Indeed, a casino that increases its House Advantage could be compared to a department store that increases the price of its products. The store that increases prices will achieve greater earnings on the products it sells. However, the store is likely to sell fewer products, as customers hunt elsewhere for better deals. Similarly, the casino that raises its House Advantage will achieve greater earnings on the bets that players make, but is likely to get fewer bets. Greater earnings on each bet means that a casino's Expected Hold will increase, but fewer bets mean that a casino's Drop will decline.

Thus, an increase in the House Advantage should result in a greater Expected Hold for a casino, but a smaller Drop, while a decrease in the House Advantage should produce a smaller Expected Hold, but a larger Drop. Casinos that change their House Advantage do so in an attempt to achieve the best balance between the Drop and Expected Hold to maximize profitability.

THE HOUSE ADVANTAGE AND THE ODDS

To understand how changes in the House Advantage affect the profitability of crap games, let's take a hypothetical example. Assume that a casino has single odds on its crap games, and that single odds have produced: (a) a long-term Hold (i.e., Expected Hold) of 19%, and (b) an average Drop of $63,000 per day.

Now suppose that, in an attempt to attract more players and increase profits, the casino decides to offer players double odds. And suppose that, in time, the Drop for the dice pit increases from the previous $63,000 daily average to a $75,000 average (as additional players are lured to the casino by the new, more liberal, double odds). However, the department's Hold percentage falls from the previous 19% to 17% (since double odds have reduced the House Advantage).

Expected Win = $63,000 per day x .19

                       = $11,970 per day

Expected Win = $75,000 per day x .17

                       = $12,750 per day

In our hypothetical case, changing from single odds to double odds increased the dice pit's Expected Win from a daily average of $11,970 to an average of $12,750. Therefore, the casino's decision to go to double odds was a profitable one. (Of course, our hypothetical example was a simple one. When making profitability calculations of this sort, casinos must also account for such things as seasonal changes, promotions, the economic climate, etc.)

Now suppose that this casino -- noting how much its profits have increased by changing to double odds -- decides to liberalize even further by offering players 10 times odds. And suppose that after a time with 10 times odds, the dice pit's long-term Hold falls to 13%, while its Drop increases to $95,000 per day. To determine the profitability of 10 times odds, the casino again performs the same Expected Win calculation.

Expected Win = $95,000 per day x .13

                       = $12,350 per day

We see that changing to 10 times odds produced an Expected Win of $12,350 per day for the casino, down from the $12,750 per day achieved with double odds. Do these results mean that our hypothetical casino should switch back to double odds? Perhaps, but the casino needs to consider another important point: a promotion like 10 times odds will not only increase the Drop in the dice pit, but will increase the Drop in other gaming departments as well.

This is because not every player attracted to a casino by the lure of 10 times odds will spend all of his or her time playing craps. Inevitably, some of these players, after playing craps for a time, will move about to gamble at other casino games. Therefore, a casino needs to seriously consider the positive effect that enticing players with liberal odds can have, not just on the craps department, but on the entire casino operation.