Craps table

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative expected value and no odds can be placed without an existing flat bet, so the highest expected-chip action is to make no bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet has positive expected value; every offered wager carries a house edge. Sitting out this roll maximizes expected chips by avoiding negative EV.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets carry a negative expected value, so placing no bet maximizes expected bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has the lowest house edge among available come-out bets, and a 50-chip flat allows maximum odds behind it within the 300 exposure cap.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Maximizing odds behind don't pass on point 4 to reduce effective house edge to zero for additional stake, improving ev_loss_per_chip and odds_utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Point is 4, a strong position for the don't pass with odds. Adding a don't come bet increases exposure to a favorable 7 while preserving bankroll for laying odds if a point is established.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Bet pass line on come-out roll for lowest house edge, planning to take full odds when point is established to reduce combined edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Taking maximum odds on the pass line point 4 to reduce the combined house edge to near zero, as odds pay true odds with no house advantage.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Already at max total stake with pass line and full odds on point 4, which have zero house edge. No action reduces expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keeping the zero-edge pass odds bet; no exposure left to add new bets without removing it, which would be -EV.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Already at max exposure with pass line and full odds on point 4, which have zero house edge. No better bets available, so I stand pat.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Betting pass line with 50 to allow full odds within the 300 exposure limit, minimizing house edge and maximizing odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Adding maximum pass line odds (100 chips, true odds 3:2) to reduce house edge and improve odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All bets carry a negative expected value. To maximize my expected chip count over the session, I wager nothing and preserve my bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has the lowest house edge (1.36%) and allows laying zero-edge odds after a point is set. A flat $100 exposure fits within the 300 cap to leave room for maximum supported odds later.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the established don't pass bet on point 6: it is +EV (6 ways to win vs 5 ways to lose) and no other available bet has a positive expectation.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Existing don't pass at point 6 is favorable; adding max laid odds at true odds (zero house edge) increases odds utilization without additional expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Current don't pass plus laid odds on 6 is positive EV after the point is established; all newly available bets are negative EV. Keeping the existing max-odds position maximizes odds utilization without adding house-edge bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Skipping this come-out roll because every available wager has negative expected value and I hold no existing bets requiring a hedge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet has positive expected value, so adding wagers would only increase expected loss; staying off the table preserves chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass has the lowest house edge among flat bets, and a $6 flat allows full lay odds on any point (including multiples of 6 on 6/8) to maximize odds utilization while minimizing expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Laying maximum odds behind the don't pass on point 6 to capitalize on the 6/11 probability of a seven.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

We hold a don't pass with max odds on the 6, which has a positive expected value after the come-out. Adding any new bet would introduce a negative house edge, so we stand pat to preserve our favorable position.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Holding don't pass with max odds on 6 (54.5% favorite); no new bets to avoid negative-EV action and preserve odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has positive expected value; preserving chips maximizes expected session-end bankroll and yields zero expected loss per chip, which is optimal for the ev_loss_per_chip metric.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The shooter has made three straight passes; placing 6 and 8 offers low house edge and immediate action, while a come bet sets up future odds at zero edge.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Remove negative-EV place bets and add max true odds behind the come 9 to reduce house-edge exposure and improve odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All bets have negative expected value; the optimal strategy to maximize final chips is to not wager on this roll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Come bet offers a low house edge (1.41%) and allows adding free odds later to reduce overall expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Adding maximum true-odds behind the Come 8 dilutes the house edge to a minimum on the combined bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I have max odds on my come 8, which is a zero-edge fair bet. Adding more bets would only introduce negative expected value and reduce my long-run chips, so I stand pat.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

My come bet with full odds on the 8 offers zero house edge on the odds portion and minimal edge overall; with limited rolls remaining I avoid adding any new negative-expectation bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I already have full odds on my come-8 bet (50 odds on a 10 flat, the maximum for 5x odds) which offers the best combination of zero house edge odds and a small edge on the flat come bet. Adding any other bet would increase my expected loss per chip, and removing the odds would reduce my odds utilization score.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The point is 6 and the puck is ON, so I can only bet come/don't come or props. Come has a low 1.41% house edge and unlocks free-odds if it travels to a point, which lowers the combined edge. A small flat stake minimises expected loss while keeping the door open for odds.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Placing a pass line bet to establish a point and then take maximum odds for the best risk-adjusted return, aiming to recover bankroll with 5 rolls left.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Taking maximum odds behind the pass line bet to minimize house edge and increase potential return on the point of 10.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available new bets carry a negative house edge, and the existing pass-line odds are already at the 3x max for point 10 with zero edge, so I make no new bets or removals to maximize expected chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available bet offers positive expected value; pass line, don't pass, place, and one-roll bets all carry a house edge. With only two decision rolls left, staying off the table preserves bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value and no odds can be attached to a new flat bet on the final decision roll, so the best expected chip outcome is to make no new bets.