Small negative house edge

[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?