its the last sentence about bankroll management that makes me think that there might be some merit to a strategy that includes hedging until you are profitable on the shooter or overall in the session, mostly through establishing a dont come, then once DC is established switching to come, but also through small hop 7 bets when Come + DC doesnt hedge enough of your total bet. Yeah, i do understand that house edge impacts every roll. But wouldnt lowering your odds bet also raise the average house edge? And if thats the case wouldnt i rather just hedge? Its all very confusing, better go play more craps to figure it all out. And I guess that makes perfect sense and would resolve all of my questions.

Im guessing that the answer to that question is that it would be better to simply reduce your odds bets, hedging against a loss by lowering your investment rather than by betting against yourself.

But, is it possible that with a limited bankroll that the 'least losing' strategy includes some hedging to protect bankroll and keep you in the game long enough to see a shooter go on a long roll? With an unlimited bankroll, optimal strategy would be to place only the bets with the lowest house edge. When the 7-out comes next roll, is it better to have had the lowest possible average house edge, or is it better to get $30 of that $100 back because you placed a $6 hop 7 bet? I'm guessing you'll respond by saying that because a 7 rolls every 6.14 rolls I will have spent $36+ on average to win that $30, but I'm really not sure its quite as cut and dry as that.

Doesn't building your strategy around the concept of minimizing the average house edge assume that you have an unlimited bankroll to survive a bad run? I mean, if I have $100 in bets out there with most of it on the passline odds and come odds we can say that maybe the house has a 1-2% average edge.

In craps are come bets contract