House Edge vs Winnings Tax

[Raynor]

Dear All,

I'm looking into building a PvP Gambling Game based partly on Chance (70%) and partly on skills (30%).

It seems that the House Edge concept does not fit well within a PvP environment.

So I am thinking instead to introduce a Winning Tax.

Which do you think is better from the players perspective:

A: The House Edge (1%) - reduces your "Fair" chance of winning and in the long run would account for 1% of your total bets.
B: The Winnings Tax (1%) - does not impact your chance of winning but reduces your potential winning by 1%.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!BTC

[erpbridge]

Most of the sites which have a PVP game usually rely only on the second one that is the Winning tax . I don't think the concept of house edge would apply here . Also not many people mind the small fees that is taken from their wins.

If you think about tournaments happening on poker sites, they are just like PVP with around 50% luck and  50% skill. Even they take a fix part of the winnings which is usually around 10% of the winning amount.

[arallmuus]

-snip-

In fact this is not a new thing in here. It is known as "fee" here and in poker it is known as "rake" . The percentage of it is different according to the site which mostly takes 1 % from your profit or 1 % from your payout ( 1 % both for each side ).

Here is the few references of some sites that takes on "fee" instead of house edge :

Fairlay ( claimed to be 0% fee but idk details about it ) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673475.0

Girlbtc ( 1 % fee from payout ) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673475.0

Tappabit ( not taking any fee for their game but takes 3 % withdrawal fee ) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098747.0

and few others poker site that you can search at this board

[asuspc]

I think A is better, B might cause some marketing blow backs.

[bitbaby]

With PVP based games you'll have to take your cut from the Pot, that's the only way to do it, this is how poker sites get their cut. So I think you should go with B.

Can you tell us more about your site and the game, how is it 30% skill based?

[cryptworld]

I think that I would prefer option A

option B is too invassive for players

[fox19891989]

A is dice, B is poker, and 1% is too low for rake, in casinos rake is much higher than 1%, about 2.5%-6% or even higher. IMO A is better cause we pay less to the house. House can profit stable from type B. House may lose money if gamble guru crashes the house. A is better for players, B is better for houses.

[grendel25]

Dear All,

I'm looking into building a PvP Gambling Game based partly on Chance (70%) and partly on skills (30%).

It seems that the House Edge concept does not fit well within a PvP environment.

So I am thinking instead to introduce a Winning Tax.

Which do you think is better from the players perspective:

A: The House Edge (1%) - reduces your "Fair" chance of winning and in the long run would account for 1% of your total bets.
B: The Winnings Tax (1%) - does not impact your chance of winning but reduces your potential winning by 1%.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!BTC

I like B.  A sounds like the same tired old house edge that is received with varying degrees of genuine trust.  At the end of the day you are putting faith in technology that there is no pre-arranged manipulation to deceive various security measures rather it be encryption, time stamps, or others.  

B, OTOH, I have'n't seen much in practice and it would be really cool to try it out.  Of course, you still have to have a provably fair interface and each and every bet should be able to be printed out from a repository that is highly secure and backed up so that any contentious bet could be scrutinized.  

[anderson00673]

I like option B.  This way you are not playing against the house but other players.  It makes things more interesting imo.

Make sure to let us know when the game is ready

[ndnh]

I thought it is already like that?

For games against the house, the concept is house edge.

For games between players, the concept is fees, usually taken from the winning player's share.

Which do you think is better from the players perspective:

This is a weird question considering that, if you are talking about a PvP, there is no concept of house edge (it is possible, but it not implemented since it will pretty weird, like roll between 49.5 and 50.5 and house will take everything, since that is not very encouraging to players).
and if you are talking about a game against the house, the fee and the house edge is literally the same. (You have both choices - 2x at 49.5% chance and 1.98x at 50% chance)

[Coef]

Dear All,

I'm looking into building a PvP Gambling Game based partly on Chance (70%) and partly on skills (30%).

It seems that the House Edge concept does not fit well within a PvP environment.

So I am thinking instead to introduce a Winning Tax.

Which do you think is better from the players perspective:

A: The House Edge (1%) - reduces your "Fair" chance of winning and in the long run would account for 1% of your total bets.
B: The Winnings Tax (1%) - does not impact your chance of winning but reduces your potential winning by 1%.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!BTC

How do you plan to implement the option A in a PvP game?
I mean, in a PvP game there is always a winner. But if you reduce the chance of winning for each individual player, the numbers won't add up to 100% any more.
This would be extremely odd and bad experience from the players perspective, when a player performs better than everyone in the game but fail to win anything.

[FanEagle]

The only game that comes in my mind is poker,with all those characteristics.
Edit:I read it better, do you want a skill game,try Othello.