Small negative house edge

[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)...