"Overbet your Buy-In with Free Odds, Bust Out, Lose Less $ !", the Usual Suspects.

[ACDOC]

This deserves it's own thread.

They've figured out a way for the casinos to lose money on the free
odds bet by busting out players.

I doubt that they can figure out why they're saying the above.

If 2 players buy-in for the same amount, 1 bets the passline only, the
other bets passline with odds, the player betting the free odds will
have a lower EV since they have a lower average number of decisions
than the passline only bettor due to busting out (Don't forget, the
usual Suspects say that the edge action is the same.).

If the above was true, the casinos are losing money with the free odds
bet since they can't possibly fill the busted player's spot fast
enough. We've all seen those empty tables.

The casinos would have eliminated the free odds bet long ago if this
was the case. It would lose money for them.

There are other sources of "drift" besides the straight edge. I haven't
even touched on progressions.

Inference is a powerful thing.

They're saying that casinos are saving odds bettors money by busting
them out!

That just can't be right. That's just 1 reason why the Usual Suspects
are wrong.

PS: There is a difference between buy-in and bankroll guys. But, that's
another story.

[John Kerr]

An absolute TROLL post! ACDOC knows it is, and I know it is....I hope
everyone else knows it is, and ignores the "ASSHOLE"!

JB

[ACDOC]

Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!

One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.

Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't contribute
to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the above.

Who's the A-hole now?

Silly Trolls.

[ACDOC]

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't contribute
to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

[ACDOC]

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't contribute
to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.

Do you strill have your pants down?

Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

[ACDOC]

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't contribute
to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.
Do you strill have your pants down?
Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

Get it yet?

[Gregg Cattanach]

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't
contribute to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the
above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.
Do you strill have your pants down?
Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

Get it yet?

It really is pitifal that you have to reply to your own contentless posts.
We know you're full of s**t, could care less what you think or say about
volitility, gambler's ruin or any of that other drivel you spew. You are
pointless. That's why you're not getting anyone to rise to your bait.

Get it?

[ACDOC]

Post by Gregg Cattanach

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't
contribute to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the
above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.
Do you strill have your pants down?
Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

Get it yet?

It really is pitifal that you have to reply to your own contentless posts.
We know you're full of s**t, could care less what you think or say about
volitility, gambler's ruin or any of that other drivel you spew. You are
pointless. That's why you're not getting anyone to rise to your bait.
Get it?
--
Gregg C.

No Gregg. You and the other "usual Suspects" are pointless. One "circle
jerkee" says don't respond for good reason. Your position is nonsense
and it's obvious why.

You are supporting the claim that casinos lose money on the free odds
bet, and that taking the free odds will let you lose less $ when you
bust out.

You are also supporting the casino's position that the free odds
shouldn't be counted towards comps!

That is a monumental load of BS.

You and the other "Usual Suspects" shouldn't advise any gambler after
implying those kinds of claims.

Those types of deliberate mistatements of fact deserve derision. Thus,
the title of the thread.

There are other sources of "drift", but it is simply beyond your
remedial comprehension. Real Crapsters understand the issue from
experience alone.

Nitwits.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

Free odds bets just expand the range of time it takes to bust on an identical
bankroll without odds. By expansion, I mean, you could bust sooner with bad
luck, or bust much later if you start out with good luck and the HA of the line
bets catches up to you. In either case, you are playing until you go broke with
or without odds. Happy?

[ACDOC]

Post by Cymbal Man Freq.
Free odds bets just expand the range of time it takes to bust on an identical
bankroll without odds. By expansion, I mean, you could bust sooner with bad
luck, or bust much later if you start out with good luck and the HA of the line
bets catches up to you. In either case, you are playing until you go broke with
or without odds. Happy?

If taking the free odds puts you into a risk of ruin situation, then
you will in fact lose $ at a faster rate than with a passline bet only
play.

The casinos therefore make money with the free odds bets by increasing
the loss rate of the passline + free odds players (w/ a significant
risk of ruin), and then increasing the casino $ win when the player
re-buys-in or a new player buys-in .

There's an increase in the rate of win for the casino on the contract
bets when they offer free odds (under risk of ruin conditions).

That's why they offer them. A faster win rate for them, and a faster
loss rate for the player (under risk of ruin, which is common for the
underfunded player).

Let Em Buy-In, Overbet w/ the Free Odds, Bust Em w/ a Faster Loss Rate,
Next!

ACDOC.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

"ACDOC" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| Cymbal Man Freq. wrote:
| > Free odds bets just expand the range of time it takes to bust on an
identical
| > bankroll without odds. By expansion, I mean, you could bust sooner with bad
| > luck, or bust much later if you start out with good luck and the HA of the
line
| > bets catches up to you. In either case, you are playing until you go broke
with
| > or without odds. Happy?
|
| If taking the free odds puts you into a risk of ruin situation, then
| you will in fact lose $ at a faster rate than with a passline bet only
| play.
|

Risk doesn't always equal reward. You are mistaken and wrong, half of the time.

[ACDOC]

Post by Cymbal Man Freq.
|
| > Free odds bets just expand the range of time it takes to bust on an
identical
| > bankroll without odds. By expansion, I mean, you could bust sooner with bad
| > luck, or bust much later if you start out with good luck and the HA of the
line
| > bets catches up to you. In either case, you are playing until you go broke
with
| > or without odds. Happy?
|
| If taking the free odds puts you into a risk of ruin situation, then
| you will in fact lose $ at a faster rate than with a passline bet only
| play.
|
Risk doesn't always equal reward. You are mistaken and wrong, half of the time.

The casinos will win $ at a faster rate from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds.

This isn't conjecture on my part.

It agrees with experience, theory, and simulations.

Most importantly, it is in agreement with the premise that casinos are
in the business of seperating players from their wallets. They do
things to help their bottom line, not out of the kindness of their
hearts.

Now you know why the free odds bet still exists after all of these
years and wasn't just a short term promotion. It increases the casino's
bottom line. Period.

[ACDOC]

Post by Cymbal Man Freq.
|
| > Free odds bets just expand the range of time it takes to bust on an
identical
| > bankroll without odds. By expansion, I mean, you could bust sooner with bad
| > luck, or bust much later if you start out with good luck and the HA of the
line
| > bets catches up to you. In either case, you are playing until you go broke
with
| > or without odds. Happy?
|
| If taking the free odds puts you into a risk of ruin situation, then
| you will in fact lose $ at a faster rate than with a passline bet only
| play.
|
Risk doesn't always equal reward. You are mistaken and wrong, half of the time.

Cymbal Man:

The casinos will win $ at a faster rate from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds.

This isn't conjecture on my part.

It agrees with experience, theory, and simulations.

Most importantly, it is in agreement with the premise that casinos are
in the business of seperating players from their wallets. They do
things to help their bottom line, not out of the kindness of their
hearts.

Now you know why the free odds bet still exists after all of these
years and wasn't just a short term promotion. It increases the casino's
bottom line. Period.

[ACDOC]

alan:

I hope that you understand the issues here.

[Alan Shank]

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:50:48 GMT, "Gregg Cattanach"

Post by Gregg Cattanach

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't
contribute to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the
above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.
Do you strill have your pants down?
Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

Get it yet?

It really is pitifal that you have to reply to your own contentless posts.
We know you're full of s**t, could care less what you think or say about
volitility, gambler's ruin or any of that other drivel you spew. You are
pointless. That's why you're not getting anyone to rise to your bait.

Except ol' Gregg, here.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

[ACDOC]

Post by Alan Shank
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:50:48 GMT, "Gregg Cattanach"

Post by Gregg Cattanach

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC

Post by ACDOC
Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down!
One of them just squealed like a stuck pig.
Keep saying that gambler's ruin and the free odds bet don't
contribute to the casino's bottom line. You would be saying the
above.
Who's the A-hole now?
Silly Trolls.

Try BS-ing your way out of this one.

I dare the "Usual Suspects to post here. Come on.
Do you strill have your pants down?
Still think that casinos lose $ with the free odds bet?

Get it yet?

It really is pitifal that you have to reply to your own contentless posts.
We know you're full of s**t, could care less what you think or say about
volitility, gambler's ruin or any of that other drivel you spew. You are
pointless. That's why you're not getting anyone to rise to your bait.

Except ol' Gregg, here.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Shank:

Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?

Just wondering if you've finally caught on.

[John Kerr]

Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!

Just wondering if you've finally caught on!

You are a pathetic TROLL!

And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.

JB

[ACDOC]

Post by ACDOC
Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
You are a pathetic TROLL!
And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.
JB

JB:

You came out to play! I hope you've got your thermals on.

Actually, the negative and postive volatility swings have been
accounted for.

The loss rate is still greater when the player increases their risk of
ruin, no matter the source. It still applies when the increase in risk
of ruin is caused by a 0% edge (the free odds) bet.

I'm just waiting for some of you to understand the reason why casinos
would offer a 0% edge bet like the free odds bet in the first place.

While most gambling authors recommend it, dealers hawk it, no one has
bothered to explain it.

Think of the Comp player who is stuck with a minimum bet level for a
fixed amount of time (say $100 minimum for 4hrs). He probably has a
decent bankroll (50K+), but then buys in for some comfortable amount (a
few thousand), and then he starts taking full odds and uses the Ponzer!

Not only will he suffer the indignity of not having his free odds bets
rated (a much more common practice), but he will lose $ at a greater
rate than if he bought in for an higher amount with a lesser risk of
ruin.

On top of that he's got a decent chance of having to buy-in yet again
because he busted, he has to play for the full 4 hours, and he's
actually going to lose more than if he had bought in for a higher
amount in the first place!

Strange, but true.

The fact that the risk of ruin drift that can be greatly increased upon
taking full odds (a 0% edge bet) can be counter intuitive. Unless of
course, like me, you understand Stochastic Volatility.

I wonder how long it will take for the "usual suspects" to catch on?

[alan]

Oh John, here is your latest gem. You wrote:

"Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of

ruin by taking free odds!!!!! "

As far as I know, craps is a negative expectation game.

Gimme a break.

Post by ACDOC
Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
You are a pathetic TROLL!
And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.
JB

[alan]

Oh, Hohn... here's your latest gem:

"Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of

ruin by taking free odds!!!!! "

As far as I know, craps is a negative expectation game.

Gimme a break.

Post by ACDOC
Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
You are a pathetic TROLL!
And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.
JB

[alan]

Oh, John... here's your latest gem:

"Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of

ruin by taking free odds!!!!! "

As far as I know, craps is a negative expectation game.

Gimme a break.

Post by ACDOC
Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
You are a pathetic TROLL!
And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.
JB

[alan]

Oh, John... here's your latest gem:

"Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of

ruin by taking free odds!!!!! "

As far as I know, craps is a negative expectation game.

Gimme a break.

Post by ACDOC
Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
from players that increase
their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
=======
Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
You are a pathetic TROLL!
And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
boring, cold night here.
JB

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

"John Kerr" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21629-457A1EC9-***@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
|
| Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
| from players that increase
| their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
| Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
| =======
| Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
| volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
| will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
| ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
|
| Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
|
| You are a pathetic TROLL!
|
| And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
| boring, cold night here.
|
| JB

Do you want to walk towards the bow or the stern of the sinking Poseidon?
I agree with John.

[ACDOC]

Post by Cymbal Man Freq.
|
| Do you understand this yet, "The casinos will win $ at a faster rate
| from players that increase
| their risk of ruin by taking the free odds. "?
| Just wondering if you've finally caught on.
| =======
| Yep, that's true for the players that experience a negative
| volatility....BUT, those players that experience a positive volatility
| will win $ at a faster rate from the casino by increasing their risk of
| ruin by taking free odds!!!!!
|
| Just wondering if you've finally caught on!
|
| You are a pathetic TROLL!
|
| And I am not much better for even posting a reply....oh well, it's a
| boring, cold night here.
|
| JB
Do you want to walk towards the bow or the stern of the sinking Poseidon?
I agree with John.

Those of you that don't understand that ""The casinos will win $ at a
faster rate
from players that increase their risk of ruin by taking the free
odds." don't understand some important fundamentals about gambling.

It's not a matter of who you agree with, or if you are hanging on for
dear life in the circle jerk.

Thats the facts Jack. As you increase your risk of ruin, you will lose
$ at a faster rate. Even taking a 0% edge odds bet can increase your
risk of ruin.

Some of you are simply past remedial. Stay out of the casino until you
understand the above.

[John Kerr]

He has not, can not, and never will present a simulation that backs up
his ridiculous claim that the casinos make money off the odds bets!

If you propose a controversial claim, you should be willing to present
the evidence to back that claim up...unless you are ignorant, or a
fraud...or both! I suspect the latter!

Crap or get off the pot ACDOC!

Just spouting some bullshit about gamblers ruin doesn't present any
evidence what so ever!

Come on.....show us a simulation that backs up your claim, or forever be
a FRAUD!

Oh, by the way alan, you are also invited to do the same about your
"Idiotic" crap claim also!

JB

[ACDOC]

Post by John Kerr
He has not, can not, and never will present a simulation that backs up
his ridiculous claim that the casinos make money off the odds bets!
If you propose a controversial claim, you should be willing to present
the evidence to back that claim up...unless you are ignorant, or a
fraud...or both! I suspect the latter!
Crap or get off the pot ACDOC!
Just spouting some bullshit about gamblers ruin doesn't present any
evidence what so ever!
Come on.....show us a simulation that backs up your claim, or forever be
a FRAUD!
Oh, by the way alan, you are also invited to do the same about your
"Idiotic" crap claim also!
JB

JB:

No I'm Not! How an increased risk of ruin increases your $ loss rate is
known. Just not to you and the usual suspects.

Have I done the sims? Yes. AKS (All Kinds of Sims). You just have to do
the right kind of sims. I suggest looking at 1 absorbing barrirer for
starters (no win goals yet, but you'll find out why they are
important).

In Wincraps, all you have to do is set your $bankroll as your $buy-in.
Condition a "reset table" on the desired max # of rolls (try it for a
non-risk of ruin interval/# of rolls and an obvious risk of ruin
interval) and a bankroll $minimum (I set it to bankroll is less than 1
whole passline (+ full odds bet, depending)), then run a shitload of
games w/ hyperdrive (don't forget the passline bet on the comeout).
Autotake full odds to true or false to see the difference between
taking or not taking odds. Set the max odds as to different levels as
well. You get the idea.

Then after you've run the sim long enough, go to games log, and look at
the mean # rolls and $won/loss (net) or EV. Here you'll find that what
I said is a fact.

The greater your risk of ruin, by taking the free odds (or otherwise),
the greater your $ loss rate ($EV/mean# rolls).

JB, I'm sorry that you don't understand anything that I've just written
above, but as a gambler, you should understand this by experience
alone.

Once those of you who do need convincing get off your ass and run your
own sims, you'll get a chance to see what an absorbing barrier (risk of
ruin condition) looks like when you take a look at bankroll on the
games log screen. Then you'll see how it actually increases your $ loss
rate. Maybe then you'll understand the different sources of "drift"
that we all face.

My question is this: why don't some of you know this already?

I understand the issue. alan knows the casinos are making $ somehow.

Why don't JB, Mason, Shank, Gregg, V...et al. get this basic gambling
concept? That many different gamblers being in the dark on a basic
gambling issue is unlikely. Are they one guy posting under multiple
handles?

Does RGC stand for Remedial Group Craps? These guys are "Special"
alright.

Wise up already.

I've done my homework. It's high time that you did your own.

Like I've said before, I don't teach remedial gambling.

When you increase your risk of ruin by taking the free odds bet, then
you increase your $loss rate. That's how casinos profit from the free
odds bet. Otherwise, they would have gotten rid of it ages ago.

Are you sure that those Odds are really Free? Time IS $.

[alan]

John, I dont need a "simulation" to prove to you that the casinos make
money off of my odds bets. I have my win-loss statement to prove that
the casinos make money off of my odds bets. (LOL)

cheers.

PS just back from Hollywood Park, this time playing just a $100 no
limit table. Cashed out with a $165 gain (after tokes to the dealer
and parking). Just played premium cards. Had a blast for five and a
half hours.

Gosh, I wonder how much I would have lost playing five and a half hours
of craps???

Post by John Kerr
He has not, can not, and never will present a simulation that backs up
his ridiculous claim that the casinos make money off the odds bets!
If you propose a controversial claim, you should be willing to present
the evidence to back that claim up...unless you are ignorant, or a
fraud...or both! I suspect the latter!
Crap or get off the pot ACDOC!
Just spouting some bullshit about gamblers ruin doesn't present any
evidence what so ever!
Come on.....show us a simulation that backs up your claim, or forever be
a FRAUD!
Oh, by the way alan, you are also invited to do the same about your
"Idiotic" crap claim also!
JB

[ACDOC]

Now you know how casinos can profit from a 0% edge bet.

Those of you who still think that casinos will only win the "straight
line" edge of a bet from players over time, don't understand
Volatility. The "Drift" caused by risk of ruin issues adds greatly to
the casino's profits.

If you don't understand the above, stay out of the casino until you do.

The "usual suspects" are simply remedial trolls. They haven't learned
from experience, they don't understand the theory, and they certainly
haven't run the sims.

Will they ever admit to their ignorance? Doubtful.

[John Kerr]

ACDOC has not, will not, and never can present a simulation showing the
casinos expect to profit from the odds bets! He is a FRAUD!

JB

[ACDOC]

Post by John Kerr
ACDOC has not, will not, and never can present a simulation showing the
casinos expect to profit from the odds bets! He is a FRAUD!
JB

I've given more than enough information above for anyone wishing to run
some sims using Wincraps to examine how an increase in the risk of ruin
by taking the free odd bet will cause a greater $ loss rate for the
player. Just examine your $net/mean #rolls to understand it.

I've done my homework, now you trolls need to do your own work. No
copying allowed.

The usual suspects haven't bothered to run the right type of sim to
understand the issues. Why would they? It would only make them look
like complete idiots. (As if I didn't already know)

These GDs (Gambling Dumbasses) still think that casinos only profit
from the straight line edge. They haven't a clue about the "drift" and
apparent edge produced by risk of ruin issues.

JB, Mason, Shank, V, et al., stay out of the casino. And stop trying to
advise other gamblers. You know too little, which is dangerous.

"The expectation for the casinos on the free odds bet is $0", what self
deluded, circle jerk artists these trolls are. Experience, theory and
sims show this to be wrong.

Learn about the effect of risk of ruin on the apparent edge, player $
loss rate, before you open your GD yaps.

"THE REAL THING",

ACDOC.

PS: Hear that bell? Schools out. No charge for the lesson, chumps.

[ACDOC]

Post by John Kerr
ACDOC has not, will not, and never can present a simulation showing the
casinos expect to profit from the odds bets! He is a FRAUD!
JB

No Copying!

Here's the Passline bet only, (no risk of ruin).

EV
Loading Image...

Mean # Rolls
Loading Image...

Here's the Passline w/ full Odds, (w/ risk of ruin).

EV
Loading Image...

Mean # Rolls
Loading Image...

Games were reset upon reaching a bankroll less than 1 entire bet or the
max # of rolls.

You simply need to divide the EV by the mean number of rolls to
understand how taking a 0% edge, free odds, bet can increase your loss
rate (and apparent edge) because of increased risk of ruin.

I suggest that you do your own sims to understand the issue.

JB: You're still a GD!

Still The Real Thing,

ACDOC.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

It looks like the percentage of winning sessions went from 43.17% without odds,
to 44.5% with odds.
It also looks like the percentage of losing sessions went from 53.05% without
odds, to 55.31% with odds.
How can that be, MORE winning AND losing sessions?
Those who broke even shrunk from 3.78% without odds to 0.19% with odds.

So, you will have a greater percentage of losing AND winning sessions with odds;
with the proportion of those who broke even without odds before, splitting the
3.59% difference --- 63% to the losing side and 37% to the winning side.

720 sessions broke even without odds, 36 sessions broke even with odds.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

We also notice the extremes of losing and winning on your graphs.
Without odds, the maximum losing session was 450 units and the maximum winning
session was 420 units...both just a shade under 4 standard deviations from the
HA centerpoint of almost -15 units lost. If you add 15 to -450 you get -435; if
you add 15 to +420 you get +435 like if there were no HA at all (try that with
odds bets alone!)

With passline + odds bets, the graph shifts because your bankroll was not
proportionally increased to allow for odds betting. Losing 600 units only
accounts for just a shade over 1 Standard Deviation; you might need a 4X larger
bankroll to encounter a 4 standard deviation downswing with the odds multiple
you used...how many times odds was that anyway?
On the upside you were ahead one session 2530 units or 4.45 standard deviations
of your unit bets.

Try the PL + odds bet run again but use a -2530 -15 -15 = -2560 unit bankroll
and show us the graph.

[ACDOC]

People:

Do your own sims to understand the issue.

The whole point was to show how taking the free odds (a 0% edge bet)
can increase your risk of ruin and therefore your $ loss rate or the
apparent house edge.

For the same conditions, buy-in, etc., Don't bets w/ the same Xodds
show an even greater $ loss rate. I already knew this, the usual
suspects didn't have a clue.

You certainly don't have to accept the above sim as evidence, Wincraps
is what it is. But, you do need to understand the issue. And, if you
wish to be critical, then you absolutely need to run your own sims and
post them up. Don't show up empty handed.

You will see the same "barrier" effect for the EV when you have a
significant risk of ruin. The EVs/mean # of rolls will confirm the
greater $ loss rate as the free odds increase the risk of ruin.

This all goes to show that the casinos count on the underfunded player
to increase their $ win rate above that from the straight line edge.
I'd say that the majority of players overbet their buy-in and play with
various risks of ruin. The free odds bet helps that happen more often.
It's obvious that too many here don't understand this.

In other words, the usual suspects, and a host of others, were wrong to
assume that the casino $s won came from the straight edge alone.

They were wrong. Period. Alot of the casino's $s comes from underfunded
players whose risk of ruin increases their $ loss rate.

Run your own sims already. Prove it to yourself.

Don't show up empty handed..

Run the sims.

PS-It might be nice to hear from Steen at this point. Maybe he'd post a
nice auto bet file that everyone can use to test the issue. It is an
important one to understand.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

The straight HA for PL, or PL with odds, was virtually identical in your charts,
just under 15 units.
The volatility went off the scale when you added a large odds multiple.

Alan Shank has suggested adding 2/3rds of my PL buy-in for each multiple of odds
I use.
So, if my PL buy-in is $120, I should add $80 for each multiple of odds for my
session.
If I have 5X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 5X $80 = $520 total.
If I have 3X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 3X $80 = $360 total
If I have 1X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 1X $80 = $200 total.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

I can only guess that you used 7X odds in your Sim.
450 + 2/3*X*450 = 2560
450 + 300X = 2560
300X = 2110
X = 7.0333X odds

450 + 7X 300 = 2550

[ACDOC]

Post by Cymbal Man Freq.
The straight HA for PL, or PL with odds, was virtually identical in your charts,
just under 15 units.
The volatility went off the scale when you added a large odds multiple.
Alan Shank has suggested adding 2/3rds of my PL buy-in for each multiple of odds
I use.
So, if my PL buy-in is $120, I should add $80 for each multiple of odds for my
session.
If I have 5X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 5X $80 = $520 total.
If I have 3X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 3X $80 = $360 total
If I have 1X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 1X $80 = $200 total.

I have no argument about having an adequate buy-in. We know about the
increased volatility + and -.

Shank also said that casino profits come from the straight line edge
only!

That's obviously not the case. Even the free odds can increase the
apparent house advantge via an increase in risk of ruin. The risk of
ruin obviously adds an additional "drift" to the house advantage. This
results in a greater $ loss rate than can be accounted for by the edge
alone.

Shank has been wrong on this and other issues for years now.

He'll never admit it. He doesn't have the integrity to do so.

Shank, (et al.), still says that the casinos will make $0 profit from
the free odds bet. He couldn't be more wrong.

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

"ACDOC" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
|
| Cymbal Man Freq. wrote:
| > The straight HA for PL, or PL with odds, was virtually identical in your
charts,
| > just under 15 units.
| > The volatility went off the scale when you added a large odds multiple.
| >
| > Alan Shank has suggested adding 2/3rds of my PL buy-in for each multiple of
odds
| > I use.
| > So, if my PL buy-in is $120, I should add $80 for each multiple of odds for
my
| > session.
| > If I have 5X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 5X $80 = $520 total.
| > If I have 3X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 3X $80 = $360 total
| > If I have 1X odds, I should buy-in with $120 + 1X $80 = $200 total.
|
| I have no argument about having an adequate buy-in. We know about the
| increased volatility + and -.
|
| Shank also said that casino profits come from the straight line edge
| only!
|
| That's obviously not the case. Even the free odds can increase the
| apparent house advantge via an increase in risk of ruin. The risk of
| ruin obviously adds an additional "drift" to the house advantage. This
| results in a greater $ loss rate than can be accounted for by the edge
| alone.
|
| Shank has been wrong on this and other issues for years now.
|
| He'll never admit it. He doesn't have the integrity to do so.
|
| Shank, (et al.), still says that the casinos will make $0 profit from
| the free odds bet. He couldn't be more wrong.


If you add up the numbers on the bell curve of wins & losses for odds bets, it
will come out to $0 or within a small margin of error that gets bigger as more
odds bets are placed. However, as more line bets are placed, the HA on line bets
becomes bigger than the best return odds bets could give a single player.

Alan Shank has suggested that around 5000 line bets is the point where you need
1 Standard Deviation of optimistic luck (+70.7 units) to break even with the
losses attributable to the HA {-70.7 units} (not betting odds bets here).

Odds bets can help counteract the HA effect if you are having good luck with
those bets too; or if you are having bad luck on both line and odds bets to the
tune of 1 SD at 5000 line decisions, you'll be down 70.7 units (PL HA loss) +
70.7 units (-1SD on PL) + 57.74 units (-1SD on 1x odds{(5000*2/3rds)^.5 power) =
199.14 units down, instead of being 57.74 units ahead with +1SD of line & odds
bets. {Alan S. may dispute my math a hair about what an SD of odds bets in units
is for 5000 decisions on the PL.}

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

Bump

"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't ***@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in message news:6K7fh.1186$***@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| We also notice the extremes of losing and winning on your graphs.
| Without odds, the maximum losing session was 450 units and the maximum winning
| session was 420 units...both just a shade under 4 standard deviations from the
| HA centerpoint of almost -15 units lost. If you add 15 to -450 you get -435;
if
| you add 15 to +420 you get +435 like if there were no HA at all (try that with
| odds bets alone!)
|
| With passline + odds bets, the graph shifts because your bankroll was not
| proportionally increased to allow for odds betting. Losing 600 units only
| accounts for just a shade over 1 Standard Deviation; you might need a 4X
larger
| bankroll to encounter a 4 standard deviation downswing with the odds multiple
| you used...how many times odds was that anyway?
| On the upside you were ahead one session 2530 units or 4.45 standard
deviations
| of your unit bets.
|
| Try the PL + odds bet run again but use a -2530 -15 -15 = -2560 unit bankroll
| and show us the graph.
|
|