the odds of winning the casino

[deisik]

In the end every hand is for itself, or every throw, or every spin, depending on the game you play! And for each bet on anything you choose your odds! You can't separate winning from losing in gambling, both plays important role, watching for long streaks of winning or loosing is important, you need to adjust your bets after long streaks! If you wish to be profitable in the end of the day you need to catch the right moment for aggressive play, when you rise your bets and odds, and win can bring you back what you lost and add some cherry on the top.
In long run casino wins, we can't compete with their bankroll, so once in a while take a break, change a game or casino.

Unfortunately, the chances of beating casinos are near zero, even if you are the luckiest person in the casino, hitting a 1000x bankroll win chance is not possible. Einstein has explained it well: "The only way to beat roulette is to steal money when the croupier isn't looking". Aggressive, progressive, conservative money management rules are forms of controlling your bankroll, it has no effect over winning/losing odds.

I can see you are not a gambler, aggressive or conservative has effect over your win/losing odds, simply it's basic in gambling, if you bet 1 at odd 2 you will win 1, if you play aggressive and you make higher bet on higher odds you will win more, or lose more

I'm not sure if this distinction is correct

I'm not sure that higher odds (i.e. lower multipliers, or payouts) stand for a more aggressive approach, while lower odds for a more conservative one. As it seems to me, we can't actually draw such a distinction here (aggressive or conservative) when we refer to odds on their own. Personally, I would consider a more aggressive strategy the one which involves a higher percentage of your balance that you stake at each roll. Conversely, if you go small, that should be considered a more conservative strategy

[Natsuu]

I like the way you calculate to win the casino, it looks promising. But don't be too optimistic beforehand, because the casino owner
must have realized that there must be some people who are trying to break up the casino formula he has. Therefore almost we certainly
likely always fail to defeat the house. Although successful it will certainly not last long.

This is so true, and this is the reason they own the casinos because at the end of the day they have to make profits and not do charity and some of them may be able to at times win it which is really good thing. But sometime things will change and if continue to gamble with big money people may lose it and this could be worst for those who have either got addicted to gambling by now or continue to still gamble inspite of several loses.

Casino is one of the best gambling games that a person will definite play. It is probably the most popular game to all gamblers because of the idea of winning a good shot of profits. Casino games for me isn't a stable game because it always depend on the numbers of players and it's winnings of each player. But some of the casino are actuay aim to earn profits by their players. And they actually have a goal in doing this business. Not just to give entertainment to players.

The odds of winning in casino games is 50-50 chance and always depends on you strategy and idea on how to handle your earnings and losses. You will need to provide a lot of time in playing in casino in order to get a enough profit. You must learn everything in order for you to win.

[iv4n]

snip

snip

snip

I'm not sure if this distinction is correct

I'm not sure that higher odds (i.e. lower multipliers, or payouts) stand for a more aggressive approach, while lower odds for a more conservative one. As it seems to me, we can't actually draw such a distinction here (aggressive or conservative) when we refer to odds on their own. Personally, I would consider a more aggressive strategy the one which involves a higher percentage of your balance that you stake at each roll. Conversely, if you go small, that should be considered a more conservative strategy

Sorry for misunderstanding, higher odds = higher multipliers and payouts, along with higher bets you have really aggressive play. I don't even use that word conservative, I took it from "seleme", I thought it will be easier for me to express myself! Sorry because I made a bit of confusion, you gave a nice explanation what is aggressive and what is "conservative" strategy, it's what I wanted to say.
Anyway my point is if you wish to win big you need to play aggressive in some moments! Of course everything depends on the game you choose to play, and only aggressive play will melt down your bankroll, only passive play will not bring some huge win, you need to mix that, and if you catch right moments you will make profit, if not you will lose a lot of money!

[deisik]

I'm not sure that higher odds (i.e. lower multipliers, or payouts) stand for a more aggressive approach, while lower odds for a more conservative one. As it seems to me, we can't actually draw such a distinction here (aggressive or conservative) when we refer to odds on their own. Personally, I would consider a more aggressive strategy the one which involves a higher percentage of your balance that you stake at each roll. Conversely, if you go small, that should be considered a more conservative strategy

Sorry for misunderstanding, higher odds = higher multipliers and payouts, along with higher bets you have really aggressive play

In dice higher odds, i.e. higher win chances, stand for lower multipliers, i.e. the amount received on a win (payout)

But enough nitpicking as this is not my point altogether. The heart of the matter, or point at stake if you please, is that no matter how high or low your payout, multiplier, or odds might be, over the course of your gambling life it all eventually comes down to the house edge (and whether you can live with it)

So we can't really say that we are betting more aggressively with higher multipliers than with lower ones, at least not if we make thousands and thousands of rolls. By extension, that basically means that it is the percentage of our balance at stake which is what defines the aggressiveness, or lack thereof, of the utilized strategy (aka risk exposure)