Craps table

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has a slightly lower house edge than pass line, and 10 units allows for full odds lay on any point.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

With the point at 10, the don't pass has a strong 2:1 advantage. Adding the maximum 30 in laid odds locks in that edge with no house commission, maximising expected session value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Holding a don't pass with full 3x odds on the 10 has a positive expected value per roll, as the seven is twice as likely as the point. Adding any new bet would introduce a negative expectation, so the optimal play is to stand pat.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has a slightly lower house edge than pass line, and it allows laying odds later to reduce overall edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The don't pass bet has a slightly lower house edge than the pass line, and we can add maximum lay odds after a point is established to reduce the overall edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Adding max don't pass odds to reduce house edge to zero on the combined bet, capitalizing on the favorable point of 8 for don't pass.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Already have a don't pass with near-maximum odds, which has zero house edge on the odds and low edge on the flat. Adding further bets would increase expected loss without improving odds utilisation.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has the lowest house edge, and we plan to lay full odds after a point is established to minimize expected loss per chip.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Adding maximum lay odds behind the don't pass removes the house edge on the additional chips and increases expected profit without meaningfully raising risk of ruin.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Placing a pass line bet at the minimum house edge to set up maximum free odds once a point is established, reducing expected loss and boosting odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative expected value; placing no wager on this roll preserves my bankroll and maximizes long‑run session net.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Placing the 8 for immediate low-edge coverage and a Come bet to build another point with the option to take full odds later.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Remove the negative-expectation place bet and replace with a come bet to later add full odds, minimizing EV loss per chip and maximizing odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

My come‑4 already has negative expectation from the flat bet; adding the maximum true‑odds bet behind it reduces the combined house edge per chip without increasing the table exposure beyond the allowable limit.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Bet the minimum on don't pass to minimize expected loss while preserving bankroll for subsequent lay odds, which carry no house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Skipping this come-out roll preserves bankroll; no edge in pass or don't pass with limited rolls remaining.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Pass line has a low house edge and allows adding free odds later; stake of 50 permits maximum odds of 250 on 6/8, 200 on 5/9, and 150 on 4/10 while leaving room to add come bets with full odds on other numbers if the point is low-multiple.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The don't pass bet has the lowest house edge (1.36%) among available options. A minimal stake preserves bankroll for maximum lay odds if a point is established.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has the lowest house edge, and the shooter's streak of naturals doesn't change the independent dice probabilities; maximizing expected final chips starts with the mathematically best bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

With don’t pass point 9 the house edge is negative; adding max laid odds reduces overall expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Maintain the existing don't pass with maximum lay odds (zero house edge on odds) and avoid adding any new negative-expectation bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keeping the don't pass with odds because the point is 9 and the probability of a seven-out (6/36) exceeds the point repeating (4/36), offering a positive expectation with minimal house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the favorable don't pass with odds and add a small don't come to potentially add more odds later, maximizing low-edge exposure.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Maximizing free odds on the existing Don't Come 5 to capture the 60% win probability with zero house edge. Other bets would either carry a house advantage or conflict with the favorable seven for our current don't positions.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Current don't pass and don't come bets are +EV with points 9 and 5; using last 3 chips on a don't come bet to potentially establish another favorable point.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Adding max laid odds on the existing Don't Come 5 to increase exposure to a 7 with no house edge, as seven is more likely than the 5.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I already hold a don't come 5 with full laid odds, which is a zero-house-edge bet. Adding new negative-expectation wagers would only increase expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

我们已经有don't come 5及最大赔率，不再追加投注以避免增加预期损失。

I chose a legal action for this decision.

我的don't come 5及赔率在5点上有正期望，保留它们并避免下新的不利的赌注。

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keeping the don't come 5 with max odds has a small positive expectation per roll, and a large come bet hedges a 7 (win on both) while creating a new odds-eligible point on any other number, improving long‑term chip growth.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keeping the existing don't come 5 with odds as it has positive expected value; adding any new bets would be negative EV.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Minimising expected loss per chip by betting the pass line with a minimum stake, planning to add full odds after the point is set. This achieves the best combination of ev_loss_per_chip and odds utilisation.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Taking full 5x odds behind the pass line on point 8 locks in the zero house edge and maximizes potential return without increasing expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Come with maximum odds offers one of the lowest house edges; starting with a flat $1 come to keep exposure low while allowing full odds behind it.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Maximise free odds on existing come-10 bet to reduce overall house edge without adding new negative-expectation bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Existing pass line and come bets with maximum odds already minimize expected loss per chip and optimize odds utilization; adding more bets would increase negative expectation with only 5 rolls remaining.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No new bets to minimize expected loss; current odds are maxed and have zero house edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Place 6 and 8 offer the lowest house edge among place bets (1.52%) and give extra ways to win with only 3 rolls remaining.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Removing place 8 reduces expected loss (house edge) and is redundant with the pass line point; keeping odds maintains odds utilization without affecting EV.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has a slightly lower house edge than pass line, and with only one decision roll left, betting the maximum 100 chips maximizes expected final chip count.