Wrong, my expected value increases, in terms of percentage. Look at it this way. Suppose I make a $1 bet on the pass line. My expected value is 98.39 cents or a minus 1.41%. Now let me add a $1 odds bet. Now my exepceted value is $1.9839 or minus 0.805%. Lets make it extreme and say I bet $1,000,000 on the odds after a $1 place bet. Then my expected return is $1,000,000.9839 or a minus 0.000000016%. Now I agree that the variance will be higher, which is why you need to go to craps tables that fit your budget and manage your bank, but the math is simple, playing odds increasing your chances of winning.
The problem with your example is that a gambler generally has a budget of money that he is willing to lose. So if you gave me two choices:
-
I can bet $5 on something with a 50/50 chance of coming in, and only paying me $4.93 on that bet (a 1.4% take, which approximates the take on the pass line), with a sidebet of $95 that pays in full AND
-
I can bet $100 on the same event, and get paid $98 if I win
Choice 1 is better. The EV of the outcome of Choice 1 is Minus 3.5 CENTS (50% chance that I will lose $100 + 50% chance that I will win $99.93).
EV of Choice 2 is MINUS 70 Cents (50% chance that I will lose $100 + 50% chance that I will win $98.60)
Make sense yet?
Exactly! I’m a wrong bettor and it didn’t make sense why I should be laying odds. Why not just take the straight dont pass/come bets. Mathematically it doesn’t make a difference and after some trials, experimentally it doesn’t make a difference either.
Taking (or laying) odds is strictly short term (volitility instead of EV). That’s how I made $800 in 15 minutes at Laughlin with a friend making hot rolls. Taking odds all day however should yield a net balanceof $0. So is $10 on the pass lines + $30 odds a better bet than just $10 on the pass line? No
The real question is: is $10 on the pass lines + $30 odds a better bet than $40 on the pass line? Yes
You will get a net return of zero on your odds bets, long-term. You will get a *negative *net return on *any *other craps bet, long-term. There is *no *craps bet that will give you a positive net return, long-term. Those are the facts. The more of your money you put on anything but an odds bet in craps, the more of it you will lose.
The purpose of the odds bet is to negate as much of the house edge as possible.
I don’t see where the confusion is. Nobody is talking about adding on an *extra *odds bet as being helpful. It’s about how you distribute your money. So the choice will never be between $10 on the pass line and $10 on the pass line with $30 on the odds bet: it will *always *be a discussion of $40 on the pass line versus $10 on the pass line and $30 on the odds. (Or, really, *any *other distribution of that $40 other than pushing a greater proportion of it to the odds bet.)
You bet $100 on the Pass Line. House advantage is 1.41%. The EV (Expected Value) of your bet is $98.59 for a loss of $1.41.
Now you put down $200 (or $400 or $1,000) for odds. House advantage of the odds bet is 0% … so the house advantage on the total of your two bets is reduced … however … your expected loss is still $1.41. Taking odds reduces the percentage loss of the total of the bets, but the smaller percentage of the larger total dollar amount equals precisely the same dollar amount … so, taking odds reduces the percentage of the house advantage but has no effect whatsoever on the total expectation stated in dollars.
Variance. On a fair / even money bet such as odds on craps or the flip of a coin … the player with the bigger bankroll has an advantage proportional to the size of the bankrolls … so even on a 0% wager, there is a house advantage and it can be precisely calculated.
Oh. I was talking about adding an extra odds bet as not being helpful. If I’m dead-set committed to betting $40 a round, then of course I would bet $10 on the pass line and $30 on the odds. But I can make just as much money (or, more accurately, lose money just as slowly) by only betting $10 on the pass line. Both are valid at this particular game, since the casino doesn’t force you to take odds. So why should I feel committed to betting $40? As Saint Cad points out, it’s purely a volatility play.
And, contra CPomeroy, playing the odds only “minimizes your chance of losing” if you’re committed to playing $X each round, total, instead of committing to playing $Y on the pass line (and either making a $0 odds bet, or a $3Y odds bet). In the $Y-on-pass-line scenario, you’re actually able to play for longer by not making the odds bet. This is because as soon as your bankroll drops to $0, you have to stop playing, so you want to make your bets (which all have the same absolute EV) as small as possible.
On edit: Turble made basically exactly my second point, but faster and more concisely.
In my opinion, if you are worried about losing your bankroll, the craps table is the last place you ought to be. You can lose it quickly, or double it quickly.
If you’re worried about losing your bankroll, you probably shouldn’t be in a casino 
No, you’re falling into the same bizarre reasoning as I’ve seen a few other people display. You can only end up concluding that an odds bet is pointless if you’re looking at an unrealistic scenario, where people are betting completely different amounts of money depending on whether or not they’re putting odds on their pass line bet.
Your Scenario:
No odds bet: $100 on the pass line; casino gets $1.41
Odds bet: $100 on pass, plus $300 on odds; casino gets $1.41
The Actual Scenario, as I See It:
No odds bet: $400 on the pass line; casino gets $5.64
Odds bet: $100 on pass, plus $300 on odds; casino gets $1.41
Your entire assumption is based around the idea that people will somehow be pulling out extra money that they wouldn’t have otherwise bet in order to place an odds bet. That, to me, makes your comparison completely inaccurate. In order to properly appreciate the benefit of putting as much of your bet onto the odds, you need to compare *total bets *of equal amounts.
Ideally, 100% of your bet would be on the odds. However, no casino would ever allow that bet, so you’re forced to put some proportion of it on the pass line first. Because the two bets are tied, you can’t treat an odds bet as its own creature, because it never will be.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct. What you’re leaving aside is that strategizing to play $Y on the pass line, with the option to either put odds on for $0 or 3$Y, is foolish, assuming your goal is to walk away with as much money as possible. That is obviously not the goal that everyone has for craps. But when minimizing your losses is what you want to do, then you should *absolutely *be looking at your bets as “$X, split between the pass line and odds with as great a proportion as possible on odds” and not “$X on the pass line, with an option to add either Z$X on the odds, for a total bet of $Y, where $Y = (1+Z)$X.”
What the no-odds-ers are saying is, “why even bother with the odds bets at all? If you just make the (small) pass line bet only, the house advantage doesn’t change, and you’ll be able to play more rolls because your bankroll will be able to better withstand a bad streak.”
The for-odds response should be, “yes, but by playing odds, I get the extra thrill of a big win (or loss) that you miss out on, which is really what gambling is all about. (and, depending on how the casino tracks bettors, I might be more quickly earning that free steak dinner or comped room)”
I think the part of my post that may not have been clear is that what I am recommending is that a craps player decide how much they want to risk total on a line bet, with odds, and then try to find a table with stakes that allows them to take maximum odds while keeping within their budget. For example, if you wanted to bet $15 or less on the line, with odds, and the tables were 2 * odds, you would want to find a $5 table ($5 line bet plus 2 * $5 odds bet). It gets more complicated with come bets, but I am sure there are websites that would offer advice on betting amounts based on your bankroll.
If a table with stakes that allow you to do the above is not present, maybe you should find another casino or play blackjack. I know that at busy times it can be hard to find low minimum tables, so I guess if one absolutely had to play craps and had a limited bankroll, I could understand why you would not place odds bets, but personally, I would find another game to play. The house has enough of an edge without making it easier on them. Would you not double down on an 11 against a dealer six in blackjack?
I also have a question for the anti-odds contingent, if maximizing your time at the table is your goal, would your ideal craps table be a $0.01 table, where you could bet a penny every time?
I am additionally arguing that that same thrill of the big win is possible without odds at all. In my experience – which is quite formidable in craps, btw, with literally hundreds of hours logged at actual, real life tables – the more odds you play the less interesting your time at the table is because you have less going on.
Give me a choice between $10 pass w/$30 odds or $10 pass with three $10 come bets and I’ll take the latter every single time. (Though I might just as likely be doing it on the dark side.) Way more going on, way more interesting.
All you odds players, have you ever stopped to wonder why the casino offers true odds bets? It ain’t because they’re forced to.
You haven’t understood the discussion.
It was argued that taking odds is good because you can win big on a hot table. This wasn’t the only reason given, but it was a reason given. My response to that point was that you can win big on a hot table without taking odds, so this isn’t a reason to take them. Your response that the concept of a “hot table” is woo is evidence that you did not understand the discussion. Hopefully this helped clear it up for you.
Also, the “long term” is never reached in a single casino trip so it’s largely just an intellectual debating point. Though I notice you’ve started circling the idea that odds add nothing to the bottom line, which you didn’t previously understand, so that’s progress I guess.
My experience with craps started when I was in the 8th grade, running a game to win the other kids lunch money. I ran games in college and in the army. Eventually, I moved to Las Vegas and worked as a dealer, boxman, pit boss, etc.
I’m retired now, so, on behalf of all the people who run the games and work in the industry, I thank you.
Good luck.
Ah, I apparently missed whomever made that argument. To me, it looked like your rebuttal was just floating in space as opposed to being a response to the initial claim. Sorry about that.
Yes, thank you for that lovely condescension. As I pointed out, it was simply a matter of terminology and how we were viewing the potential options. Nothing I have said was wrong: anyone who wants to minimize their losses and plays anything in craps but pass line with odds (or an equivalent bet) with as much of that total bet as possible on the odds is doing it wrong. Again, people may have different goals for playing, so mileage may vary.
I love the discussion. I hadn’t really thought about it before, but not playing odds is the way to go for me. I usually would play odds because I thought it was the right thing to do, but I see now that not playing them is more consistent with what I wish to achieve. Thanks!
Yes.
The terminology is somewhat confusing to me, so let me propose a realistic scenario (to me, at least) and see if someone can answer it.
I have $200 to play at a $5 craps table with 2x odds (to keep it simple).
Option A) I only play $5 Pass bets
Option B) I only play $5 Pass bets with full odds
I will always leave the table when I lose $200 or make $200, or after 2 hours of playing.
It seems intuitive to me that I am more likely to win money (or lose less) in this session using Option B. Is this incorrect?
Option A will leave you more likely to play for 2 hours without being up or down $200.
Option B will leave you more likely to walk away up $200 or busted out, because with $15 on the table for each shooter, you have more variance.
Given an unlimited bankroll, both options will lose you money at the same rate (the house ad on the $5 pass bet)
Absolutely correct. This is why it’s so important to figure out exactly what your goals are, because your strategy will be completely different depending on exactly what you want to do.
Jas09, the reason that you lose exactly the same amount of money with both options in that scenaro with an unlimited bankroll is that, because it will result in a net gain/loss of $0 long-term, the odds bet doesn’t affect how much you lose *per bet *if the options are presented as “odds bet or no odds bet.” The difference is that you’re comparing a $5 bet (pass line only) to a $15 one (pass line with odds on).
Consider this alternative scenario:
Option A) You only play $15 Pass bets
Option B) You only play $5 Pass bets with full odds
Now you’re comparing apples to apples: two $15 bets. In *this *case, Option B will absolutely be the way to go, because you will lose more money on Option A.