Small negative house edge

[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.