Small negative house edge

[deisik]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

Small (yeah) update: since people don't even bother to read the poll question carefully, I specifically point out that I mean a small negative edge (in absolute value indeed). If that still doesn't get through, think tiny!

Updated the topic subject as well

[1715443295]

1715443295

[1715443295]

1715443295

[1715443295]

1715443295

[1715443295]

1715443295

[patt0]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue

I don't think a negative house edge makes sense. : /
A positive house edge doesn't guarantee that the casino won't lose some times, but if it has no bugs players can use and a big bankroll in relation to the bets, it will win in the end, I think. A negative house edge would attract more players, but the house would eventually lose more times than win. Even if a lot of money would be coming into the casino, more would be leaving. Maybe it would be more like a ponzi then lol.

[GannickusX]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

[pthnmj]

You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?

[deisik]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

1% negative house edge seems to be a little overkill to me. Actually, I was thinking in the range of about 0.05-0.1% negative house edge. Small enough to last longer, and large enough to attract users from other dice sites. Furthermore, if you win 510.000 bets (and lose 490.000), this in no case implies that you gain profits unless you bet tiny amounts. But this loss on the casino part could be offset by bigger wins (dice sites still give out a lot of bonuses)...

[GannickusX]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

1% negative house edge seems to be a little overkill to me. Actually, I was thinking in the range of about 0.05-0.1% negative house edge. Small enough to last longer, and large enough to attract users from other dice sites. Furthermore, if you win 510.000 bets (and lose 490.000), this in no case implies that you gain profits unless you bet tiny amounts. But this loss on the casino part could be offset by bigger wins (dice sites still give out bonuses)...

i said you are betting 0.001 per bet with no increase, didnt you even read what i said? ofc implies that you gain profits and if everyone did that everyone would win

and if the house edge is lower just calculate how much you would win in that case but its the same thing

[NeuroticFish]

Casinos that want to promote themselves seem do zero house edge (for limited time?). Negative will not happen for quite some while.

Zero house edge means "you can enter for free".
Negative house edge means "beer is on the house".

It's a risk nobody wants to take now. And do you know why? Simple: there's not enough competition yet.

[tee-rex]

i said you are betting 0.001 per bet with no increase, didnt you even read what i said? ofc implies that you gain profits and if everyone did that everyone would win

and if the house edge is lower just calculate how much you would win in that case but its the same thing

How on earth are you going to make 1 million (that is 10 million) bets, if there would be no automatic betting allowed? Could they earn more while you are there making 10 million bets? One bet per second would take you years to get there.

[Coef]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.

For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.

[GannickusX]

i said you are betting 0.001 per bet with no increase, didnt you even read what i said? ofc implies that you gain profits and if everyone did that everyone would win

and if the house edge is lower just calculate how much you would win in that case but its the same thing

How are you going to make 1 million (that is 10 million) bets, if there would be no automatic betting allowed? Could they earn more while you are there making 10 million bets? One bet per second would take you years to get there.

Download an autoclicker and let it click all day? You could make 45k bets per day.

[patt0]

i said you are betting 0.001 per bet with no increase, didnt you even read what i said? ofc implies that you gain profits and if everyone did that everyone would win

and if the house edge is lower just calculate how much you would win in that case but its the same thing

How on earth are you going to make 1 million (that is 10 million) bets, if there would be no automatic betting allowed? Could they earn more while you are there making 10 million bets? One bet per second would take you years to get there.

It doesn't matter, I think. You would have a lot of players in the casino, and the edge would make the house lose one way or the other. : /
I don't think anyone would keep a casino with this edge for a long time and stay in business.

[deisik]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.

For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.

I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice sites)?

[LiQuidx]

Negative house edge makes no sense for the casino since it most probably have negative income.

[neoneros]

It would not matter, the chances are always in favour of the casino, there are enough people wasting their money hoping for a little luck. I think a negative edge might even attract more people who lost a lot on other casino's and try their luck, some will lose even more so. Others might be lucky. It is not the reserved and thoughtfull players the casinos earn their money from, it is the emotional betters that waste all their money.

[Bizmark13]

When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.

Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).

[patt0]

@neoneros But they only lose money because the house has an advantage. If that changes and the player has an advantage, more players and the more they play, the more the house loses. In this case the chances aren't in favor of the casino.

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.

For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.

I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?

The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative xD

[GannickusX]

When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.

Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).

Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it

[deisik]

When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.

Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).

Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it

At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet about a year ago (or even less than that), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...

[GannickusX]

When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.

Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).

Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it

At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet (about a year ago), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...

Because freebitco.in is a faucet and not a real casino wich attracts more people nevertheless no one with a lot of money would play on a casino that has 0.1 max bet

[deisik]

When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.

Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).

Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it

At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet (about a year ago), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...

Because freebitco.in is a faucet and not a real casino wich attracts more people nevertheless no one with a lot of money would play on a casino that has 0.1 max bet

So people with real money come to real casinos to win, right? But if they come to win (since why would they ever come to lose?), this necessarily implies that they have a winning strategy (or, at least, they think so), even despite the positive house edge. In this manner, why wouldn't a casino have a plan to win even if it had a negative house edge set? As to me, the casino's chances are still higher than those of people coming to play there...

[NeuroticFish]

Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale

But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers

I've seen once a gambling site with normal house edge and still gamblers seemed to win more than the house. (I asked them nicely to check their scripts.)
However, there's something I don't understand: how comes that Martingale has such popularity. Even myself, I thought at very start that it's a good technique.
Still, posts with successful Martingale seem to be more popular than those with fails.


And yes, such aggressive marketing technique (negative edge) could be a winning point for a casino / dice site.
But the market still seem to be able to accommodate plenty more such sites without this extra gamble/risk from the owner.

[deisik]

I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?

The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative  xD

That would be a really good marketing idea. Regarding people not playing when the edge would be positive to the house, I don't think that will be the case (to any significant degree, at least)

First, if the house edge would frequently change in a small range (and with a good bankroll this is what we could safely expect), say, from +0.1 to -0.1, this wouldn't make a difference to most players, which are driven by adrenaline, not by house edge. Second, if people play at dice sites where house edge is set to around 1% positive, why would they not play when it is set (or, rather, fluctuating) way below that? Indeed, some people would evidently wait for the house edge to turn negative, but their numbers should be small...

And the real house edge could be revealed only after the bet has been made

[waterpile]

I don't think that its healthy for the site if its a negative house edge. Its like giving out free money

[NUFCrichard]

Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale

But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers

I've seen once a gambling site with normal house edge and still gamblers seemed to win more than the house. (I asked them nicely to check their scripts.)
However, there's something I don't understand: how comes that Martingale has such popularity. Even myself, I thought at very start that it's a good technique.
Still, posts with successful Martingale seem to be more popular than those with fails.


And yes, such aggressive marketing technique (negative edge) could be a winning point for a casino / dice site.
But the market still seem to be able to accommodate plenty more such sites without this extra gamble/risk from the owner.

Martingale works really well for a very long time, it shifts the odds of you losing away so that it very infrequently happens.  You can win 5000x in a row, but eventually it will get you, and you will lose your entire bank.  During those 5000 wins, you will hear a lot about how great Martingale is, then at the end you will probably hear about how the game is rigged as it can never be black 12 times in a row!!

I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge.  Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge.  There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up.  They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.

[networthsigns]

I don't think that its healthy for the site if its a negative house edge. Its like giving out free money

Not only is it not healthy it will ensure the site does not last a few weeks, imho though it would be an excellent marketing method to promote negative house edge it would gain a lot of players for the few days-week the promotion is running. Has anyone done this yet do you no or is it even possible?

[GannickusX]

Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale

But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers

I've seen once a gambling site with normal house edge and still gamblers seemed to win more than the house. (I asked them nicely to check their scripts.)
However, there's something I don't understand: how comes that Martingale has such popularity. Even myself, I thought at very start that it's a good technique.
Still, posts with successful Martingale seem to be more popular than those with fails.


And yes, such aggressive marketing technique (negative edge) could be a winning point for a casino / dice site.
But the market still seem to be able to accommodate plenty more such sites without this extra gamble/risk from the owner.

I dont know what succesfull martingale posts you mean but i havent seen any, could you link some?

[deisik]

I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge.  Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge.  There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up.  They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.

I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running...

[duckydonald]

safe-dice got rid of third party bot

[arallmuus]

I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge.  Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge.  There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up.  They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.

I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running...

casino will pay you for betting 18+ hours with autobet / bot? I dont think so, due note that most people actually use autobet or bot to gamble, and never heard of casino to give some dollars for playing for such 18+ hours

[yakuza699]

You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?

What are you even talking about?A positive Expected Value is always good. It doesn't matter if you are a casino or a player.

[shanem]

I don't think anybody will open a site with negative house edge.
A gambling site would rather organise giveaways than give the player the edge.

[GannickusX]

You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?

What are you even talking about?A positive Expected Value is always good. It doesn't matter if you are a casino or a player.

He is obviously saying that a negative house edge casino is bad for the casino and a positive house edge is good, wich is true and as i said before negative house edge casinos would go broke

[yakuza699]

You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?

What are you even talking about?A positive Expected Value is always good. It doesn't matter if you are a casino or a player.

He is obviously saying that a negative house edge casino is bad for the casino and a positive house edge is good, wich is true and as i said before negative house edge casinos would go broke

"+EV (house edge) is bad for the casino" That is what he said.How in the world it is bad to have +EV?-EV is bad for everyone +EV is good for everyone.But if casino has +EV than player has -EV and vice-versa.So again how positive expected value is bad for a casino?
From wikipedia:The roulette game consists of a small ball and a wheel with 38 numbered pockets around the edge. As the wheel is spun, the ball bounces around randomly until it settles down in one of the pockets. Suppose random variable X represents the (monetary) outcome of a $1 bet on a single number ("straight up" bet). If the bet wins (which happens with probability 1/38), the payoff is $35; otherwise the player loses the bet. The expected profit from such a bet will be
 
So that is -EV for a player and +EV for casino which is good for a casino.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
And yes negative house edge for casino is DEATH no matter how small the percentage is on average the player would always win.

[Chemistry1988]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

[yakuza699]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

I kinda have a felling that this would actually "un-promote" the site.Imagine a newbie registers an account here, opens a gambling site and offers - House Edge.Would you play it?I won't I would make an assumption that, either the owner is dumb or either that he wants to scam and run away with deposited BTC.

[dr1wealth]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot

[kotwica666]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

Yes, and in this way my first thought would be that someone wants to bring as much as possible players and run away ..

[ndnh]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.

The player will go on playing till he lose everything.             

[adaseb]

Even with a negative house edge, I still think the casino will win because people are stupid and emotional and greedy and they will go broke because of those reasons.

Aside from slots, casinos have very small edges at the moment anyways.

[deisik]

I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge.  Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge.  There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up.  They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.

I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running...

casino will pay you for betting 18+ hours with autobet / bot? I dont think so, due note that most people actually use autobet or bot to gamble, and never heard of casino to give some dollars for playing for such 18+ hours

First of all, as you might have noticed, we are not talking about autobet, bots, and whatnot. We are talking about you (and me, for that matter) sitting most of the day betting at a dice site. But this is still just talk, and talk is cheap. Actually, 999dice.com does (did) just that. Specifically, they show (or did show) a button every 2 hours (approximately) for a few seconds in the chat, and if you were lucky enough to hit it, you would get a bonus of 10k-100k satoshi. As you can see, this amounts to the above mentioned few dollars per day (if you sit there long enough, of course)...

[Shogen]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.

The player will go on playing till he lose everything.             

What if the player are just flat betting, say 1% of his bitcoin, over and over again? He will win 50.5% of the x2 bets and lose 49.5% only.
While he may have bad luck to have more loses than wins in the short term, it is not easy for him to lose everything with flat betting.

[Snorek]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot

I think negative house edge is interesting idea, but it should be used as promotional measure. Not as fixed feature. For example negative edge will ab available only for 1 day of the week, or just after some serious numbers of bets.

[deisik]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot

I think negative house edge is interesting idea, but it should be used as promotional measure. Not as fixed feature. For example negative edge will ab available only for 1 day of the week, or just after some serious numbers of bets.

I think the next step in the evolution of online betting will be a floating house edge. That is, the house edge will fluctuate from a small positive to a small negative in the given range (say, from +0.1 to -0.1), depending on the amount of profit being earned by the house at the moment...

This should give more incentive to players, and will obviously raise the heat in the Martingale thread as well

[anshar]

If there was a 50.5% chance of winning a 2x, I promise you greed would still make many people lose more than win.

[Snorek]

It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.

why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot

I think negative house edge is interesting idea, but it should be used as promotional measure. Not as fixed feature. For example negative edge will ab available only for 1 day of the week, or just after some serious numbers of bets.

I think the next step in the development of online betting will be a floating house edge. That is, the house edge will fluctuate from a small positive to a small negative in the given range (say, from +0.1 to -0.1), depending on the amount of profit being earned at the moment...

That is exactly what I was thinking. Variable house edge will be great but... I am afraid I could be manipulated by casinos. In my opinion house edge should always be visible and not hidden. And secondly users should be able to verify house edge at any time.

[bumm]

Negative house edge is very risky for a casino, at least if it's done for all players. It means an unlimited giveaway, even if the time and bet size are limited, because too many people (and multi-accounters, and bots!) can go there and do too many bets, and as a result losses of a casino may be unpredictable. For casino it's much better to give fixed bonuses or limit the number of participants of a promotion, then it won't be so risky for a casino.

[XinXan]

If there was a 50.5% chance of winning a 2x, I promise you greed would still make many people lose more than win.

With only 1 smart person the casino would go broke since he can win indefinitely

[Snorek]

Negative house edge is very risky for a casino, at least if it's done for all players. It means an unlimited giveaway, even if the time and bet size are limited, because too many people (and multi-accounters, and bots!) can go there and do too many bets, and as a result losses of a casino may be unpredictable. For casino it's much better to give fixed bonuses or limit the number of participants of a promotion, then it won't be so risky for a casino.

That is why casino can put some restrictions to negative edge for example you can bet only X.XXX BTC maximum and only for XX bets. This should be fine as promotional value of this 'promotion' would be far greater than costs incurred by the casino.

[kotwica666]

After all, it makes no sense for the casino. Anyway they lose, so they will not make money this way. There for sure will be something that will help to suck money in another way.. It makes this idea very risky..

[Altcoin4life]

Risky and stupid,  a casino is a business not a charity. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose its the risk we take to gamble.

[anshar]

What you don't understand is:

Gambling is for fun, not making money.

Get that in your head.

[Stunna]

It is almost impossible to make money with a negative house edge over any significant period of time. It's basically just a free giveaway. I don't think a 0.1-0.4% edge is sustainable either unless you have a very low max bet and no or very low operational costs.

[koshgel]

Negative house edge is very risky for a casino, at least if it's done for all players. It means an unlimited giveaway, even if the time and bet size are limited, because too many people (and multi-accounters, and bots!) can go there and do too many bets, and as a result losses of a casino may be unpredictable. For casino it's much better to give fixed bonuses or limit the number of participants of a promotion, then it won't be so risky for a casino.

Depending how high they give player advantage than yes it could be risky. Having a promotional period for it would be a good idea though imo. A good way to attract new customers to your casino. Especially something like dice sites which already saturate the Bitcoin gambling market.

[alani123]

Look at the example of moneypot. You can overcome the house edge of 0.5% if you play smartly.  But the website is still in profit as we speak and it's been running for quite some time.

[futureofbitcoin]

Didn't read anything past the first page, but this is simply not going to work.

If such a casino was made, a person/people with huge bankrolls will easily just come, bid say 10btc per game until they take out all of the money the casino has. The casino wouldn't even last a day.

Besides, as a gambler, you can't really "feel" the difference between winning 49.5% of the time or winning 50.5% of the time. Most people would probably just pass it off as a scam.

So it obviously won't work.

Look at the example of moneypot. You can overcome the house edge of 0.5% if you play smartly.  But the website is still in profit as we speak and it's been running for quite some time.

Nope. I just went to their website and read it. If you're a single player, you can't overcome the house edge. Only if you're playing with other people, but then only you can overcome it for yourself. The rest of the players will not be able to. Thus it's not really a "negative house edge". It's still positive.

[alani123]

Didn't read anything past the first page, but this is simply not going to work.

If such a casino was made, a person/people with huge bankrolls will easily just come, bid say 10btc per game until they take out all of the money the casino has. The casino wouldn't even last a day.

Besides, as a gambler, you can't really "feel" the difference between winning 49.5% of the time or winning 50.5% of the time. Most people would probably just pass it off as a scam.

So it obviously won't work.

Look at the example of moneypot. You can overcome the house edge of 0.5% if you play smartly.  But the website is still in profit as we speak and it's been running for quite some time.

Nope. I just went to their website and read it. If you're a single player, you can't overcome the house edge. Only if you're playing with other people, but then only you can overcome it for yourself. The rest of the players will not be able to. Thus it's not really a "negative house edge". It's still positive.

Well it's not like you can leave a bot running there and beat the house on the long run.

But there's always people betting there at all times. There are times that the stakes aren't that high due to low activity and putting on a competitive bet to get good bonuses is perfectly possible. It's also not just a single person per turn that beats the 0.5% edge. By adapting bets smartly each round, you can receive a bonus that put out the house's 0.5% edge.

[fox19891989]

There are some kinds of video poker have over 100% return, so you may try them.

But the figures are theoretical, when you play real money, you are very hardly to get Str8 flush or royal flush, so the actual return are lower than the theoretical returns(over 100%)

check out:  http://wizardofodds.com/pdf/video-poker-cheat-sheet.pdf

Double Bonus
Royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
4 aces 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160
4 2s-4s 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
4 5s-Ks 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Full house 10 9 10 9 9 9 8 9 7
Flush 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 5
Straight 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4
3 of a kind 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jacks or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.17%  99.11% 98.81% 97.81% 97.74% 96.38% 96.23% 95.27% 93.11%

Deuces Wild
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Four deuces 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 25 25 25 25 20 25 20 20 25 20 25
Five of a kind 15 15 16 15 12 15 12 12 16 10 15
Straight flush 9 11 10 10 9 9 10 9 13 8 10
Four of a kind 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
Full house 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3
Flush 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2
Straight 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Three of a kind 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.76% 99.96% 99.73% 99.42% 98.94% 98.91% 97.58% 97.06% 96.77% 95.96% 94.82%

Joker Poker (kings or better)
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 940 800 940 800 800
Five of a kind 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 40
Four of a kind 20 18 17 17 15 15 20
Full house 7 7 7 7 7 7 5
Flush 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
Straight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Three of a kind 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kings or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.65%  98.94% 98.44% 98.09% 96.74% 96.38% 95.46%

[JaredStein]

I think that with a negative house edge you can still win money from the people that go all or nothing crazy like me

[howzar]

the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.

Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.

1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5

-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5

That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.

Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.

It wouldn't work.

[XinXan]

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.

The player will go on playing till he lose everything.             

What if the player are just flat betting, say 1% of his bitcoin, over and over again? He will win 50.5% of the x2 bets and lose 49.5% only.
While he may have bad luck to have more loses than wins in the short term, it is not easy for him to lose everything with flat betting.

Yes thats exactly what i said its pretty much impossible to lose it on flat betting if you adjust your bankroll and after a few thousand bets the odds must equal to 49.5 and 50.5

[Light]

According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.

The player will go on playing till he lose everything.             

I'm going to respond to this specific post - but anyone claiming that the users will lose in the long term with them having an "edge" against the house (assuming they are fair) doesn't understand basic probability.

First off, what is the long run?

When people refer to the long run - they might think 1 million events is long, maybe even 1 billion. Not so, long run means literally the largest number you could ever possibly think of (and yet still bigger than that) - better to think of it as infinity. Now the Law of Large Numbers - which has been proven both mathematically, logically and through modelling - means that as you approach an infinite number of events their outcomes will converge to statistical expectation.

Now, as a player in reality cannot play to infinite games - they will face a degree of variance. Variance is what causes random streaks of wins and losses - not random voodoo skill. This variance should decline as they play more and more games - eventually with enough games (enough being effectively infinity) they should come out ahead if they have a positive EV.

Hence, theoretically across a large number of events - an operator who offers +EV for their userbase can expect to lose money over time - although they could be extremely lucky and make a profit due to variance. But this variance WILL DECREASE, meaning with enough events the users can expect to profit.

This is the basis of why no casino/gambling site will ever offer +EV to users permanently (possibly short term to entice customers or they're rigged).

[TriggerX]

I'm not sure if my theory is right but I believe you should eventually profit. If you bet at 50% you will have 49-100 to win. If you roll 100 times on average you should win more than 50%. Therefore if you bet 1BTC at 50% on 100 times, you should win 51 times and lose 49 times. Therefore it's a profit.

[XinXan]

I'm not sure if my theory is right but I believe you should eventually profit. If you bet at 50% you will have 49-100 to win. If you roll 100 times on average you should win more than 50%. Therefore if you bet 1BTC at 50% on 100 times, you should win 51 times and lose 49 times. Therefore it's a profit.

Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.

[Light]

Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.

Wrong again.

The best amount to bet as a % of your bankroll would be based on the Kelly Criterion - which is in turn based on how large your edge is.

Man, with the amount of misinformation and foolishness around I should start a dice site - I see why Stunna keeps upgrading his service - he's raking it in.

[XinXan]

Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.

Wrong again.

The best amount to bet as a % of your bankroll would be based on the Kelly Criterion - which is in turn based on how large your edge is.

Man, with the amount of misinformation and foolishness around I should start a dice site - I see why Stunna keeps upgrading his service - he's raking it in.

Wrong again in what, betting 1% of your bankroll is being safe, what is wrong about that

[pagalwana]

People mostly loose because of their high winning greed, negative house edge is a new idea even then i think people will loose.

[jacktheking]

Unless the carsino is rich and win most of the time.. negative house edge seem impossible. If there is one which offer this.. I doubt anyone would join in.

[pagalwana]

Unless the carsino is rich and win most of the time.. negative house edge seem impossible. If there is one which offer this.. I doubt anyone would join in.

yes i think same and its the matter of whose bankroll is bigger is able to take others generally.

[Light]

Wrong again in what, betting 1% of your bankroll is being safe, what is wrong about that

Wrong in stating the ideal bet would be 1% of one's bankroll.

Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.

[deisik]

the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.

Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.

1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5

-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5

That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.

Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.

It wouldn't work.

You seem to not have read the whole thread. We are talking about a small negative house edge. And small here means small as compared to a house edge we see at dice sites in the "wild" (in absolute terms of course). I have mentioned a few times already that I mean an edge in the range of 0.05-0.1% negative. Should I actually have written tiny instead of small?

And how are you going to easily spam 10000 bets if there is no auto-betting but time limits are set?

[kotwica666]

What you don't understand is:

Gambling is for fun, not making money.

Get that in your head.

  ..said casino owner.. 

On customers side to some extent it is fun, but gambling is very addictive! Therefore is one of the largest businesses in the world!

[GannickusX]

What you don't understand is:

Gambling is for fun, not making money.

Get that in your head.

  ..said casino owner.. 

On customers side to some extent it is fun, but gambling is very addictive! Therefore is one of the largest businesses in the world!

Lets be honest, dice casinos are not for fun, at least for me, i dont have any fun playing dice unless im winning, i have fun playing poker or blackjack or any other games but dice? No lets be honest people play dice because they think they will win money.

[arallmuus]

What you don't understand is:

Gambling is for fun, not making money.

Get that in your head.

  ..said casino owner..  

On customers side to some extent it is fun, but gambling is very addictive! Therefore is one of the largest businesses in the world!

Not really fun for me if there is actually nothing to get even if we won, the thrill of getting the coins is very addictive, you can play dice with either your own coins or play money, and you will feel the sensation is different if you are risking if your own money, and its no fun at all if we keep on losing although a small win could either cheer the gambler up to continue to risk more coins

and No casino will actually give a negative house edge, near zero house edge Yes, negative house edge No, casino could just make a giveaway , jackpot or put in bonusses just to lower the house edge rather than making it negative

[pagalwana]

dice has nothing to have fun from, yes its fun to watch sports and then winning/losing , so its completely wrong that dice is for fun only. what i saw above from someone.

[futureofbitcoin]

the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.

Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.

1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5

-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5

That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.

Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.

It wouldn't work.

You seem to not have read the whole thread. We are talking about a small negative house edge. And small here means small as compared to a house edge we see at dice sites in the "wild" (in absolute terms of course). I have mentioned a few times already that I mean an edge in the range of 0.05-0.1% negative. Should I actually have written tiny instead of small?

And how are you going to easily spam 10000 bets if there is no auto-betting but time limits are set?

Having a time limit and no auto-betting will take away a lot more customers than having a small "negative" house edge would bring in. And of course, both would cause the casino to lose a lot of money. Horrible idea.

[deisik]

the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.

Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.

1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5

-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5

That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.

Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.

It wouldn't work.

You seem to not have read the whole thread. We are talking about a small negative house edge. And small here means small as compared to a house edge we see at dice sites in the "wild" (in absolute terms of course). I have mentioned a few times already that I mean an edge in the range of 0.05-0.1% negative. Should I actually have written tiny instead of small?

And how are you going to easily spam 10000 bets if there is no auto-betting but time limits are set?

Having a time limit and no auto-betting will take away a lot more customers than having a small "negative" house edge would bring in. And of course, both would cause the casino to lose a lot of money. Horrible idea.

Won't argue with this on the whole. Nevertheless, the problem could be solved relatively easily by enabling auto-betting and disabling time limits per bet, but increasing the house edge at the same time, thus making it a function of betting speed. The higher the speed, the higher the house edge...

To each his own

[birdcat90]

i thought that -ev house of edges will good for user, right?

as you will have more chance of winning bets...in exp from 10 play you will have like 6 win chance

[ndnh]

According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.

The player will go on playing till he lose everything.             

I'm going to respond to this specific post - but anyone claiming that the users will lose in the long term with them having an "edge" against the house (assuming they are fair) doesn't understand basic probability.

First off, what is the long run?

When people refer to the long run - they might think 1 million events is long, maybe even 1 billion. Not so, long run means literally the largest number you could ever possibly think of (and yet still bigger than that) - better to think of it as infinity. Now the Law of Large Numbers - which has been proven both mathematically, logically and through modelling - means that as you approach an infinite number of events their outcomes will converge to statistical expectation.

Now, as a player in reality cannot play to infinite games - they will face a degree of variance. Variance is what causes random streaks of wins and losses - not random voodoo skill. This variance should decline as they play more and more games - eventually with enough games (enough being effectively infinity) they should come out ahead if they have a positive EV.

Hence, theoretically across a large number of events - an operator who offers +EV for their userbase can expect to lose money over time - although they could be extremely lucky and make a profit due to variance. But this variance WILL DECREASE, meaning with enough events the users can expect to profit.

This is the basis of why no casino/gambling site will ever offer +EV to users permanently (possibly short term to entice customers or they're rigged).

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

[futureofbitcoin]

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

With that established, we need to see that the players' bankroll is not that of any individual player, but the AGGREGATE of all players. Because what is happening, is the house is essentially gambling against all these players, so the net bankroll they're putting their own against is the total of all players that are playing against them.

Furthermore, the strategy of the aggregate player is simply that for some subset of the bankroll (i.e a single player), a certain playing method is used, i.e martingale or whatever. As we know, the expected return of any strategy is the same. There is no winning/losing strategy.

So I think with those points, we can safely establish that the house will lose. I can understand how you still might feel different; I would say that kind of psychology is akin to the gambler's fallacy. It feels like it makes sense, but in reality it isn't that way.

EDIT: To add, we can use the kelly criterion with variables being the aggregate player bankroll and the ev to calculate exactly how many players need to play in order for it to be "worth it", i.e the players have a good chance of beating the house.

[deisik]

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

But if the aggregate bankroll of all players is significantly greater than that of the house, doesn't it imply that the house may lose even if the house edge is positive (say, 0.5%)? What are the chances for this to happen, depending on the total players bankroll vs bankroll of the house?

[duckydonald]

Negative house edge and postive house edge means cheating on either party.  Is why I only play PVP games now.

Users will lose because of bankroll and max bet.  This is why all dice sites that have to cheat in many ways, win most of the time.

[ndnh]

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

But if the aggregate bankroll of all players is significantly greater than that of the house, doesn't it imply that the house may lose even if the house edge is positive (say, 0.5%)? What are the chances for this to happen, depending on the total players bankroll vs bankroll of the house?

Yep, I think what he said is wrong. I specifically mentioned max bet too. What is the significance of taking aggreegate of the player's bankroll? It is irreelant, unless the max bet is not there, which is not practically possible.
On a case-by-case basis, all players play till they lose (That is my assumption).

[futureofbitcoin]

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

But if the aggregate bankroll of all players is significantly greater than that of the house, doesn't it imply that the house may lose even if the house edge is positive (say, 0.5%)? What are the chances for this to happen, depending on the total players bankroll vs bankroll of the house?

Yep, I think what he said is wrong. I specifically mentioned max bet too. What is the significance of taking aggreegate of the player's bankroll? It is irreelant, unless the max bet is not there, which is not practically possible.
On a case-by-case basis, all players play till they lose (That is my assumption).

Then let me ask you this: What's the difference between a casino and a player?

*First, I want to point out that we're under the assumption that the casino MUST accept bets under the max bet, since if a casino can just consolidate their winnings and stop running the casino, we can't talk about what will happen in the long run. So with that established*

1. There is a max bet limiting the amount a player can bet each round.

But can't we say that the max bet is also the maximum amount the casino can bet against the player each round?

2. You say all players play until they lose. This is simply not true. There will be players who don't do that.

However, as we established, the casino MUST accept the bets, so in effect, as long as there are people willing to play against the casino, then the casino HAS to play until it loses.

You're looking at the casino as if they were some godly entity, but really, they are just a player on the other side, a player who has a pretty big bankroll, nothing else.

[PeterB]

Really like the originality behind this idea.  I think it is a good idea in theory and might work if the site could attract the exact same player population as normal dice sites.  However IMHO, the negative house edge will eventually attract a whale with a large enough bankroll that will beat the house.  The type of whale that would not normally be interested in -EV bets.

Brings up a good point though that a site with 0% house edge could be profitable (could also possibly use ad revenue or another revenue stream that players would accept due to the 0% edge).

[futureofbitcoin]

On a case-by-case basis, all players play till they lose (That is my assumption).

I think I found another way to convince you this is false as well. You're assuming that when players have the edge, they'll still use the same strategies (martingale, going all in). But actually, that's not what they'll do. Instead, if I had an edge when playing, I would ALWAYS play the minimum bet. This would insure that I had the opportunity to play as many games as possible, thus making it almost certain that I'll come out on top.

There's absolutely no need to risk all my money, when I can pretty much make guaranteed profits playing small.

[deisik]

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

But if the aggregate bankroll of all players is significantly greater than that of the house, doesn't it imply that the house may lose even if the house edge is positive (say, 0.5%)? What are the chances for this to happen, depending on the total players bankroll vs bankroll of the house?

Yep, I think what he said is wrong. I specifically mentioned max bet too. What is the significance of taking aggreegate of the player's bankroll? It is irreelant, unless the max bet is not there, which is not practically possible.
On a case-by-case basis, all players play till they lose (That is my assumption).

Then let me ask you this: What's the difference between a casino and a player?

*First, I want to point out that we're under the assumption that the casino MUST accept bets under the max bet, since if a casino can just consolidate their winnings and stop running the casino, we can't talk about what will happen in the long run. So with that established*

1. There is a max bet limiting the amount a player can bet each round.

But can't we say that the max bet is also the maximum amount the casino can bet against the player each round?

2. You say all players play until they lose. This is simply not true. There will be players who don't do that.

However, as we established, the casino MUST accept the bets, so in effect, as long as there are people willing to play against the casino, then the casino HAS to play until it loses.

You're looking at the casino as if they were some godly entity, but really, they are just a player on the other side, a player who has a pretty big bankroll, nothing else.

You answered the post which was a reply to my post, but didn't reply to what I had asked. That is, could the house lose in the end if the aggregate bankroll of all players would be greater than the bankroll of the house by a good margin?

It seems to me that your assumption (casino as a player) should work against the house in this case...

[futureofbitcoin]

You answered the post which was a reply to my post, but didn't reply to what I had asked. That is, could the house lose in the end if the aggregate bankroll of all players would be greater than the bankroll of the house by a good margin?

It seems to me that your assumption (casino as a player) should work against the house in this case...

If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the hosue. That said, that's why casinos have a max bet. In this case, the max bet works for the casino.

If you read my post directly above yours, you'll understand the winning strategy for games where you have the edge. Essentially, that's what the casino is doing; playing a very small amount every single game in order to win by a large number of games. Because the casino has a much larger bankroll than I, they can have a larger max bet. That's all it is.

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

[XinXan]

Really like the originality behind this idea.  I think it is a good idea in theory and might work if the site could attract the exact same player population as normal dice sites.  However IMHO, the negative house edge will eventually attract a whale with a large enough bankroll that will beat the house.  The type of whale that would not normally be interested in -EV bets.

Brings up a good point though that a site with 0% house edge could be profitable (could also possibly use ad revenue or another revenue stream that players would accept due to the 0% edge).

Well a 0% house edge casino will profit surely in the long term, theoretically players dont have an advantage and neither the casino but thats only if every player went to play with static bets, the moment a player decides to use martingale or any other "strategy" they will eventually lose, martingale is better at 0% house edge? Yes its slightly better but still not profitable in the long term, with the requiered max bets the casino will profit in the long term.

[deisik]

You answered the post which was a reply to my post, but didn't reply to what I had asked. That is, could the house lose in the end if the aggregate bankroll of all players would be greater than the bankroll of the house by a good margin?

It seems to me that your assumption (casino as a player) should work against the house in this case...

If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the hosue. That said, that's why casinos have a max bet. In this case, the max bet works for the casino.

If you read my post directly above yours, you'll understand the winning strategy for games where you have the edge. Essentially, that's what the casino is doing; playing a very small amount every single game in order to win by a large number of games. Because the casino has a much larger bankroll than I, they can have a larger max bet. That's all it is.

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits per bet are set while max bet limits canceled (so the strategy is effectively whittled down), it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed (that is being negative), right?

[XinXan]

You answered the post which was a reply to my post, but didn't reply to what I had asked. That is, could the house lose in the end if the aggregate bankroll of all players would be greater than the bankroll of the house by a good margin?

It seems to me that your assumption (casino as a player) should work against the house in this case...

If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the hosue. That said, that's why casinos have a max bet. In this case, the max bet works for the casino.

If you read my post directly above yours, you'll understand the winning strategy for games where you have the edge. Essentially, that's what the casino is doing; playing a very small amount every single game in order to win by a large number of games. Because the casino has a much larger bankroll than I, they can have a larger max bet. That's all it is.

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed.

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits set and max bets canceled, it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed, right?

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses

[deisik]

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits set and max bets canceled, it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed, right?

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses

I assume that in this case max bet limits will be canceled (as I wrote). My point is that, you can't have it both ways if we consider a casino as a player ("If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the house")...

[XinXan]

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits set and max bets canceled, it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed, right?

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses

I assume that in this case max bet limits will be canceled (as I wrote). My point is that, you can't have it both ways if we consider a casino as a player ("If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the house")...

Depends how much btc you have, if you have 10 bitcoins and max bet is 0.1 you can lose 100 times more than wins to lose everything and its not probable to happen if the house edge is like that, even if it happens to someone it wont happen to the other 5 players and they will just profit infinitely over a long period of time and using bots to be able to bet all day with a 0.05% house edge negative it would take you obviously a lot of bets to be able to make some profit. Lets say you make a bet every 2 seconds, 30 bets per minute, 1800 bets per hour, 43.200 per day, if 5 players are doing it thats 216.000 bets per day, in 10 days you have 2.160.000 bets wich theoretically would have made 0.05% more wins that loses

[deisik]

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits set and max bets canceled, it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed, right?

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses

I assume that in this case max bet limits will be canceled (as I wrote). My point is that, you can't have it both ways if we consider a casino as a player ("If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the house")...

Depends how much btc you have, if you have 10 bitcoins and max bet is 0.1 you can lose 100 times more than wins to lose everything and its not probable to happen if the house edge is like that, even if it happens to someone it wont happen to the other 5 players and they will just profit infinitely over a long period of time and using bots to be able to bet all day with a 0.05% house edge negative it would take you obviously a lot of bets to be able to make some profit. Lets say you make a bet every 2 seconds, 30 bets per minute, 1800 bets per hour, 43.200 per day, if 5 players are doing it thats 216.000 bets per day, in 10 days you have 2.160.000 bets wich theoretically would have made 0.05% more wins that loses

I've always been reproached for writing long sentences hard to comprehend, but you've beaten me this time (and my understanding, by the way). One sentence on 5 lines, wtf?

[futureofbitcoin]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

So who's going to play in such a casino? People who are not gamblers, but looking for a sure way to make money. They'll set to bot to do it every time the time limit is up, and it's just easy money for them.

Now you say, well, I didn't say the time limit is 1 hour. It could be 50 minutes, or 10 minutes, or whatever. Well, yeah. But if your time limit is too short, that's not gonna stop people from betting many, many times. If your time limit is too long, you're going to lose real customers, and only end up with vultures. Besides, someone can just mask their IP, or use whatever methods to bypass that time limit.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits per bet are set while max bet limits canceled (so the strategy is effectively whittled down), it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed (that is being negative), right?

Having max bets cancelled doesn't do anything, because it's the player who decides how much to bet, not the casino. In a way, the casino is more restricted than the player, which already puts them at a disadvantage.

The house may be "winning" at some point, just as players can be "winning" too. That is, until they lose. The longer the casino runs, the more likely they'll be in the red (losing).

[XinXan]

With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits set and max bets canceled, it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed, right?

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses

I assume that in this case max bet limits will be canceled (as I wrote). My point is that, you can't have it both ways if we consider a casino as a player ("If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the house")...

Depends how much btc you have, if you have 10 bitcoins and max bet is 0.1 you can lose 100 times more than wins to lose everything and its not probable to happen if the house edge is like that, even if it happens to someone it wont happen to the other 5 players and they will just profit infinitely over a long period of time and using bots to be able to bet all day with a 0.05% house edge negative it would take you obviously a lot of bets to be able to make some profit. Lets say you make a bet every 2 seconds, 30 bets per minute, 1800 bets per hour, 43.200 per day, if 5 players are doing it thats 216.000 bets per day, in 10 days you have 2.160.000 bets wich theoretically would have made 0.05% more wins that loses

I've always been reproached for writing long sentences hard to comprehend, but you've beaten me this time (and my understanding, by the way). One sentence on 5 lines, wtf?

Well xD, im sorry for that. See i used a dot there. What i was trying to say was that even with max bets you could just set up bots or have other players join you and beat the casino sooner or later. Even if you dont manage to destroy the whole bankroll you will still manage to get profit wich is what really matters.

[Phildo]

Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale

But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers

I've seen once a gambling site with normal house edge and still gamblers seemed to win more than the house. (I asked them nicely to check their scripts.)
However, there's something I don't understand: how comes that Martingale has such popularity. Even myself, I thought at very start that it's a good technique.
Still, posts with successful Martingale seem to be more popular than those with fails.


And yes, such aggressive marketing technique (negative edge) could be a winning point for a casino / dice site.
But the market still seem to be able to accommodate plenty more such sites without this extra gamble/risk from the owner.

Martingale has so much popularity (especially in cryptoland) because it works, until it doesn't. The spread between the min and max bet in cryptoland is so wide that it is a lot harder to lose a martingale try (by hitting the max bet or running out of money) than it is to do it at a blackjack or roulette table at a real casino.

Crypto bettors try it, get a small positive experience, then turn around and use a bot to run enough trials to hit the unlikely streak needed to go broke anyway.

[Phildo]

There are some kinds of video poker have over 100% return, so you may try them.

But the figures are theoretical, when you play real money, you are very hardly to get Str8 flush or royal flush, so the actual return are lower than the theoretical returns(over 100%)

check out:  http://wizardofodds.com/pdf/video-poker-cheat-sheet.pdf

Double Bonus
Royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
4 aces 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160
4 2s-4s 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
4 5s-Ks 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Full house 10 9 10 9 9 9 8 9 7
Flush 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 5
Straight 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4
3 of a kind 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jacks or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.17%  99.11% 98.81% 97.81% 97.74% 96.38% 96.23% 95.27% 93.11%

Deuces Wild
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Four deuces 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 25 25 25 25 20 25 20 20 25 20 25
Five of a kind 15 15 16 15 12 15 12 12 16 10 15
Straight flush 9 11 10 10 9 9 10 9 13 8 10
Four of a kind 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
Full house 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3
Flush 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2
Straight 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Three of a kind 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.76% 99.96% 99.73% 99.42% 98.94% 98.91% 97.58% 97.06% 96.77% 95.96% 94.82%

Joker Poker (kings or better)
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 940 800 940 800 800
Five of a kind 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 40
Four of a kind 20 18 17 17 15 15 20
Full house 7 7 7 7 7 7 5
Flush 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
Straight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Three of a kind 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kings or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.65%  98.94% 98.44% 98.09% 96.74% 96.38% 95.46%

To get those odds you need to use perfect strategy, perfect video poker strategy is so complex that some casinos don't mind sprinkling a +ev (for the player) machine in the casino somewhere to get some publicity and to increase the total ev of all machines in the casino (which is a legal requirement, at least in Atlantic City) because they will more than make up for that little lost edge via people making mistakes on that machine and playing other machines where the odds are in their favor.

[Phildo]

You probably won't see something like this because it just isn't necessary.

Think like the casino, why offer a game with -1% house edge when people are playing a game with a +1% house edge? The only people a promotion like this would attract are the type of people who will be able to exploit it and who will disappear as soon as that promotional period ends and the edge flips back around.

It's one thing for a real casino to put 1 video poker machine somewhere inside that has a - house edge, or when the progressive jackpots in slots/card games whatever get so high that the edge changes (those especially don't matter because all that money comes from players) but it's a completely different thing for an online casino that will get bombarded by advantage players trying to squeeze every ounce of value out of the site that they can.

[deisik]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

[Phildo]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

They will be much better off offering comps/bonuses/freebets than actually changing the edge of the games. The people who pay attention to this stuff aren't idiots. If you give them too much edge on the actual game they are going to take it and hurt you. They can (and some in real casinos do) hurt the casino a little bit but hustling comps/bonuses, but that is much easier for the casino to control than leaving things up to chance.

The whole point of the house edge is to take chance out of it. The casino makes money by being open, the bettor needs to get lucky to win. There's no reason to flip that equation around when the first one works so well.

[futureofbitcoin]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

[deisik]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

[XinXan]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

Wowow hold on a second, you are saying that the casino would change the odds in between bets depending on when the last bet was made? Like 51% chance to win, you bet and wait 2 secs and the next bet now has 50.5% chance? That would be a weird but good idea for a casino xD, quick register the patent!!

[deisik]

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

Wowow hold on a second, you are saying that the casino would change the odds in between bets depending on when the last bet was made? Like 51% chance to win, you bet and wait 2 secs and the next bet now has 50.5% chance? That would be a weird but good idea for a casino xD, quick register the patent!!

Yeah, you hit the nail right on the head. If someone decides to register this idea, the patent should thus be declared null and void by reason of my post... Prior art!

[futureofbitcoin]

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

I didn't misunderstand anything. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that I'm the same user if I log on with a different mac/ip address. It's difficult to implement counters and very easy to bypass. Particularly when money is involved.

You should stop nitpicking particular bits, and read my overarching idea. Then you might finally understand.

[malzahar]

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

[JaredStein]

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

Yes but say someone had a auto bet on at .00001 and kept betting for 10 days straight, they would be in positive alot.

[futureofbitcoin]

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

Yes but say someone had a auto bet on at .00001 and kept betting for 10 days straight, they would be in positive alot.

I'm glad someone understands.

[MasterYii]

Its most likely fair then, if this is zero house edge, since the rolls can be all 12 winning streaks.

So in the end, you could be up depending the # of rolls.

[XinXan]

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

Yes but say someone had a auto bet on at .00001 and kept betting for 10 days straight, they would be in positive alot.

I'm glad someone understands.

Well thats what was my initial idea too but then OP just came up with a bet limit thing so the casino wont let you bet fast enough. Still you can do it with friends or just use a ton of bots and you will eventually destroy the bankroll by yourself even if other people lose you would just keep winning over and over

[Minnlo]

-snip
I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?)
-snip

It is very simple, the site just set your probability to win to make your EV always be (1- House edge %)*bet size.
For example if you are playing a x2 bet in a 0.5% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.75. (1-0.5% = 49.75%*2)
But if you are playing in a 1% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.5. (1-1% = 49.5%*2)

[futureofbitcoin]

-snip
I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?)
-snip

It is very simple, the site just set your probability to win to make your EV always be (1- House edge %)*bet size.
For example if you are playing a x2 bet in a 0.5% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.75. (1-0.5% = 49.75%*2)
But if you are playing in a 1% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.5. (1-1% = 49.5%*2)

I don't think that's what he was asking. I think he was asking how that's implemented. One simple way in pseudocode would be

Code:

double player_bankroll;
double bet;
int x = RNG(1,100);
    if (x > 51) {
        player_bankroll = player_bankroll + bet;
    } else {
        player_bankroll = player_bankroll - bet;
    }

And I haven't touched this stuff in 2+ years (I wasn't very good to begin with) so if it's way off, don't blame me. RNG stands for random number generator, in this case from 1 to 100.

[deisik]

-snip
I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?)
-snip

It is very simple, the site just set your probability to win to make your EV always be (1- House edge %)*bet size.
For example if you are playing a x2 bet in a 0.5% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.75. (1-0.5% = 49.75%*2)
But if you are playing in a 1% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.5. (1-1% = 49.5%*2)

WTF, somehow I expected a good deal of black magic going underneath there! Therefore it won't be difficult at all to calculate the house edge as a function of time that has passed since the last bet. Regarding bots playing from different IP addresses and things like that, this is exactly what many faucets are fighting with on a day-by-day basis...

So, if you want your IP address banned and money taken, you're welcome!

[futureofbitcoin]

-snip
I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?)
-snip

It is very simple, the site just set your probability to win to make your EV always be (1- House edge %)*bet size.
For example if you are playing a x2 bet in a 0.5% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.75. (1-0.5% = 49.75%*2)
But if you are playing in a 1% edge site, you will win the bet if the roll is under 49.5. (1-1% = 49.5%*2)

WTF, somehow I expected a good deal of black magic going underneath there! So it won't be difficult at all to calculate the house edge as a function of time that has passed since the last bet. Regarding bots playing from different IP addresses and things like that, this is exactly what many faucets are fighting with on a day-by-day basis...

So, if you want your IP address banned and money taken, you're welcome!

Then you can bet many people will be screaming SCAM at the casino and they'll go out of business just like that.

[mordekaiser]

how would the casino supply constant payouts though, if it was a negative house edge?

[Phildo]

The house edge from all casino games comes from making sure the payout and the odds of winning don't match. In roulette, if you bet on red you have less than 50% of winning (1 or 2 green numbers) but they pay you 1-1, which would be fair if you had a 50% chance of winning.

Same thing with dice sites, you pick the chances of winning, and they pay you less than what would be the "fair" or break even amount if you win.

[psykachu]

lol, negative house edge has no sense for me

[casinobitcoin]

eh?

Isn't this a  little self explanatory 



CasinoBitco.in - Bitcoin's Premier Bitcoin Casino - Celebrating 2 Years!
Casino milestone program - ALWAYS win 50 mBTC for hands ending in -0000 (except Hi-Lo, Roulette)!

[adaseb]

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

Yes I completely agree. The house edge could even be -5% for the casino and the casino will probably end up winning due to people being greedy, emotional, and fearful.

[factor280]

I think negative house edge could be attractive to a lot of gamblers. A bit risky for the house... but could still be a profitable proposition based on player emotion/greed.

[JaredStein]

I think negative house edge could be attractive to a lot of gamblers. A bit risky for the house... but could still be a profitable proposition based on player emotion/greed.

Say someone left a autobet on at 0.00001 all day or something, they would come out with money and house would lose.

[B4RF]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

There is no argument that would encourage a casino to use a nagative house edge after this post.

So I think everything has already been said after the seceond post in this thread...

[XinXan]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

There is no argument that would encourage a casino to use a nagative house edge after this post.

So I think everything has already been said after the seceond post in this thread...

Well after that post OP tried to break that strategy saying that the casino would not have an automatic betting system and the bets would be slow wich doesnt do anything but slow the process, whats mind blowing is how people voted that the casino would still win because people would be greedy, like it doesnt even matter as long as someone intelligent does that since he would be profiting forever.

[deisik]

If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time

With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets

you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets

wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins

There is no argument that would encourage a casino to use a nagative house edge after this post.

So I think everything has already been said after the seceond post in this thread...

Well after that post OP tried to break that strategy saying that the casino would not have an automatic betting system and the bets would be slow wich doesnt do anything but slow the process, whats mind blowing is how people voted that the casino would still win because people would be greedy, like it doesnt even matter as long as someone intelligent does that since he would be profiting forever.

Yeah, I finally made it... Read your post and seem to have understood it!

Since that post I significantly revised a casino strategy for the negative house edge, and, what is important, in respect to "the bets being slow which doesn't do anything but slow the process". In fact, now I suggest a changeable house edge (which would surely lure in new users), depending on either the betting speed or house profit (the latter was not my idea, with all due credit)...

[kotwica666]

I think negative house edge could be attractive to a lot of gamblers. A bit risky for the house... but could still be a profitable proposition based on player emotion/greed.

Say someone left a autobet on at 0.00001 all day or something, they would come out with money and house would lose.

This is an example of just one player.

Imagine what happens when do that a hundred people..

[futureofbitcoin]

Sigh, Deisik, if you still can't understand after I and many others took the time to explain such a simple concept, I really don't know what to say. Seriously, read the central concept of our posts. Your trivial modifications don't do anything.


It's like then you ask "well, what if I change the name of the casino? Your arguments were against the previous casino I suggested". That's completely irrelevant and insignificant. You're nitpicking at places that simply DON'T MATTER.

+EV for players doesn't bring in real gamblers. It brings in investors. It will also lose money for the casino.


Whatever changes you make, that's a fact that won't change. If you completely change the system, then it no longer has anything to do with the central concept of this thread; giving the players an edge in order to attract more players and profit for the casino.

If for example, the casino has a side business selling shoes. The casino ends up making a bit of money, because the shoe business can cover the loss from the casino games, that doesn't make +EV a good idea suddenly. Similarly, when the odds change, that might make the casino money, which can cover some of the losses giving the players an edge made. But that's irrelevant.

[patt0]

^ Just a negative house edge wouldn't work, but if you change the house edge I think it can work. The casino would have to change it depending on the profit it made so far.
For example if profit was below some value, the house edge would be positive to help the house win more. When profit was above some value, the house edge would go lower to reduce the profit lol. Hopefully that brings in more players. xD

[XinXan]

Honestly at this point i dont know how people still play dice, its just not fun and you lose, poker blackjack and pretty much any other games are way more fun than dice and you can even win some money on poker on pvp.

By the way on 0% House Edge the casino would win money tho.

[B4RF]

Honestly at this point i dont know how people still play dice, its just not fun and you lose, poker blackjack and pretty much any other games are way more fun than dice and you can even win some money on poker on pvp.

By the way on 0% House Edge the casino would win money tho.

yea, at 0% flat betting doesn't work and any other betting strategy would lose in the long run because variance has a larger impact than some percentages of the house edge i think.

[GreenStox]

Negative house edge wont work for the following reason:

More people will bet when the edge is negative, than when it's positive, thus either the casino will go bankrupt quickly, or the edge will quickly shift back to positive edge (because the profits made by the house diminish, thus it switches back to positive edge)