Craps table

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets carry a negative expected value, so the optimal chip-maximizing action is to preserve bankroll and place no bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive expected value bets are available; all offered bets have a house edge, so I preserve bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't come has the lowest house edge among available bets (about 1.36%) and can be followed with zero-edge lay odds once a point is set, reducing average expected loss per chip.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Laying max true-odds behind the existing don't come 10 adds no house edge and improves odds utilization, while avoiding new negative-EV bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Our existing max-odds Don’t Come on 10 already offers the optimal combination of low house edge and full odds. Adding any new bets would increase expected losses, so we stay pat.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I'm keeping my don't come 10 with max odds to maintain high odds utilization and a low expected loss per chip. Adding another don't come bet would diversify my action on the don't side.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Holding the don't come 10 with full odds keeps a low combined house edge; adding no new bets minimizes expected loss per chip while still allowing the +EV odds to work.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Betting don't pass with a 50 chip stake to allow full lay odds on any point, minimizing house edge and maximizing odds utilization.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the favorable don't pass on 4 and take maximum lay odds for zero house edge; improves odds utilization without adding risk of losing the positive EV flat bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

The don't pass with point 4 is strongly favored to win, so I keep it and take no additional negative-expectation action.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Keep the favorable dont pass with point 4 and zero-EV laid odds; all newly offered bets have negative EV, so no new bets are made.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

My don't pass and laid odds on 4 are favorable with a 7 more likely than a 4, so I keep them. I avoid new bets because they would add negative expected value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Betting don't pass for the lowest house edge (1.36%) and to later take full odds.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Laying maximum odds on the don't pass reduces the combined house edge to near zero, maximizing expected value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass with full odds on the 6 has a low combined house edge; no other bet improves expected value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Point is 6, making the don't pass bet a favorite (win on a 7 before 6). The existing odds are at true odds, so adding negative-EV bets would reduce expected session chip growth. Letting the current favorable position ride is optimal.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Don't pass offers a low 1.36% house edge on the come-out roll; betting the maximum allowed position-size reduces expected loss per chip and sets up potential free lay odds.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value; passing this come-out roll preserves bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value on this point phase; with no flat bet to take odds, keeping chips off the table maximizes expected session bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No offered bet has a positive expected value; all available wagers carry a house edge, so passing preserves my bankroll best.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Minimum don't pass has the lowest house edge available and allows adding free odds if a point is established.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Betting 50 on pass line allows taking full 3x-4x-5x lay odds up to the 300 cap, maximizing odds utilization while minimizing expected loss per chip.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Taking maximum true-odds behind the pass line adds zero house-edge exposure and reduces the aggregate expected loss per chip; all other available bets have negative EV.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative expected value and the existing odds bet is fair, so no new wagers or removals improve expected chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

I keep my pass line and full odds on the 10; the odds bet has zero house edge, and adding negative-expectation bets would reduce expected value.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No come-out bets are positive EV; the pass and don't pass both carry a house edge, so staying off the table preserves bankroll for lower-edge opportunities.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

Every available wager has a negative house edge, so the expected-value-maximizing action is to make no new bet and preserve my bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value, so passing maximizes expected bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive-expectation bets are available on this point roll; passing minimizes expected loss.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bet has positive expected value; all available craps bets carry a house edge, so the best way to maximize chips is to avoid placing any wager this roll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No bets have positive expectation: pass/don't pass and all props/place bets are negative EV, so staying out preserves chips.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets carry negative expected value and there are no existing bets to remove or hedge, so the best expected-chip action is to make no new bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No offered bet has a positive expected value; staying off the table avoids the house edge and preserves bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive EV bets are available; all legal wagers have a negative house edge and there is no flat bet to support odds, so preserving the bankroll with no action is optimal.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have negative expected value with no existing odds to offset them, so placing no bet maximizes expected bankroll.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No available wager has positive expected value, and all bets carry a house edge, so the optimal expected-chip decision is to refrain from betting.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available craps bets have negative expected value, so the best chip-maximizing action is to place no new bets.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

No positive-expectation wagers are available; all bets carry a house edge, so with two rolls left I minimize expected loss by making no bet.

I chose a legal action for this decision.

All available bets have a negative house edge and I have no flat bet to attach free odds, so I preserve bankroll on the final roll.