I will not/cannot include everything in the rules because that detracts from the analogy between Insurance and your silliness on Craps -- but it won't be any use with you, will it? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, consideration of risk tolerance independent of EV in an insurance decision would indicate the player is not an "advantage player" -- it would indicate that they are over-betting their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
You clearly know less than you think you know about 21 -- and, quite possibly, about a number of things on which you come on here as an expert.

In so many words, and without the slightest intention of shaking you off your misunderstanding of basic concepts in advantage play, what you wrote above is Crap. (Note singular [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Also, note that nowhere did I indicate that the AP should consider risk in a vacuum; I wrote EV/risk. (And even if I hadn't, you should have assumed it, you being an AP yerself an' all that. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that the Insurance wager is near the top of the list in plays for a card counter given the rule variations that currently exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
What "rule variations" are those that cramp yer style, my dear? Please feel free to elaborate. On second thought, I insist you elaborate! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mutli-deck, S17, DOA, DAS, No RSA, not good enough for ya?

BTW, your claim that Insurance is not at the top of valuable plays for a card counter is not just Crap, it's inexcusable Crap. I did provide you with the links, after all.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that EV and risk should be considered to determine how to bet your bankroll, not incorporated into a ratio (?) to make insurance decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't worry, that belief too is only wrong because you have no idea what you are talking about. Not because you are not smart.

Briefly, I will point you to the direction of a simple query: A card counter has a natural and the dealer shows an Ace. The Insurance count indicates a decision that's neutral in EV. Should the card counter consider Insurance anyway? Should his risk aversion level be a factor in that decision?

Take the dunce cap off, put the thinking cap on -- and réflechis. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Even most single level counts have an adjusted index which will provide a +EV using the true count.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry about that. I was assuming (in my compliment-making mode, see? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) we all know that every count system has an Insurance index.

BTW, when you're saying "True Count", are you leaving out the index of systems such as Knock-Out ?.. (See, I try but I can never be as pedantic as you. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
While a "Tens-versus-non-Tens" count will deliver the best insurance decisions, 10 counts have a terrible betting correlation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about a "10-count". If I did, it was a typo. I said "Tens-versus-non-Tens" which is the best Insurance count system. For all other plays, the main system is used.

Don't get a headache on me, now, babe. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's get back to the subject at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, let's. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SheetWise]

You keep stating that you didn't say what you did say, or discounting the importance of what you did say -- but you never answer the questions which show you're wrong. I'll have to do address each of these in three parts, 1.What you said, 2. How I reponded, 3. What you said you didn't say.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The outcome of the Insurance wager is totally irrelevant to the original wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The insurance wager is not "irrelevant" to the original wager, the original wager determines the amount you are allowed to wager, usually up to 1/2 of the original wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. There are many things that I left unmentioned. That's because they are so trivial as to be implied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would not have commented had you simply said "independent", probably even if you had said "irrelevant" -- but "totally irrelevant" you felt was worth mentioning -- and I thought went too far.

[ QUOTE ]
1. You may win or lose the original bet, but the Insurance wager is resolved only when the dealer turns up his hole card.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The wager is generally not "resolved" when the dealer turns up his hole card -- it is generally resolved after the dealer checks his hole card, and before the hand is played (assuming no 10).

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Wow. No kidding. Wait, let me get a-hold of pen and pencil and take all this down. I was gonna say that, again, I will not/cannot include everything in the rules ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you can't/don't/won't include everthing that's OK. I was pointing out that you should try to get the things you do include correct.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The advantage player * takes Insurance when it is a positive-EV wager and/or in consideration of his Risk tolerance, in order to strictly improve his overall EV or to improve his EV/risk ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. In my opinion, consideration of risk tolerance independent of EV in an insurance decision would indicate the player is not an "advantage player" -- it would indicate that they are over-betting their bankroll.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Note that nowhere did I indicate that the AP should consider risk in a vacuum; I wrote EV/risk.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, when I read "and/or" I get the impression you're stating the AP may consider it in a vacuum.

[ QUOTE ]
1. the Insurance play is at (or near) the top of the list ** of the most important plays for the card counter.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. I disagree that the Insurance wager is near the top of the list in plays for a card counter given the rule variations that currently exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. What "rule variations" are those that cramp yer style, my dear? Please feel free to elaborate. On second thought, I insist you elaborate!

Mutli-deck, S17, DOA, DAS, No RSA, not good enough for ya?

BTW, your claim that Insurance is not at the top of valuable plays for a card counter is not just Crap, it's inexcusable Crap. I did provide you with the links, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're talking about "plays for a card counter" -- this would include the wagering strategy, which I put at the top of the list along with the basic strategy and cumulative index plays deviating from basic strategy. Actually getting the wagering spread you need is a play skill I would put above insurance (no insurance I would put about -.4). If we include choosing a game, I would add early surrender, and no double option (or 11 only) as variations more important than insurance.

[ QUOTE ]
Briefly, I will point you to the direction of a simple query: A card counter has a natural and the dealer shows an Ace. The Insurance count indicates a decision that's neutral in EV. Should the card counter consider Insurance anyway? Should his risk aversion level be a factor in that decision?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Insurance count indicates a decision that's neutral in EV. Should the card counter consider Insurance anyway?. If the count indicates neutral (-0-), the player may want to reconsider the rounding accuracy of the true count -- if the player is not playing a 10-count, they may want to incorporate depletion or richness of any cards they are keeping separate track of. I would consider it.

Should his risk aversion level be a factor in that decision? No.

After all -- if the wager is neutral, it would be just like buying odds in craps. You wouldn't buy odds if craps was a +EV game. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You would be a fool to take Insurance if you are not, at the very least, keeping track of Tens-versus-non-Tens. But you knew that already.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. This is just wrong. Even most single level counts have an adjusted index which will provide a +EV using the true count. While a "Tens-versus-non-Tens" count will deliver the best insurance decisions, 10 counts have a terrible betting correlation.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Sorry about that. I was assuming (in my compliment-making mode, see? ) we all know that every count system has an Insurance index.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did you say "at the very least"? Non 10-counts only estimate "Tens-versus-non-Tens" unless you incorporate perfect side counts for insurance decisions. But, as I said, single level counts will produce +EV without accurate information re: "Tens-versus-non-Tens".

And the questions you keep avoiding ...

Now let's get back to the subject at hand. Describe how you would calculate the HA and EV of a casino game.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
SPECIAL QUIZ FOR SHEETWISE:
Imagine that you have $1000 riding on a hand of 16vT. That hand has a negative expectation for you, the player. Now you are offered the chance by the casino to wager an additional $1000 on a separate, zero-expectation wager (we can easily construct one such wager).
.
Would you take the additonal wager, my dear tax consultant, and if you would, pray explain to us, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would probably depend on my mood. Sometimes I make zero expectation wagers, but I'm not a big fan. Why would I take the wager? I don't know ... sometimes it's just sentimentality, like when the Packers are playing the Patriots. I really like the Packers, but I know very little about football. That might be -EV, but I'll take your word for it that you could construct it as 0 EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, utility! He dribbles, he shoots and he ...misses!

Guess what? We were NEVER talking about utility maximization, wise guy! This was about maximizing EV all the way. So, who is changing the subject here ?

OK, the QUIZ, one more time, since you did not answer it. Strictly from the point of view that this debate has been, well, raging , i.e. from the point of view of EV maximization, think and respond:

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't like my joke? No, I wouldn't take a side wager. Blackjack is a +EV game -- why would I take the side wager?

BTW - If craps was a +EV game, I wouldn't buy odds either. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Back to questions Cyrus refuses to answer ...

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus- Adding on top of that $X on the Odds bet does not change the expectation on the Pass line, it merely changes the expectation of the total money wagered - which is (IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE!)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
SheetWise- Well, what in the hell do you think overall expectation is? We've agreed that it's a percentage a long time ago -- what do you now propose that overall expectation is a percentage of?


HINT: I'm going to select total money wagered. But don't let me influence your decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW- Why do you still keep calling me a tax consultant? Do that one more time and I'm going to start calling you a politician.

[Cyrus]

So much bread -- and so little beef.

[ QUOTE ]
I would not have commented had you simply said "independent", probably even if you had said "irrelevant" -- but "totally irrelevant" you felt was worth mentioning -- and I thought went too far.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your word is far more accurate than mine. I apologize for any confusion caused. Therefore, "The outcome of the Insurance wager is independent of the outcome of the original wager". There.

Now, if anyone still remembers (not that anyone is still reading, of course!), I brought up Insurance since you chose to use Blackjack as an example for our little Craps discussion. And I brought Insurance to show that it's similar (more similar in fact) to the Odds/Pass line affair, than your sly but false analogy of it to the 88vT play in Blackjack.

Reasoning:

A. In Craps, the outcome of the Odds bet is related to the outcome of the Pass bet. In 21, Insurance and original wager are resolved, as you said, independent of each other. And, still in 21, the

B. In Craps, the Odds bet is a zero-EV bet and the Pass line a negative-EV bet. Splitting your original betting amount between Pass and Odds is good, since it lowers your loss rate. Adding money to wager on Odds is stupidly self-deceptive since your loss rate is not affected, and moreover your Variance increases! In Blackjack, on the other hand, splitting 88vT transforms a negative-EV play of $X on 16vT, to two new bets of $X on 8vT and $X on 8vT, each of which has a better (but still negative) expectation than the original wager of 16vT. Huge, huge difference -- and anything that tries to hide that fact is pure crap (pun intended).

[ QUOTE ]
When I read "and/or" I get the impression you're stating the AP may consider [risk] in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then learn to read better. An advantage player can be considering (a) only EV, or (b) EV &amp; Risk. He cannot only be considering Risk! (Yes, a player who considers "only EV" is not such a terrific advantage player [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], but he could very well still be playing consistently with an advantage! But "only risk"? It's an absurdity. You knew that but chose instead to focus on that, in order to avoid yer QUIZ!)

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about "plays for a card counter" -- this would include the wagering strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are easily confused. I clearly commented that Insurance (which I used as a more appropriate Blackjack example for the Pass/Odds situation) is a very important play for the counter. It's right up there, along with 16vT. I assumed you understood that the term "play", and especially when the context is so clear, means what it says it means : A playing decision of the player, such as what to do when he has a pair of 8s against a dealer Ten or when the dealer shows an Ace.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually getting the wagering spread you need is a play skill I would put above insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]
We were NOT talking about skills, eg camouflage act, betting cover, etc. We were talking about plays. This is getting way, way far from our Pass/Odds discussion but I must point out how far you are willing to go to avoid answering my simple QUIZ. I wonder why...

[ QUOTE ]
[When you are offered] no Insurance I put at -4

[/ QUOTE ]
You are totally confused. We are talking about plays and not rules. A rule is when Insurance is generally offered at the table. A play is what to do when Insurance is offered and the dealer shows an Ace. (A condition, incidentally, is another thing, again. Think penetration, as an example of conditions.)

[ QUOTE ]
Should [the player's] risk aversion level be a factor in [his Insurance] decision? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong, buddy. This is common knowledge only since 1998...

One can tell you are not ignorant about advantage play in Blackjack -- but you are simply not familiar with the fine points of advantage play. Since you seem to know all the relevant texts, I'd suggest you revisit them.

Here's a suggestion : www.bjmath.com Use the search engine, till it cries uncle.

[Cyrus]

<font color="brown"> SPECIAL SHEETWISE QUIZ : Imagine that you have $1000 riding on a hand of 16vT. That hand has a negative expectation for you, the player. Now you are offered the chance by the casino to wager an additional $1000 on a separate, zero-expectation wager (we can easily construct one such wager).

Would you take the additonal wager, and if you would, lease explain to us, why ?

</font>

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I wouldn't take a side wager. Blackjack is a +EV game -- why would I take the side wager? If craps was a +EV game, I wouldn't buy odds either.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a wiggler!

You are not responding to my Quiz. You are responding to some imaginary quiz!

My QUIZ, to you, again:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> Imagine that you have $1000 riding on a hand of 16vT. That hand has a negative expectation for you, the player. Now you are offered the chance by the casino to wager an additional $1000 on a separate, zero-expectation wager (we can easily construct one such wager).
<font color="white"> . </font>
Would you take the additional wager, my dear tax consultant, and if you would, please explain to us, why? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to focus on the question.

THIS IS A NEGATIVE EXPECTATION SITUATION! NOT A POSITIVE EXPECTATION SITUATION!

So do not try to confuse things with inanities such as "Blackjack is a +EV game". I know it is -- or rather that it can be!

The QUIZ is about a purely and straighforwardly negative expectation situation. NOW ANSWER : Would you add money on a zero-expectation bet, Yes or No?

AND WHY?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you still keep calling me a tax consultant?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you wiggle like one.