Would a site with a slightly negative house edge still be profitible?

[jackg]

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. <Hopefully enough traffic is generated to sustain the AD income for the site> 

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. 

Yeah but freebitco.in has one of the highest house-edges of all crypto gambling sites, so I'm not sure if their other services would even be able to support a negative HE dice game.
I doubt that on-site mining operations would even support a negative -1% House Edge, plus it would definitely turn a lot of users away.

A negative house edge would just not work in the long term and counting on the addiction of your players is just a crappy thought to begin with.

Freebitco.in is just greedy, because they could have reduced the house edge from 5% to something much lower, but they are saying that the gambling income is subsidizing the other services. I personally think a lot of the interest that are paid on the deposits are not coming from the so-called mining operation, but rather from the higher than average house edge on the site. 

A variable house edge, might be a better solution. Example : High on weekends and lower in the week. <This will draw more people into gambling during the week, when things are less busy and weekends will subsidize the lower house edge during the week> 

Yes freebitco.in are definitely greedy. It would be interesting to see how much wetsuit actually pays TheQuin to be a little bitch work for him (it doesn't matter, he's still got me on ignore I can say whatever I want about TheQuin and freebitco.in now!) - but it would be interesting to note and have a figure of hoow much money freebitco.in has and how much wetsuit has earned from it so far. .

Anyway there is the obvious issue of the autobet strategy gethering some impact, but if users were given a few captchas to do every time they wanted to bet then we could probably solve that issue as much as possible because no one will pay or want to solve 1000000 captchas just for self satisfactionin gaining a couple of sats (in response to what loyce said).

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how casinos work

Over the years, I've noticed many times that the house edge remains a mystery to many gamblers. How about this as an explanation:
Imagine 1000 people all betting 1 Bitcoin once. At 1% house edge, the casino is expected to make 10 Bitcoin profit. If players are lucky, the casino will profit less, if players are unlucky, the casino profits more. On average (and that's the only thing that matters for the casino) the house wins 1% of the wagered amount.
Now imagine the same with a negative house edge: the casino loses 10 Bitcoin on average. It doesn't matter that almost half of the 1000 people lost their Bitcoin, because more than half of the users won another Bitcoin!

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

[LoyceV]

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

Go back to the 1000 users of my example, and for simplicity I'll make it 1024 users with 0% house edge. Assume they have a perfect distribution of winning and losing, and they keep playing "double or nothing"!
This is what happens:
Round 1: 512 winners (2 BTC each), 512 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 2: 256 winners (4 BTC each), 256 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 3: you get the point
.......
Round 10: 1 winner (1024 BTC), all others lost all their money.

Now remember, this was at 0% house edge.
In reality: If the casino has a 1% house edge, it takes 1% of the total wagered amount on each bet. That means, each round, the total balance owned by all remaining players gets slightly lower.
Now imagine a casino with negative house edge, that means the total players' balance increases with each bet they place. It doesn't matter if players are greedy or not: bad luck can bankrupt them instantly, and good luck can multiply their balance a thousand times or more. That can happen with a positive or negative house edge.
A player winning a lot isn't a problem to the casino, as long as the house wins on average. For that, it has a house edge

[Ewinsane]

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

How ? How would a casino with negative house edge could theoretically win money ?

There is literally zero chance of a casino making any money if they have negative house edge, hell even at zero house edge it is a big risk and you are betting for the fact that the casino is luckier than the gamblers, this is for zero house edge that has high risk, think of negative, it is impossible for a casino to stay open longer than one month because all the people with huge amounts will keep gambling there until they hit that house edge and make profit.

You are basically running a faucet, an expensive and big faucet for people with money. Mathematically you would be leaking money depending on how much wagering there is. Good thing is, you will definitely have the highest wagered amount in no time because people will definitely come there to gamble and make money.

[carlfebz2]

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

Outcome on most gamblers will be just the same no matter on what would be the house edge is but profiting is indeed possible with some gamblers tending to make advantage on that
-HE of 1%. Utilizing such percentage to make few rolls to earn profits and who the hell will create such gambling business with that house edge.We have seen lots of it ranging 0.8-1% common nowadays
and i can think that some owner will consider that -HE.

[jackg]

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

Go back to the 1000 users, and for simplicity I'll make it 1024 users with 0% house edge. Assume they have a perfect distribution of winning and losing, and they keep playing "double or nothing"!
This is what happens:
Round 1: 512 winners (2 BTC each), 512 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 2: 256 winners (4 BTC each), 256 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 3: you get the point
.......
Round 10: 1 winner (1024 BTC), all others lost all their money..

This is very linear though and almost impossible to happen without some sort of scatter.
The idea that that one person could also go on to lose that 1024BTC if indedd they did earn that and didn't go and bet each time and lose at some due to scatter...

And once they turned their 1BTC into 1024BTC maybe they'll keep  gamblig on a martingale with 1BTC and end up profiting at the start but inevitably probably losing everything trhey've earnt on the site...