Betting on $5 versus $10 tables

[Drab]

My newbie Question of the day for everyone--but esp. For smaller buy-ins (say 500 or less). Do you bet differently on a $5 table than on a $10? I usually play on $5 if there's a spot and $10 if the table is empty or nearly empty (or if there's no other option). I usually avoid doey/don't.

I ask because I realized this weekend that my mindset seems different and I hadn't really noticed it before. For example, at a $10 table I bet single odds on PL or CL (if I'm playing CL) so $20 total on PL w odds. Yet at a $5 dollar table, typically it's 10 or 11 total PL w odds. Granted, if the table's choppy, if I'm down, or not shooting well, the lower $ exposure helps, but I keep thinking if I'm willing to risk $20 at one table why not add the extra on the odds on the other. Similarly, why not start at 44 inside and then regress to 22? (Although if everyone at the table is just grip and ripping it, I'd probably stay at table min).

I rarely press and the most I place inside on any table is 110 (and then will still regress after a hit or two if I can manage it).

I realize that this may have more to do with my mindset and bankroll than a betting strategy, but I still wonder if anyone approaches the two table limits differently.

[heavy]

Avoid the pass line and come bets unless you're the shooter. At least that's my opinion. In a casino where they have both $5 and $10 games running I frequently play the $10 game because there are usually fewer shooters to contend with. Typically I just want the dice to get back to me (or one or two other guys who might be playing with me) as quickly as possible. Most of the time I have sufficient bankroll on hand that the difference in buy-in between a $5 game and a $10 game really doesn't come into play.

I would encourage you to continue to think in terms of early steep regressions. You could, for example, regress from $66 inside to a $12 six and eight and only have $3 at risk to the seven after that first hit. Take the next $14 pay off, then you can consider pressing or adding additional numbers from there.

[freak]

I definitely have a different mindset...

What I noticed lately is that I tend to over invest in the low limit tables. We played several $3 tables in Vegas and almost always lost. It seems I was never satisfied with a $3 - $6 win so I kept pressing, always looking for the monster hand. And I'd have 3 - 4 placed numbers. My brain would go into candy-store mode and think "Hey they're cheap so why not buy lots of them??"

By contrast when we'd play at Aria on their $15 table we only had one or possibly two number unless a hand developed. If we did hit a few numbers we were making $15 - $21 a pop and that adds up fast. $3 versus $15 is extreme but the same sort of thing happens to my mindset on $5 versus $10 too. A $5 table often feels like death by 1000 cuts. I never lose big on one hand, but I never seem to get ahead. I tend to dabble with less focus. On a $10 table I'm forced to concentrate my bets on a few numbers. If they hit I get ahead. If they lose I get a sharp reminder to pay attention and make something work or leave the table. Lately at home I've been playing a $5 min but always placing $10 on the PL and $10 - $12 on the placed numbers. The only thing I go $5 on is the field if I get that "field feeling". If the $5 hits in the field I'll parlay and if that hits I'll use that $20 to place the 4 and 10 for $10 each. Last night I turned $300 into $50, then came all the way back to =$900. I think what it boils down to is that I play a $5 table on defense (and hope) trying not to lose and I play a $10 or $15 table on offense (and thoughtful strategy) trying to win.

[shunkaha]

I've noticed I have a tendency to play too tight on a $10 table, when I am throwing a great deal of 4/10s I will bet them on a $5 table at the drop of a hat but on a $10 I almost never bet them because psychologically I view the risk vs return differently. It wouldn't make a difference except one night I made a friend $8,000 on a $10 table because he was betting the 4, to the extent that another friend walked up a few minutes into the hand, asked him what I was tossing and proceeded to bet only the 4 for $100... he colored up for over $1,000 off the hand... I made something like $120+ because I was betting the inside numbers only until the last couple of 4s and I was betting $10 and refused to press, on a $5 table I'd have started at $5 after the first one and before I was done I'd have made something like $500+++. Another night in Biloxi a man next to me made $17,000 off my hand which was very heavy on the 4, I made something like $90+... again I refused to bet the 4 because I couldn't bring myself to on a $10 table. I have noticed this tendency less on the inside numbers but I have at times been unwilling to invest in an extra number when I ABSOLUTELY should have.

[heavy]

By contrast when we'd play at Aria on their $15 table we only had one or possibly two number unless a hand developed. If we did hit a few numbers we were making $15 - $21 a pop and that adds up fast. $3 versus $15 is extreme but the same sort of thing happens to my mindset on $5 versus $10 too. A $5 table often feels like death by 1000 cuts. I never lose big on one hand, but I never seem to get ahead. I tend to dabble with less focus. On a $10 table I'm forced to concentrate my bets on a few numbers. If they hit I get ahead. If they lose I get a sharp reminder to pay attention and make something work or leave the table. Lately at home I've been playing a $5 min but always placing $10 on the PL and $10 - $12 on the placed numbers. The only thing I go $5 on is the field if I get that "field feeling".

But you are largely playing a random game, if I'm not mistaken. So odds are over the long run you'll never lose big - or win big - if you play low vig bets and adhere to a strict loss limits. You win more in a $15 game because you bet more. It takes one hit on an $18 six or eight to kick off $21. If you're playing $18 across the best you're going to get paid (since they are not correct bets at $3 per number) you are giving up way too much vig and will have to score seven hits a $3 a pop to win $21. The math just doesn't work in your favor. As for going in the Field on a "feeling," yeah I understand that. I frequently turn my bets off or toss out a hop bet based on a feeling. But in the end the vig is still too much to overcome on a random shooter.

Typically, if you want to win big you have to bet big. The last guy I saw win $200K at a table was playing a 20x ODDS game - he started out with $500 PL and Come bets with $10K odds. Once he had four bets established he switched to $250 PL and Come Bets with $5000 odds. All it takes is one hand . . .

[Drab]

Avoid the pass line and come bets unless you're the shooter.

I would encourage you to continue to think in terms of early steep regressions. You could, for example, regress from $66 inside to a $12 six and eight and only have $3 at risk to the seven after that first hit. Take the next $14 pay off, then you can consider pressing or adding additional numbers from there.

Thanks Heavy. I have also noticed that while the 5 dollar tables are mostly full, the 10 tables (both at the shoe and M'ville) are less populated if they have both min. Amounts open.

And learned that the shoe opens at least one $10 table for the high roller I've seen the last few times I was there.

[Drab]

A $5 table often feels like death by 1000 cuts. I never lose big on one hand, but I never seem to get ahead.

I hear ya on this one especially with a small buy in and if you lose $ the first few hands. At the same time, part of me really wants to increase the $ for a roll or too--at least on the PL odds or 6/8. After losing a few hands, I threaded water and missed out on a string of 8s the last time. The last two trips (while at 5 tables) would have been better if I had put more on the table and stopped after a few rolls. Who knows, though. Hindsight etc etc

[SHOOTITALL]

Here is my version of playing the five buck table.
Just place the 6/8 @ $6.00 each. Let them cook, no pressing. When you are +$12 ahead, then go to $12 each or $12 on the one hitting and $6 on the other. As you creep ahead, and it could be slow, then increase again or add a number. Makes little difference but you have to keep an eye on trends.
When you are the shooter, do what you are comfortable doing.
This is close to as low as you can get on the house vig. (Yes Charlie, I am ignoring the pl/dp for this).

[luxlogs]

Read Catch 22 by Joe Heller

Heavy is Right while at the same time Freak is Correct.

Hence, Catch 22

[wild child]

luxlogs

After all these decades could there actually be a sequel or a revival ?

Now showing...
F.U.B.A R. Productions....presents the remake and untold story
Son of Milo Minderbender ..meets ....Grandson of MAJOR MAJOR

Naaw No one meets the Major

w c

[SHOOTITALL]

geezh: I read Catch 22 at least 50 years ago. I still have chestnuts in my cheeks.
BTW: do you want to by any cotton?

[freak]

So odds are over the long run you'll never lose big - or win big - if you play low vig bets and adhere to a strict loss limits. You win more in a $15 game because you bet more. It takes one hit on an $18 six or eight to kick off $21. If you're playing $18 across the best you're going to get paid (since they are not correct bets at $3 per number) you are giving up way too much vig and will have to score seven hits a $3 a pop to win $21.. . .

I know that math seems obvious...and it makes perfect sense to me when I am away from the table. I'm just saying there is a psychological component when I'm at the table that tends to push logic aside. For example, I'm willing to play those "field feelings" regularly at a $5 table. Perhaps once per shooter. But on a $10 table I might only bet the field once every five shooters if there is a prolonged field streak. And I probably only bet the field once a night on a $15 table. That larger minimum bet inspires better discipline. I should just play the $5 table with $10 or $15 minimum bets and force better discipline on myself, but my brain is resistant to that for some reason in the casino. One of my warts I guess...

[wild child]

S.I.A.

Got my COTTON covered with a power move in Chain Letters

A Wharton graduate once told me a person could become successful
by reading J.Heller's Catch 22 and R.Ringer's Winning Through Intimidation
Those two books could give a person enough to make it in business and/or government.
.

Published1961-2011 was the 50Th year anniversary of the underground C-22
and almost know one speaks much about R.Ringer or "Winning Through Intimidation"

Seems like the lessons are in the lifestyles of the most rich but not famous

Just me saying

W C

[Drab]

I've noticed I have a tendency to play too tight on a $10 table, when I am throwing a great deal of 4/10 [....]I have noticed this tendency less on the inside numbers but I have at times been unwilling to invest in an extra number when I ABSOLUTELY should have.

Pretty much exactly what happened to me on Sunday night. Both the dealers and the other players commented on how 10 was my number that night (except when it was the point, of course), but I only bet on it once--my first ever hop bet that I actually made.

[heavy]

Well, I will weigh in on this topic from one more approach. Why, if as DI's we believe we have any influence over the dice, do we pursue low limit tables all of the time. IF you have any skill with the dice then your bankroll should be steadily growing - even if you only reinvest 25% of your wins. And if that bankroll is growing - you should be betting at higher limit tables just to thin the crowd and gain more shooting opportunities. Walking up to a $3 table and buying in for more than $300 is batshit crazy. On the flip side, if you're buying in at a $5 game you probably need to buy in somewhere around $500, and in a $10 game around $1000. But that should be no problem for a skilled shooter.

[acpa]

Good point Heavy.

Thanks

Noah

[heavy]

"Short horn for the dealers."

[Wrangler]

Why, if as DI's we believe we have any influence over the dice, do we pursue low limit tables all of the time.

I’m still new in my DI journey and while I’ve had some success, I’m not consistent. I also have a small bankroll thats slowly building. I seek the lower limits for more experience with a reduced financial exposure. I’m ok with small wins today, but as my bankroll builds, so will my confidence. It won’t be long before I’m playing at the big table!

[dork]

Avoid the pass line and come bets unless you're the shooter. At least that's my opinion. ...

I would encourage you to continue to think in terms of early steep regressions. You could, for example, regress from $66 inside to a $12 six and eight and only have $3 at risk to the seven after that first hit. Take the next $14 pay off, then you can consider pressing or adding additional numbers from there.

Heavy, what's your reasoning behind the suggestion that we avoid the PL and Come bets on other shooters if you're inferring that place bets are more allowable.

My second question-- I'm assuming you're recommending $66 Inside regress to $12 6/8 as a DI bet?

[wild child]

Well, I will weigh in on this topic from one more approach.

Why, if as DI's we believe we have any influence over the dice, do we pursue low limit tables all of the time. IF you have any skill with the dice then your bankroll should be steadily growing - even if you only reinvest 25% of your wins.
AND

If that bankroll is growing - you should be betting at higher limit tables just to thin the crowd and gain more shooting opportunities.

{ MAJOR POINT }

Walking up to a $3 table and buying in for more than $300 is batshit crazy.
On the flip side, if you're buying in at a $5 game you probably need to buy in somewhere around $500,
AND
in a $10 game around $1000.
But that should be no problem for a skilled shooter.

Establishing a ratio specific to THE Minimum wager you will place at risk to the number
of trials you will give it a go is an Extremely Strong way to approach
the game of Dice ( also known as craps ).....

Some aggressive players establish Buy In a Ratio of 30 : 1 ( $ at risk times X number of trials )
(A lesser ratio may bring one to a greater Risk of Ruin )

Establishing a Ratio of 50:1 is somewhat wiser and a sign of one who's GAME has matured...

The PLAYERS who establish a 100:1 Ratio are generally the veteran players
capable of underwriting their decades long Player Career , walking the walk of a Winner....

just me saying

w c