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

[1714975767]

1714975767

[1714975767]

1714975767

[1714975767]

1714975767

[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...