Doey Don't Craps! $1 min and 2x odds. $5 Pass/Come & $10 Don't Pass/Don't Come

General Concept
Here is one way betting on 6 and 8 P/C. The idea is to stay in the game for many rolls so your strategy is based more accurately on a normal distribution. For that 6s and 8s appear ~14% of the time while a 7 appears ~17% of the time with a small standard error.

Note: I reference standard error below as SE.

SE is https://library.soton.ac.uk/variance-stand...

I am not trying to win on the 7. I am trying to lose as little as possible while I wait for 6s and 8s. In this video you'll see that that its unlikely to walk away a big loser. Most likely one walks away with a small loss but only because they (meaning me) don't quit after a small win.

Many players have issues with this concept.

a) Most often the complaint is that there's no advantage to hedging like this.
b) Another complaint is that each bet is separate from another so not effective

I disagree!

a) Completely wrong that there's no advantage. Betting both P/C and DP/DC allows flexibility to strategize. Spread you money across both bets. Choose how much to hedge, what odds to bet, which bets to take down and how much to leave on the table. Also there is a psychological benefit to placing more bets and slowly regulating bankroll as you lose or win small amounts. Idea is to prevent huge losses on 7s. Not losing a lot and staying in the game that you like. Fun!

b) A popular mantra is that each bet is separate from another. True or False? More bets means a lot more $$ on odds. As play develops you can move your odds from one number to another. Not just taking down bets, but rather moving money off the DP/DC 6 & 8 over to the DP/DC 4,5,9,10 when reasonable. Or moving the risk from DP/DC to the 6 & 8 place bets or even increasing the bets on the P/C or DP/DC lines.

There is some reasonable amount of controversy here though. I've been having arguments about my rationale for pulling down the DP/DC bets on the 6 and 8 entirely. You'll see this in the video where I'm constantly messing with the 6 & 8 DP/DC bets. The arguments against this method are less about reality and more about a misunderstanding craps players have about two things in particular:

1. Most players don't bring enough of a bankroll. I want my bankroll to be 100 times or more of the min bet of the table. Most people play $10 or $15 tables with a lot less than $1000 in the bankroll they've chosen to risk for the session. The problem there: they often have too much $$ on the table for any given roll, and just one roll can end their session and their strategy. This should never happen, and yet many gambling experts think that if the odds of a roll winning is enormously favorable to them (like 85% likely to win) then it must also be a great bet. I disagree if it's possible to lose everything on the table in one throw. That cannot happen with the strategy I show here. You can still lose and maybe lose a lot, but there are no circumstances (unless you're an idiot) for which you can lose all the money you've risked on the board.

How are the 6 & 8 DP/DC bets involved with this argument? The chance of rolling a 6 or 8 before a 7 rolls is high. Meaning on any roll your odds of throwing a 6 or 8 is 14% while the odds of throwing a 7 is 17%. In contrast the chances of rolling a 4 or a 10 before a 7 are almost half of this at about 8%.

If you have limitless funds and plan to be at a table for hours then you don't need to think about your bankroll. Go ahead and bet on any odds you want if you can always work your way through huge losses. Most can't do this though, and for that reason one way I save my $$ is by moving it off the most likely bets to lose on the table. That means the DP/DC 6 and 8 and the P/C 4 & 10. Those bets pay out well, but if you don't have the $$ allowing yourself to continuously come back from a loss on the 6 or 8 DP/DC then sometimes it's best to just limit your risk on these more likely to lose bets even if it means taking down good bets.

Explain: If you think that every sequence from 7 to 7 represents a normal distribution you won't ever take down bets that pay well. This is mainly because the casino teaches you that the best odds mean the best bets. Totally wrong unless you can confidently treat your sequences as stochastic representations of a normal distribution. Only way to do that is to be in for well over 200 rolls.

A common example: At a $10 table you bring $100 bankroll. The come out is a 4. You put full odds behind a 4 in this case. Foolish! While for a normal distribution the odds of rolling another 4 before a 7 are fairly predictable, they are not predictable if you sample 30 rolls total. For a 30 roll distribution another 4 may never show. The SE of a two 4s showing during your short session is enormous. Quite the opposite of the SE of two 4s showing during a long (i.e. greater than 200 rolls) which is much much smaller. Meaning much more predictable and corresponds closely with house odds.