|
|
#42
09-13-2005, 05:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Can this end it?
May I throw in my 2 cents?
It seems as though all you guys are arguing about now are semantics, so I am going to make some overall statements regarding this subject, and make them very clear. If there are any disagreements about the statements, please let me know. 1. House advantage is the percentage of money wagered that the house expects to make in the long run. Making an odds bet does not change the HA of the pass line bet. However, it does change the HA of BOTH BETS COMBINED and therefore should be included in figuring out the HA of your overall craps session experience. Important: I am NOT recommending you do it one way or another! Overall, it will not change the EV, which is the DOLLAR AMOUNT you will lose in the long run, which can be calculated by taking the HA and multiplying by the amount of money wagered. You will lose 1.4% of pass line bets and 0% of odds bets. For the purposes of discussion, yes, your overall HA changes when taking odds, but, and I think this is where there has been so much misunderstanding, DO NOT use this as a means to justify that you are gambling smarter when you are taking odds or think that you are reducing your losses. Personally, I take odds because I am an action junkie. I guess you could say it's why I play craps in the first place! It's fun and for me, worth the -EV. Also, I am known at many joints, and playing craps provides good cover for my bj sessions, since they see me as a big gambler, and not a card counter. In addition, I precision shoot dice, and that combined with dealer mistakes made in my favor and comps, I am an overall winner at craps. However, let us not get into the whole +EV of craps opportunities and keep this discussion to the present presumptions. And so... THE ANSWER TO THE QUIZ: If you are coming from a purely EV point of view, (which is, i believe, the point of this discussion) it does not matter whether you take the even money side bet! It will cost you nor make you one penny in the long run. It does not matter if the game you are presently playing is +EV or -EV. It doesn not matter if the present main play (pass line or 16 vs 10) is +EV or -EV. It is a completely SEPARATE event. BJ being a +EV game versus craps being a -EV game, it makes no differecne if there is an even money side bet. Now, if you then complicate the situation with conditions, such as looking for comps, etc. it may be a good idea to do neutral bets. Or if you are worried about variance, it is better to avoid it. But whether or not your neutral bet opportunity comes at the hands of a previous negative bet (16 vs 10) or is in the middle of a positive EV session (the game of blackjack), it does not change the present neutral EV situation. ONE LAST THING This topic seems to keep rearing its head around here, along with ongoing threads about progressions, so I would suggest that in the future, when responding to such queries, let it be known whether you are coming from the point of view of what is in the best interest of one's EV, or merely giving an opinion about overall experience, or maybe describing something theoretical. For example: Q. Someone told me about a progression where you double the bet after a loss. Is this a good idea? Doing this will not overcome the house advantage, it will merely change the way that you receive the results. You will have many small winning sessions and few big losing sessions. In the end, you will lose money at a rate of however much you have wagered times your percentage of disadvantage. This is not a moneymaking endeavor. HOWEVER, for pure entertainment purposes, a simple progression such as betting 5, 10, 20 and then starting over will most likely yield the same long run results as flat betting 12 bucks every time and may be a fun way to bet! This is all personal preference, but know that you will still lose in the long run. If you are looking for a longrun moneymaking opportunity at blackjack, then card counting is the way to go. Finally, I think that this whole thing started up again because of the guy looking to turn 25K into 100K. Now, we are in a situation where we MUST wager money. Obviously, the best way to do it would be to maybe create some mammoth BJ team and absolutely burn some game somewhere OR to find another quick, positive EV opportunity. But, for the sake of argument, I got the impression that he wanted to know what you would do if it HAD to be done at a negative EV game. I think craps with 100% odds would be best. This is because for every 1 dollar where you were forced to lose 1.4 cents, you could wager 100 bucks at no cost. So over 99 percent of your action would cost you nothing but variance, and less than 1 percent of your action would cost you a penny and a half per dollar. I believe that this would be a good way to try to turn 25K into 100K. Bet 240 on the pass line, 24,000 behind, and pray. Some of the misunderstanding of the whole HA vs EV is that even though taking odds does change the overall HA, there really is no situation where it matters. Who really cares? I mean, who after a craps session tries to figure that out? It has no practical purpose. BUT in this THEORETICAL situation above it does! We are given a problem: we MUST wager some or all of 25K to try to turn it into 100K, and at least part of the money wagered must be in a game that is traditionally negative EV. So, thinking about our pass line action plus odds action comes into play. We know that the best way to win money in a negative EV situation is with as few trials as possible so that the theoretical edge does not have as much opportunity to play out. For example, the best way to turn 100 bucks into 200 at the roulette table is to bet it all on one spin, not a buck at a time. Our EV is no different. We lose the same amount per dollar, but the variance will even out and grind our 100 bucks down to nothing if we bet a buck at a time. So on the craps table, we want to get it all in there just a few times, betting as much as we can each time. Betting 240 pass and 2400 odds, then EV wise, we lose about $3.40 for $24,240 wagered. In my opinion, this would be the best way. Have I left ANYTHING out? I am sorry that this is so freakin' long, but may this post provide an opportunity for us to take time before posting and responding, making sure that our ever important point lies within clarifying terms and making for better communication, NOT being a bunch of nerds who get into pointless arguments about semantics. There IS a fine line between these two things. After all, we probably do not speak clearer than we write, yet we (or at least I) don't get into constant arguments with friends about semantics. We all have the overall basic understanding of the English language, math, and gambling concepts. We now all know the difference between HA and EV, and that betting progressions lose money in the long run. If these subjects are ever brought up again, say, by a newbie, then give him a clear explanation of the subject and let it DIE! Peace out 
|
|
#43
09-13-2005, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It\'s only a natural
[ QUOTE ]
You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history. [/ QUOTE ] OK, you are on tilt. Maybe I mentioned BJ one time too many. It's Blackjack, the game of 21. Relax.
|
|
#44
09-13-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can this end it?
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I take odds because I am an action junkie. I guess you could say it's why I play craps in the first place! It's fun and for me, worth the -EV. THE ANSWER TO THE QUIZ: If you are coming from a purely EV point of view, (which is, i believe, the point of this discussion) it does not matter whether you take the even money side bet! It will cost you nor make you one penny in the long run. It does not matter if the game you are presently playing is +EV or -EV. [/ QUOTE ] This is the entire point -- there has to be a reason people play a -EV game. It doesn't have to be a good reason. But what you've stated, along with several of your other reasons works. In a -EV game, having as much of the action as possible at 0 EV improves overall expectation -- given that having action, playing a -EV game, is a decision the player has already made. A conditional 0 EV wager, like odds, in a +EV game would reduce the overall expectation of money wagered.
|
|
#45
09-13-2005, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can this end it?
You make a good point, but once again, you are not being clear. You state that a 0 EV wager in a +EV game reduces the overall "expectation" of money wagered. By "expectation" do you mean EV, expected value? Then that is not correct. It does not have an effect on the amount you expect to make. If by expectation, you mean expected value COMPARED to how much you are totally wagering, then that is correct, because that ratio is the Player Advantage, the PA.
In a +EV game like blackjack, a neutral bet will water down your % advantage, but NOT effect your EV and EV is what matters (not considering things like risk aversion) In other words, it does not matter if your % advantage is lowered if it isn't really costing you anything, just as it doesn't matter if you do it in a negative EV game because it isn't really helping you. Only in the theoretical situation of HAVING to wager a given amount such as in the 25K situation would it make a difference. So I guess if you were to make up another situation saying, "I have to turn 25K into 100K by playing a positive EV game, such as blackjack. Should I take a neutral side bet that they're offering?" THEN the answer would be no. But outside of this situation, when one is playing blackjack, these conditions don't exist so it makes no difference. This is where confusion ensues. Instead of using the term expectation, be more specific so we know whether you mean expectation in terms of dollars (EV) or percentage (HA, or in a +Ev case, PA). I have a feeling that you did mean percentage, but using the term expectation is too close to the term "expected value" and I believe that this is why there has been so much misunderstanding.
|
|
#46
09-14-2005, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So long
[ QUOTE ]
You state that a 0 EV wager in a +EV game reduces the overall "expectation" of money wagered. By "expectation" do you mean EV, expected value? Then that is not correct. It does not have an effect on the amount you expect to make. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. [ QUOTE ] If you were to make up another situation saying, "I have to turn 25K into 100K by playing a positive EV game, such as blackjack. Should I take a neutral side bet that they're offering?" THEN the answer would be no. [/ QUOTE ] Precisely.
|
|
#48
09-15-2005, 12:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can this end it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I precision shoot dice ... I stopped reading here. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Precision shooting only works in the absence of a precision stopper. If there is a precision stopper on the floor, a precision shooter is toast. Most clubs only employ stoppers on the swing and graveyard shifts -- since their power is diminished during daylight hours, and current technologies cannot completely block UV waves. A study funded in the late 90's by a group of strip casinos determined that not employing a stopper on day shift improved the bottom line, since few precision shooters are awake before 2pm -- and fewer yet mobile before 6pm. This strategy by the clubs leaves yet another opening for those willing to wake before noon and perform precision shooting. Beware that many clubs are now encouraging freelance (aka "roaming") blockers, who can be recognized by their backside wagers laying full odds when not stopped by "Midnight Blockers". Most Midnight Blockers are switch Midnight Shooters/Setters, and their appearance in recent months has been nothing short of a headache to local casino owners.
|
|
#49
09-15-2005, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can this end it?
Interesting. I could be completely wrong in my precision shooting opnions, as you sound like you know a lot more about it than me. Could you define 'precision stopper' for me? I googled it but didn't find anything.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
