Bitcoin Forum

When I bet on primedice, there is always one fellow who asks, "is it profitable to gamble?" Many time I see those questions, the answer is " no because there is a house edge"

What if a dice site had no house edge? Then would it be able to profit?

What if a dice site has a negative house edge? Will we (the gamblers) start making profit?

There is still no guarantee to win or lose in every gambling, the house edge doesnt guarantee that. Its just a fee to the house thats why it looks like house is winning because of it,

Well, i think gamble website wins because players always want to earn like crazy multiplier from initial value...
1% for more or less for exemple... is something considerable... but not the "big" earn from the sites.

for 2x we have 50%... the problem is... when you sucessful 2x... you want to play again... in the end... let's say... 1 every 100 people will reach 100x sucessful from initial value in theory.

The question is... who reach 100x, for sure will try to earn more, and will lose it lol..., also we have a psycologic question... have you played big values?

when you starting losing alot... something bring you to "ah, i already lose so much... now i'll go crazy and go to ALL WIN" and bummm, you lose all '-'

It will not be a guarantee if a dice sites has no house edge then the gambler will be able to profit from since in the end it will depends on luck itself.
Playing in a site with no house edge itself will be an advantages for the gambler itself but the house usually lower the house edge in term of bonuses which of course will be obtained for X requirement


I would say it will be easier to make a profit but still not a guarantee. If you check at this site (unfortunately it has been closed) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1024221.0. The house is on negative house edge due to the recover loss function. In the end the site is closed since I thought it is not profitable for the house or neither the investor

P.S : OP of the site claimed that it is not that the site is not profitable but I think it is because of that

Well what if I say I have a determined goal? Like I reach 0.1 with 0.05? Would it change then knowing I will stop if I reach 0.1?

Your chance of being in positive profit is higher than you dont know when to stop. If you dont have goals to reach before stopping its like you are waiting to your funds get busted

Setting a goal will not be helping you in reaching profit since at the end it will depends on your luck either but atleast it will help you in not to lose more. In order to set up a goal, you cant set a goal with just " only stop at X profit" but you must set up a goal to stop at X loss too.

Nevertheless, A goal doesnt stop a gambler from gambling to keep on gaining more and more. Mark my word for it. You can check on this thread for more proof of my words https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1052406.0

Basically the OP of the site set a goal of only betting for 0.01 BTC and stop after he get a profit of at least 10% of it but guess what, He cant keep up with his words and thus keep on doubling each of his bankroll

What the hell are you talking about? Setting a goal does increase your chances of winning, you want a 0.01 profit? Bet 0.2 on 95% ta da your chances are 95% of winning your goal.

This has been discussed before and a 0% house edge will be the same, you would still lose whenever you start using a "strategy"

I have seen a few sites do 0 house edge dice by having a player vs player system.   They do wind up taking a fee, but it is usually less than what the house edge would be.

No it doesnt, it only help you to not lose more. Setting up a goal wont help in you in winning if you have a bad luck . You are contradicting your own words there. See the bolded part in your post, " you would still lose" you said it yourself.

That is my point that I am writing if you dont understand about it. Even if I set up my goal for X profit , I will still lose if bad luck occurs so it is not helping at all but setting up a goal to stop after X loses will help me not to lose more

You will only have high chance of winning in your strategy to bet at 95% but still that 5% have a chance to kill your balance.

Playing with higher winning chance is also not a guarantee that a player will always get profit.
Do you remember someone who lost 7000btc in 96% winning chance?  :)
And yes, it depends on "LUCK" as what arallmuss said.

no shit, sherlock. So your point is that playing with 99% doesnt matter because you can have bad luck :^)

The guy who lost 7000 btc in 96% didnt just lose it in 1 bet, he was betting for a long time from i think 2000 btc so yea...

Of course it depends on luck, but 99% is better than 50% isnt it.

I remember negative house edge being discussed in another thread. So, I'm not going to talk about this.

No house edge you said? Well, I'm pretty sure both parties will be happy then. The operator can earn from donation or maybe advertisement from his or her site. The user will gamble peacefully as there is no house edge. Well... I'm like others.. There is no peace if you started gambling.

no house edge is risky statisticly looking but based on people greed casino would still profit :D

i always find these types of threads funny.  Mainly because this situation will always be a hypothetical.  There will be no casino owner that will ever have a house edge of 0% or lower.  NEVER.

They might have it as a promotion for an extremely short amount of time, and very restricted limits on amount of play, but they will never have it long lasting.

That is, if they want to stay in business.

If there are any casinos that boast 0 or negative edges for the house, i'd be wary and would do a lot of due diligence on their trustworthiness.  It would scream scam to me at first glance.

Statistically looking is not risky, is neutral. If you were to bet flat bets (say 0.01) without increasing the bet or the odds, statistically you would end up getting 0 profit, no loss no win. But if you use, lets say, martingale you would end up loosing anyways, statistically you would survive a little bit longer on average compared to a 1% house edge but the difference is not too significative

nah its risky becuse you can win or you can lose. there is 50/50 chances. if players are not greedy that casino would be down soon. but people are too greedy what lead that casino to make money

i don't believe that greediness has anything to do with a casino's profits if they are at 0% house edge.  The house will win some and they will lose some, they will lose as much as they win in the long run.  Someone might be greedy and win, someone might be greedy and they lose.  Someone might not be greedy and win.  Someone might not be greedy and lose.  in the end, they will win as much as they lose.

The thing is that as a casino owner, the fluctuations might be unmanageable and the risk of these fluctuations will be enough to scare them away from offering 0%.

Gambling always will be about luck. Someone will win someone loses - it will always be like that ;) 0% or 1% House Edge doesn't change that much.

the house always must have an edge to operate a gambling casino or other operation, if people play long enough they lose ,

99% is no better than 50 %. The logic will be based on your bet amount. Assuming you are betting with 99 % , you will the bet with your maximum bankroll to ensure greater profit for it rather than a spare change. If your bad luck struck up, you will lose your entire balance with a single click

On the other hand if you are betting with 50 % assuming you wont be betting the whole bankroll for it which is much more safer if you "know when to stop" especially after hitting some bad luck stroke

P.S : it should be 98 % AFAIK in most dice sites and not 99 %


True, operating a gambling sites with no edge at all is pointless as people are making a gambling sites to make some profit as well

You have no idea what you are talking about, someone already calculated, i think dooglus that if you wanted a profit of 50$ and you had 5000$ (im not sure about the exact numbers) you had a 99% chance of doing it.

Someone calculated what? who? post the quote here
You are missleading your own post, You claimed that 98 % chance with max bet is better than splitting it up to a few bet and please dont put up dooglus name in here if you cant quote his post saying that it is better to risk 98 % rather than splitting it up

Dug up this old post just for you conversation between Light and Dooglus (found it faster than I expected):

Here it is:
If you bet your whole bankroll on a single bet in a 1% house edge casino, your expected loss is 1% of your bankroll.

If instead you split your bankroll up into a series of bets, starting small and increasing on loss, you can reach the same goal with a slightly higher chance of success. You didn't change the house edge, you just expect to risk less, and so expect to lose less

For example, the guy earlier talking about how much you need to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino.

Let's assume the house edge is (100/37)% like it is in roulette.

That means that the probability of winning a bet times the payout for that bet is 36/37.
"chance * payout = 36/37"

For example, when you bet on red, the payout is 2x. The chance of winning is 18/37 (there are 18 reds and 37 numbers). 2 times 18/37 is 36/37.
When you bet on a single number, the payout is 36x. The chance of winning is 1/37. 36 times 1/37 is 36/37.
And it's the same for all the possible bets.

So if we want a 99% chance of winning $50 from a single bet on roulette:

  chance = 0.99
  chance * payout = 36/37
  payout = 36/37/0.99 = 0.9828x

So if we want a 99% chance of winning a single bet, the house will pay us back less than our stake if we win. You can't have a 99% chance of making a profit on a single bet when the house edge is bigger than 1%.

So we're going to have to split the bet into a two-step martingale sequence.

It turns out that you only need $8839 (*) to have a 99% chance of winning $50, and here's how:

We'll bet at 90% (we have to imagine they offer any percentage you like, like dice sites do).

The 90% chance bet has a payout of 36/37/0.9 = 1.081081x

First bet $616.67 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 616.67 back.
1.081081 * 616.67 = 666.67 and we've made our $50 already, so stop.

If we lose that first bet, bet the remaining 8839 - 616.67 = $8222.33 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 8222.33 back.
1.081081 * 8222.33 = 8889.00, and if we take off the 616.67 we lost on the first bet we get 8272.33, and we've made our $50 again.

So if we hit either the first or 2nd bet, we're $50 up, and if we lose both we're $8839 down.

There's a 10% chance of losing each bet, so a 1% chance of losing them both, so a 99% chance of winning one of them.

ie. we only need $8839 to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino game with the same house edge as single-zero roulette.

Note that if we put all $8839 on a single bet to win $50, the payout would need to be (8839+50)/8839 = 1.00566x
and so the chance of winning would be (36/37)/((8839+50)/8839) = 96.75%

So again, we see that trying to win $50 starting with $8839 has a lower chance (96.75%) if you make a single bet and a higher chance (99%) if you split it into two bets, and do a mini 2-step martingale progression. And that's because 90% of the time you only have to make the small first bet, and so you're betting less, and so on average you lose less.


(*) set p = 36.0/37/0.9 - 1, then the amount you need is 50*(2*p + 1)/(p*p) = $8838.888888

(The two bet sizes are really 616.66666 recurring and 8,222.22222 recurring)


I dont know how to quote from other posts but this was made by dooglus here :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.780

Quoted it for you and this post support my argument to not go all-in as well . In the bolded part you can see dooglus statement that he put up calculation that if you go all in in the roulette you got a lower chance to win $50 with $8839 then if you split up your bet

Again, this post just supported my statement about it is better to not go all in

We are not talking about going all in or not, we started talking about if making a goal is better or not, and clearly is better since you can have a 99% chance of getting 50$ if thats your goal, you would need a lot of money? Yes. But that doesnt change the fact that you would have 99% chances

Yes we are talking about setting a goal but you are the one shifted it to a side topic , Remember this post below? you are the one started this side topic btw


From the bolded part, if you put on some sense to it, you will know that if someone betting on the max win chance, it means that he is betting with max bet as well . I.e someone having 1 BTC will do a max bet at 98 % chance with 1 BTC and not 0.001 BTC at 98 %. It is logical though

P.S : I will leave you up here since you always twist you own words. Discussing it further will be useless with someone that always stick blindly to his opinion

Even with negative house edge is difficult to make profit,because you have to know to have a strategy
moneypot has a way to have negative edge,but even that way,it is really difficult to make profit

Nobody will create a gambling site without any house edge.
They will lose money paying for site and support without any profit.

Actually, bustabit doesn't have a negative house edge but rather makes it possible (through PvP) for players to be +EV. In many ways it's like poker, you can play poker profitably at the expense of another players, but the house isn't -EV


No one should expect a casino to offer a no-house edge any time soon (other than PvP games), as the risk is simply astronomical. Games like bustabit with a small house edge (0 to 1%) at times has been financially challenging to run, we've had a 24 hour period of time that's wiped away 3 month of profit. (Imagine a greedy player: 99.9% of the time he's going to lose, but the time he wins ... you're going to be hurt).

My intuition tells me a casino could be profitable on a 0.1% house edge, but it would require a huge bankroll to be able to support whales which often make a significant portion of a casinos profit.

It changes everything with a big volume. I would never take a bet where I'm 1% down but I would always take a bet where I'm 1% up.

cant you just roll on dice without house edge until you get some profit then quit it and go to another? in that way you should be able to make profit and never loose if you have a really big balance. i think that would be unprofitable for casinos

No, its not hard, just bet flat bets and you will eventually start making profit forever depending on how big the negative house edge is, will happen sooner or later

More precisely, the bet size should be determined using Kelly formula (FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion), and you should be making a easy profit with very very small risk.

People have trouble understanding how the long run works.

Kelly bets are still risky considering you'll lose all your money in the long run because you'll eventually get unlucky and lose your whole bankroll if it's limited.

I don't think any site has no house edge, and you can never make money gambling even if there wasn't an edge

you can make money with house edge if you know when to quit gambling not even talking about a website without house edge, of course you cant beat the casino all in all but its false that you can make any money

If the house edge is -1%, you would be just betting 1% of your bankroll each time. It is very unlikely to have a long enough loss streak to wipe out a good portion of your bankroll. For example, 10 losses in a row will just make you lose 9.56% (=1-99%^10) and 30 losses in row will make you lose 26% (=1-99%^30) of your bankroll.

Even if Nakowa had great luck to win a lot in JD, the house just steadily recouped the losses with a 1% positive EV.



A few PVP games have zero house edge, such as PD PVP and Peerbet raffles.

0% hourse edge is good but nothing to be won or lost either way long term, often sites cant even make as entertaining a site due to lack of profits. 0% or very tiny house rake with p2p games is where its at.

i dont agree :) i think casino would still profit

I think if you want to gamble and make -ev bets im fine with a dice site taking 1% or something, they make the game more fun. If you want to be a professional gambler dont make -ev bets.

of course they would because there are a lot of gamblers that dont know how to play they either loose everything because of greed or they just do rage bets to recover the losses what leads into even bigger loose

I don't think '' no hose edge or negative house edge '' can bring sure benefits to gamblers.Gambling is a sure way of getting nothing.It is gambling not house edge which make the gamblers loose their money.If someone says 0 house edge is good thing then I will say in reply even gambling is good in sense of profit but just for very few persons.Everyone can not win in gambling.

Zero edge in standard casino games can potentially waste players time if you are forever at zero profit/loss long term, at least when you lose your money to a casino you can get on and do something else with your life ha, ironic.

that theory is not standing sorry. then is there is positive house edge people just lose money forever :D sorry but 0 house edge would bring lot more players to try their luck

It's not free to run servers and I doubt someone would spend a lot of time building and running the site expecting no return.

but the casino would still profit, no matter what its a fact :)

well if all players would understand that they cant winn all casinos money and if they wouldnt bet all their balance at once or something like that i think people could beat the casino then

that is not possible its in human nature that they are greedy and they want more and more :P

Is not because they dont know how to play (there is no strategy for dice anyways, its just luck)  and its not because greed. A 0% house edge would profit because unless you bet the same amount every time to be at 0 profit you would end up loosing using any other "strategy" like martingale or whatever you want to use

Zero edge doesnt mean that player wont be losing or winning while gambling.. In shorter means than it could be refer as a simple math statistic that shows how much a site will earn through the wagered value or how many percentage that you lost for everytime you bet.

Playing as a gambler on a site with zero edge could be more profitable than a house with edge but still it is not a guarantee that someone will not lose to the house. On the other hand however, it is pointless to build a site with zero house edge since people are making gamble sites to earn something, thus having some edge is important to sustain the site

there also is a strategy to use for example its better to make much more smaller bets than one all in bet, without it there could be much more strategies and martingale would work for a while if the player wouldnt be greedy

i will still stay with my theory a site with 0% house edge would profit enough for owner to make money and pay bills to keep it open :)

i think you are right though there can be whale players who will try to beat the dice site what will lead to looses

that is why there is max bet allowed :) let's say 0.1btc for start or something like that

You are right even with zero house edge casinos or gambling sites still will earn profit from loosing hands.Let's say zero house edge will attract many players in this case.

exactly thats my point :P

Can't do 0 they are casinos not charity crazy ppls.

No they won't, are you seriously thinking people only lose and never win?
Statistically, over a very big number of hands/plays/whatever, the casino makes around 0 revenue.

There's only one situation where the casino would be making money : Casino has infinite funds and the players have limited funds.

Which isnt really a likely scenario for a casino since they will aim for success which means more people and more money.

How is 0 revenue, wasting time and effort, considered success?

The gambling site owner have to earn money through the house edge, so you can't expect there is no hous edge.

That is exactly what we offer. We offer 0% fees on all sport bets: https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/soccer/ Since we don't take a position but instead user bet against user the average user has an expected value of 0. If your bets are better than the average user your bets will make money in the long run.

Fees and house edge are quite different things all together.

On sport betting sited the "house edge" is usually the spread of the odds. However - we are an exchange where user bet directly against each other - so there is no spread. A dice site could operate with 0 house edge as well if bets where user against user.

PD has or used to have PvP dice. not sure what state it's in now.  didnt seem very fun.  i would assume that sooner or later, the house would invoke a "rake" on it to monetize it somehow.  Unless it was a real source of traffic for the site (then you just cover the cost as marketing)

so i assume you guys aren't making any money off the PvP bets?  where does your rake come into play then?

Statistically thats only true if the players are betting flat bets, whenever you start using a so called ''strategy'' you risk to lose everything easily. You dont need the casino to have infinite funds just put a max bet limit (shouldnt be too big at first) After you make some profit you can start increasing the limit a little bit.

Assuming that you have lots of players that each bet at variable sizes, then with 0% house edge, the house should expect to make nothing.

if you have players betting at max limit, over the long run, you still expect to be even.

If you have players that use martingale, over the long run, you'll expect to have players that win streaks that last until max bet, and you'll have players that lose streaks until max bet.

As the house, you might even get unlucky as some people do reverse martingale on you and win until the max bet.

In the end, as the house, you still expect to make 0 profits at 0% house edge.  NO MATTER HOW THE PLAYERS BET.

Thats not how it works, players betting with martingale, say starting with 0.01, the casino having a 1 BTC max bet. You can bet 7 times in a row without reaching the max bet (The chances of loosing 7 times in a row at 50% are 0.78125 % or 1 in 128, meaning that every 128 bets the player expects to lose their max bet and expects to win 64 bets since thats the average martingale sequence. The math is simple, if you win 64 bets, 64 x 0.01 = 0.64, when you bust you are loosing, 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.16 + 0.32 + 0.64 = 1.27 bitcoins meaning a profit of -0.63 each time you are using martingale.

I seem to be getting a lot of responses saying that 0% house edge may lead to a better chance of winning but ultimately it will lead to losing. I will make a poll for you guys to decide.

Edit: Don't know how to make a poll.  ;) Any help? ;)

I dont know if you can make a poll in a thread, i think you need to make another thread with the poll, anyways there is no need for one since maths tell you that a 0% house edge casino would still profit as explained above using martingale strategy as an example.

You need to make a brand new thread and click on 'post new poll' instead of new topic.  Its a little cack handed. 

Your theory is wrong. If the house edge is 0%, the house's expected profit is also 0. They will have winning days and losing days, but the expectation is zero.

There was a thread about this a year or two ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639787). Kluge was talking about running a -EV game:


I talked him out of it by running simulations showing how even though most players would bust if they were greedy, a few lucky players would win more than they lost and have their profits soar. The two (most players losing a little, a few players winning a lot) cancel each other out, and leave the house with an expected zero profit:



It doesn't matter how you play. You expect to lose (house edge) * (amount wagered). If the house edge is 0%, you expect to break even.


a1choi is right. Your calculation is incorrect. The problem is with the bolded part. You don't expect to hit 7 losses in a row after 2^7 = 128 rolls but after (2^8)-1 = 254 rolls.

To see this, consider how many coin tosses it takes to get 3 heads in a row. Try it a few times. You probably think the average will be 2^3 = 8 tosses, but it isn't - it's 14.

Here's a fixed version (I'll fix just the math, not the language):


I hope that helps.


I hope you can see now that you're wrong. It should be intuitively obvious that a 0% edge leads to an expected profit of 0. I do agree that voting isn't the way to decide mathematical issues of course.


So how do you fund the site? If you don't take a position and don't collect fees, what's the business model? I'm guessing the "zero fees" thing is a promotion to attract business and once things pick up you're start charging fees. Or are you funded by advertising?

Lets say everyone uses martingale, dooglus explained that they would all break even theoretically. BUT if say the casino has a bet limit, that would fuck up all these martingale players because they expect to break even until they hit the limit, when they hit the limit they start loosing, am i right on this?

First off, most players won't break even. Some will win and some will lose. Each player's expected profit is zero, but their actual profit at any point in time is likely to be nonzero.

Casinos always have a bet limit. They have a finite bankroll. The point is that the amount you expect to win from all the times you don't hit the limit (whether it's your limit or the house's limit) is the same as the amount you expect to lose from all the times you do hit the limit. They cancel each other out.

The result of a fee and the house edge is the same in the end right? The house edge makes you lose more than you win, but the fee takes a percentage off all potential winnings. If the values are te same, net result would be equal? (as in, you lose money)

Can you explain it with a graphic example like: 10 players go to a 0% house edge casino that has 1 btc limit bet, they start betting at 0.01 like the example above. When they bust theoretically they would have won just as much so they would break even right? Untill they hit a 8 losing streak when they wont be able to double again so they would lose more than win??

It is not the same. Theoretically house edge applied to your bet whenever you are winning or losing because it is the expected earning where the site might gain but the fee that are collected from winning usually only applied to the winners. Therefore it is just slightly different but it is not the same

In the recent example the biggest bet was 0.64 BTC wasn't it, and so it would be identical to your example.

When they lose, they lose 1+2+4+8+16+32+64 = 127 bitcents (1.27 BTC). That happens 1 in 128 sequences. They win 0.01 on each of the other 127 sequences, so they win 0.01*127 and lose 1.27*1.

But if you win just as often as you lose (asuming 50% win rate), and you pay the fee when you win, the net result would still be that you end up in the minus (based on the fee %).

well then either fees have to be huge, or the player has to gamble a lot of bitcoins for the fee to be a big amount of money so i think that wouldnt have any impact on busting player when gambling

Indeed yes if you have both the same number for win and lose your profit is 0 and your net profit will be in minus since there is a cut in every winning that you got but since you are saying that both fee and the house edge are the same in this term, then your statement is wrong.
Assuming you are playing at 2x payout with 49.5 %  chance and you got the same number for win and lose then your net profit is not on minus but if you are playing with 50 % chance then it is a minus

A 1% house edge is the same as paying a 1% fee on all payouts from a 0% edge game.

  * 1% game: pays out 1.98x at 50%

  * 0% game with 1% fee: pays out 2x at 50%, but takes 1% of that, leaving 1.98x.

Get it?

You are right - it is similar to a marketing expense too us. We have 0% fees on the p2p sport bets - especially because here everything is done automatically - the obviously have data feeds for the sport events. On all other events like: will the block size limit be raised by march 2016 we need to moderate them and so we take a 2% fee. https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/bitcoin/

Ahh thankyou Dooglus for this clarification I thought that the 1% fee will be leaving the net profit to be 1.99x though than this is how I assume that they are both different since 50% at gambling sites is leaving a profit for 1.98x. Since this is about 50 % chance will it still be the same assuming that it is not at 50 % chance to win Doog?

P.S : I got it right at the bolded part though  :P although it is not entirely correct

Thank you for showing up I thought I would never be able to explain this.

You can't create money, someone has to lose and someone has to win.

The 'house edge' is effectively a fee on the entire payout amount, including your stake. 1% of 2 is 0.02, leaving 1.98x from the 2x payout.

If a site was to charge 1% of just your profit, that would be a better deal for the player. Especially for the high-chance bets (like 98%) where almost all your payout is your initial stake and the profit is relatively small.

I believe it would be impossible to create a casino without an edge unless you want to give out the money for free.
House edge makes the casino to earn money.
The only way would be to come up with a new way to earn from the players

There are example in which casinos can make money without any house edge.  There's a horse betting site that's been in these boards fore the past week or so and what they do is collect a fee on winnings.  So Casinos could be profitable on fees alone depending on how the games are structured.

Another example is where it's all PVP like various poker games.

They can use advertising to fund the operation but yes the rake free model was also tried in online poker and never suceeded vs the rake sites.  Maybe bitcoin makes things a little different vs fiat.

thats true but in fiat gambling if you actually go to a casino there is pretty much no edge but in bitcoin things are just different due to the ways sites operate as they dont get many bets compared to vegas casinos who are pretty much garunteed profit due to peoples greed :P

I believe taking a fee just on winnings is much less profitable for a casino than an edge. Edge applies to every bet, to every strategy, when for example fee on winning just to the winning bet.

You are right about this, it will be the same as house edge and the "fee" is usually based on the game payout which is stake + winning so in the end it will be the same with house edge calculation

P.S : never see a site that charge fee only on the winning coins though, most are from the payout (stake+winning)


"Taking fee on winnings" could mean that the fee is taken on your payout which is stake+winning so it is the same as house edge but if the fee is only taken on winning then it would be slightly different

Well i see a 0% house edge casino wont make any money but im sure if some casinos made it like, special day of 0% house edge, they would surely attract a lot of players and theoretically not lose anything

your wrong -.-

There is a difference between expected profit and actual profit. Just because their expected profit would be zero for that day doesn't mean they would "theoretically not lose anything". They are much more likely to make a profit or loss on the day than they are to break even.


What makes you think there is "pretty much no edge" in B&M casinos? Double-zero roulette has an edge of over 5%.

And I don't know how many bets a typical Vegas casino takes per day. PrimeDice recently announced that they have taken 5 billion bets in the 2 years they've been up. That's 5000 million bets in ~700 days, or 7 million bets per day. I imagine that is more than an average B&M casino takes.

This was exactly what I was getting at :P Thanks for putting it in numbers, always helps a ton!

So you always lose out, no matter the structure.

Yes thats true but my idea is not making it only 1 day but rather make it occasionally like every sunday or 2 times per month, in the long term it shouldnt affect them and it would definitely make more people interested in that specific casino

Then again, it is not likely for you as a once a month gambler to actually feel the 0,5% house edge. This is something you notice after a lot of runs. If you only go once in a while, variance will take over and you may even end up winning or losing big.

People overestimate the effect of the house edge all the time. For example, just a couple of posts ago:


The house edge doesn't mean players always lose. It just means they will lose if they play too much, but it can take a very long time for it to happen.

On Just-Dice.com we have a 1% house edge, and take over a million bets per day, and yet over the last month the house had made a loss. The players, in aggregate, have been beating the house:

https://i.imgur.com/hPkg4V6.png

Here we see that over the last 6 weeks the site's profit has fallen slightly while the expected profit (1% of the amount wagered) has risen by 15,000 (CLAMS). In other words we have taken bets worth around 1.5 million CLAM (over $1.5 million), and the house edge hasn't "kicked in" at all.

Over the 6 months that the site has been running, on the other hand, the site has made a profit. That profit is 1.13% of all the coins that have been wagered, so it's running pretty close to expectation.

But over the last month the players have beaten the house edge, on a no-skill game, 1% house edge game.

Wow, cool, it is a clear graph, and we can see the details about your site, 1.13% real profit of bet is good, better than 1% expect return, so in long term, you can make more money than expect, unless some whales eat your house. :D

You can make more than expected, but you can also make less than expected. Just-Dice used to accept Bitcoin, and ran for a year doing so. Over that period it kept something like 0.35% of the amount wagered. The house edge was 1%, so it only did about a third as well as expected. For a while the profit was even negative. So again, that's more evidence that the house edge really only has its effect in the very long term and casual casino players probably won't even notice it if they don't play much. Of course if they're playing games with a huge house edge (national lotteries are a good example, typically paying out 50% of so to players) then they'll notice the effect of the house edge much sooner.

How do you think primedice? I think their profits are higher than 1%, maybe 2%, because many people have complaint they won small bets but lost big bets on PD, so I guess PD may have a great return, at least is higher than 1%.

This is the 1st time I have heard of 0% house edge.
We should support sites with the least house edge even if it is temporary.

interesting to see someone do this. would love to see if traffic jumped up and if the house was on the right side of lucky.


i dont think bitcoin casino's or online casinos will ever go to 0%.  Its just a bad business practice.  Zynga gaming and real-gaming are completely different experiences, and they work with very different markets.  We'll see other innovations in the market, but a race to 0% is not feasible.

Traffic jumped for 100%, couple of deposits extra, can't say about profit, because users have funds on accounts, so they can win more/cashout/lose...

People complain that they lose more when they bet bigger, but I don't give them much credence.

PrimeDice is provably fair, so it should be easy enough to prove they are cheating if they are, but nobody ever does.


Dice isn't a game of skill. Things like "greed" don't change the outcome. The house edge is 1%, so they can expect to win 1% of the amount wagered. It makes no difference whether the bets are placed by a greedy human or a cold-hearted robot (or even a cold-hearted robot programmed by a greedy human), the math doesn't care.


All bets have the same house edge and hence the same 1% expected profit. "dangerous" is like "greedy" - it doesn't change expectation.


1% of the amount wagered is plenty to be able to afford to pay for promotion. 1% of hundreds of millions of dollars is millions of dollars.

Just-Dice "gives away" 90% of its profits to the people bankrolling the site. That happens no matter whether the profits are 0.1% or 10% of turnover and so proves nothing about the profitability of the site.

i'm still looking for the 4%-5% house edge dice sites.



all the sites i play at i win everytime at safedice.