Craps table

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has a slightly lower house edge than pass line; minimum stake limits expected loss while retaining the option to lay odds if a point is established.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Laying maximum odds on the don't pass 9 is the only zero-edge bet available, minimizing expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the don't pass flat on 9, which now has positive EV after the come-out. No new bets because all offered bets have negative expected value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Existing don't pass on a point of 9 is +EV (6 ways to win vs 4 to lose), and laid odds are fair, so I keep them. All available new bets have negative house edge, so I place none.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the favorable don't pass with point 9 and laid odds; all currently available new bets have negative expected value, so no new bets are warranted.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I keep the don't pass with point 9 and its max lay odds because the flat bet has positive expected value after the point is established and the odds are fair; all newly available bets carry a house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The existing don't pass plus laid odds on 9 is positive EV once the point is established; all newly offered bets carry a house edge, so I take no new action.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The don't pass and laid odds after a point of 9 are positive/fair EV, so I keep them and make no new negative-EV bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

My existing don't pass with laid odds has positive expected value after the point is established, so I keep it. All newly available bets carry a house edge, so I make no new wagers.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Betting the Don't Pass for 6 chips on the come-out roll, as it offers a slightly lower house edge than the Pass Line and, with a flat bet of 6, will allow whole-chip maximum lay odds on any point that might be established, minimizing my expected loss per chip wagered.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The don't pass flat bet on point 6 has a positive expectation of 1/11 per chip; laying maximum odds adds zero-house-edge exposure, increasing total expected profit while staying within limits.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has a positive expected value on this come-out roll; the lowest expected loss is zero, so I decline to wager.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative expected value, so the optimal action is to make no new bets and preserve my bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet on this roll has positive expected value; with no flat bet to attach free odds, the optimal expected-chip action is to stay off the table.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available wagers carry a negative expected value for this roll, so placing no new bets maximizes expected chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has positive expected value on this come-out roll; with no existing positions, the EV-maximizing action is to make no new bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value and there is no flat bet to take odds on, so the highest EV action is to make no bet this roll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Pass line has a low house edge and sets up the opportunity to take free odds when a point is established.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Taking maximum pass line odds behind the point of 9 because odds bets have zero house edge and reduce the overall expected loss per chip.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I already have max free odds behind my pass line point 9, which has zero house edge. Adding any new bets would only introduce negative expected value, so I'll make no new bets and keep the odds working.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The pass line and max odds on 9 are already in place; all newly offered bets have negative expected value, so no additional stakes are justified.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No wager offers a positive expected value on this come-out roll, so I stay out to preserve chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive-EV bets are available on a come-out roll; pass and don't pass both carry a negative house edge, so I decline to bet this roll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

On a come-out roll with no existing flat bet to support odds, every available bet carries a negative expected value. I choose no new bets to avoid locking in house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bets have positive expected value, and with the bankroll already ahead and only 16 rolls left, preserving chips beats risking the house edge on this come-out roll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets carry a negative expected value, and no existing bets need reducing, so the optimal expected-value action is to make no new wager.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No offered bet has a positive expected value, and no odds are available without first accepting a negative-EV flat bet, so the best expected-chip action is to make no new bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets this roll have negative expected value, so placing no bet preserves my bankroll and maximizes expected chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available craps bet has a positive expected value on this point roll, so I decline to add any chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available come-out bets have negative expected value and no odds can be attached yet, so the highest-EV action is to make no bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet has a positive expected value; since every bet carries a house edge, the chip-maximizing action this roll is to make no new wagers.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has a positive expected value, and no point is established for zero-edge odds, so the optimal expected-chip action is to place no new bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has positive expected value; preserving bankroll is optimal.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative expected value and I have no flat bet with a point to attach fair odds, so the highest EV action is to make no new wagers.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive-EV bets are available, and with the point already established the low-house-edge pass line is not offered; the best expected-value play is to avoid new exposure until the next come-out.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive expected value bets are available with no flat bet to support odds, so staying out avoids giving up house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value and I have no existing positions; with only four rolls left, the optimal chip-maximizing action is to make no new wagers.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet has a positive expected value; all offered wagers carry a house edge, so preserving bankroll by not betting is the best EV decision.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has positive expected value; with only two decision rolls left, the optimal expected-chip play is to make no new bets and preserve bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet has positive expected value on the final roll, so no bet preserves bankroll and maximizes expected chips.