Small negative house edge

[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