House Edge -- Is It Really Required?

[deisik]

This is not entirely my idea, so, as they say, don't shoot the messenger

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel

[1715149891]

1715149891

[1715149891]

1715149891

[1715149891]

1715149891

[milewilda]

Dont know if this line do really fits out " the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own" No matter how big it is, it cant really be considered nor treated as an house edge.
Yes, it maybe bigger than the total of its players bankroll but doesnt mean that they wont consider out to put HE. If you are a business owner then what would be your primary motive on building this casino?
Of course, to make more money and come to think that if they do continue to have that HE-less thing then they would continually spending out or having the expense from maintenance -staff salary etc.
Is isnt sustainable for long run? no owner would get this kind of option.

[bittraffic]

A businessman will always put up a business for profit. Even if he is as wealthy as Warren Buffet because its what drives them. The mains reason why they chose to put up a casino is that they know casinos make more money which is the primary goal. They may even evade taxes to have more of the profit.

I don't know if you could ever find one casino that has zero house edge, P2P is the most possible.

[deisik]

Dont know if this line do really fits out " the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own" No matter how big it is, it cant really be considered nor treated as an house edge

But that's how things turn out to be

In fact, it is not very difficult to show how the bankroll size can be an effective house edge in real life. Imagine you are tossing a coin with your friend. When you lose you pay them a dollar, if you win they pay you as much. Pretty simple setup, isn't it? And it looks like your chances are equal. And they are, at least as long as you toss a coin a couple times or so. However, if you have only 10 dollars while your friend 100, their chances of busting you are 10 times higher than yours busting them. This is the "house" edge that a bigger bankroll provides

[avikz]

Casinos are no charitable organisations - They are serious business and serious businesses always want to make money!

So the house edge will continue to exist as long as casinos will exist. House edge is one of the major revenue sources for the casino business. The percentage may definitely vary from one casino to another but it will remain in existence.

However, sometimes we may see some casinos without house edge but that will come with an expiry date. Usually some casinos choose to have zero house edge as a promotional activity to lure in new players and then use various reward methodology for retaining them. But I believe there will be only a handful of casinos who will be interested to forego such a lucrative revenue stream even if there bankroll is bigger than the total fund held by their players.

[mindrust]

I don't know if you could ever find one casino that has zero house edge, P2P is the most possible.

Even if there is one, then it probably means it hasn't decided to scam its customers yet.

A casino basically has no income other than what the house edge makes for it.

Google ads, donations etc won't work out for a business like this.

[tbterryboy]

I am not sure how house edge is working on most other games but in dicing it is too visible and from that I also had thoughts like why houses may go for zero house edge.

Because, for example with 0.5% housed edge they reserve additional 0.5% of rolling number numbers after the actual 50% of numbers for the X2 payout. If there are 1000 possible numbers to be rolled then they reserve 50 extra numbers after allocated 500 numbers. In summary house gets 550 consecutive numbers (like 1 to 550) and a gambler gets consecutive 450 (like 551 to 1000) numbers to decide who is going to win.

If you notice, very very rarely rolling number appears between 551 to 550 and all other times either house or gambler wins based on what number appears. If houses decide to give up those 50 numbers, I believe there cannot be any big differences given that gamblers continue their martingale and losing all the bankroll in the end.

[Barnabe]

The initial idea is quite interesting though. The way I see it, if the casino has no edge, the only way it can win is when players go "tilt" or stop thinking rationally. If its bankroll is big enough to take on the richest customers and if you believe that in the long term players do not think rationally and will always bet their winnings, this idea could work.

At the end, in such a system, you are betting against rationality in players.

[pixie85]

Physical casinos don't really need a bankroll to profit because they can work around it by asking players to pay entry fee or something like that but they found that hidden costs are always the most effective. People asked for money on entry may be discouraged and not willing to pay. Those who pay a share of profits or a hidden fee in every bet somehow take it much easier.

What I'm trying to say is that it's nor required but casinos did their homeworks and found that it's the best way to maximize profits.

[deisik]

At the end, in such a system, you are betting against rationality in players

This is always the case if the number of players is above a certain threshold (give or take)

The truth is, perfectly rational players could easily take out any online casino with a sensible house edge (say, 1%). It is a statistical certainty. Since we don't see it happen very often, it only goes to prove that most players are not rational. So, in a way, we are already there. Regardless, it would be tremendously interesting to see the financial stats of a real online casino to assess how much of their profits actually comes from the house edge and how much from busts

[Yaunfitda]

This is not entirely my idea, so, as they say, don't shoot the messenger

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own

I would say theoretically, the house can still make a profit if the game is 50-50. They can still "hold" base on the sheer volume of their capital.

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel

You got me thinking as well, so I think of one game that could fit this "even-game" scenario. First that come to my mind is bacarrat, you just have to bet Player or Banker. But to make it even though, you have to strip it off with every side-bet, tie, super-six or super-seven, pairs, and that's where the house edge comes-in, to insure casino's profit. So I don't know if there are casino's that really has this so called "even-game.

[StephenJH]

The house edge is unbeatable but the professional gambler especially poker player can beat the other players or dealers on the long run. Why to leave in luck the tale of the casino instead of using proven success method? The house edge works for casino that is why they serve free drinks&meals to hold the gambler there for a long time.

[Wexnident]

But that's how things turn out to be

In fact, it is not very difficult to show how the bankroll size can be an effective house edge in real life. Imagine you are tossing a coin with your friend. When you lose you pay them a dollar, if you win they pay you as much. Pretty simple setup, isn't it? And it looks like your chances are equal. And they are, at least as long as you toss a coin a couple times or so. However, if you have only 10 dollars while your friend 100, their chances of busting you are 10 times higher than yours busting them. This is the "house" edge that a bigger bankroll provides

Going by the same logic, then doesn't that mean that if ten people were to against the single one with a single bankroll make the chances equal? And putting up your finance in a 50-50 chance seems quite idiotic to me. Same with how casinos work, they have an overwhelmingly large bankroll which is used to support the entirety of their player base. Seeing as you don't actually know how many people would start playing at your casino, the larger the bankroll, the better. Now let's say that without a house edge, a casino was flocked by gamblers.
 
Let's take your example again, the bankroll of the casino was 100. The original number of gamblers was 1, and 10 makes it equal. But what if there were 20? 30? Or more? Even if the chances were equal, in the sense, the total bankroll of the gamblers exceeds the bankroll of the casino. This makes it a disadvantage for the casino. This is also the reason why jackpots exist that has a probably at the very minimum I suppose.

[Darker45]

Required? Nope. As a matter of fact, there are casinos which have zero house edge. Edgeless (EDG) comes to mind first because it was popular back then. But, for sure, it is not the only zero house edge casino out there.

Does a casino need an edge to earn? I think so. And even with that edge, you could still lose. However, you need to have it to make sure your business is sustainable. Otherwise, you could end up expanding your capital investment for operational and other expenses without end. 

[deisik]

Let's take your example again, the bankroll of the casino was 100. The original number of gamblers was 1, and 10 makes it equal. But what if there were 20? 30? Or more? Even if the chances were equal, in the sense, the total bankroll of the gamblers exceeds the bankroll of the casino. This makes it a disadvantage for the casino. This is also the reason why jackpots exist that has a probably at the very minimum I suppose

I understand when people don't read entire threads

As I don't read them either, especially when there are dozens of pages (even though this thread has only a dozen posts all in all). But why not read the fucking OP, as small as this one? Just the first paragraph of it? But seriously, it is not my logic which seems idiotic (note that I'm speaking in your terms exactly), it is your post which makes it blaringly obvious that you didn't care to read the OP. Since if you did, you would know that:

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own

Wouldn't reading just one sentence suffice to understand the point?

[slaman29]

Zero edge projects aren't new and guess what? They don't end well. At least, the ones I've used to follow.

Variance is a big problem for casinos, so house edge helps soften that problem (it actually doesn't protect them from it!).

[xxjumperxx]

It could end well, but it probably wont.
House Edge gives the casino a bit more protection from Variance.
Same goes for Poker Players, they will win win win, and then lose lose lose. Variance can be brutal and only a high enough BR will save you from go broke.

The Bankroll might seem big enough but can always be put to a test by a players luck.

[Pamadar]

This is not entirely my idea, so, as they say, don't shoot the messenger

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel

Just like Government gaining Income from tax payers,House edge is something like this,Gambling site needs direct profit and that is from house edge so they have assurance of having funds to spent in their Daily expenses because what if time comes that luck comes to all players?and the House losses all the games?so at least the house edge is there to cover things they need to pay for a day of operation.

[Lakai01]

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself.

In principle a very interesting idea, but one must also be aware that this is then a "charity gambling" platform and not (in the long term) a viable company.
The House Edge does not exist - as we have often discussed here - just for fun but to keep the company behind the casino alive. The House Edge also covers the costs that the company incurs for the operation of the site:

• Server costs
• Staff costs (server maintenance, ...)
• Costs for advertising contracts (e.g. signature campaigns)

To put it in exaggerated terms, your proposal could also be applied to Apple and Microsoft: Both companies with an incredible amount of capital, but who still won't come up with the idea of offering their products for free.

[btcltcdigger]

House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

[Finestream]

If the idea not to put a house edge in the casino to attract more gamblers is viable, that would have been implemented a long time ago, if there are casinos that implemented that kind of system, I think they are not successful as I haven't heard a popular casinos with no house edge.

For gamblers, we certainly like to play in a casino where we think we have a decent chances of winning, but it's not gonna happen as casinos advantage is what makes their business profitable against majority of the gamblers. 

[Barnabe]

House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

They are competing with zero advantage it's true, but one can argue that they are still competing in variance. If we suppose the players are acting irrationally and will gamble all their winnings, it becomes a battle in variance (the first to go bust loses) and in such a battle the bigger bankroll should have the advantage (meaning that in this scenario it will tend to win over time).

[Viscore]

House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.

[reliable]

If the idea not to put a house edge in the casino to attract more gamblers is viable, that would have been implemented a long time ago, if there are casinos that implemented that kind of system, I think they are not successful as I haven't heard a popular casinos with no house edge.

For gamblers, we certainly like to play in a casino where we think we have a decent chances of winning, but it's not gonna happen as casinos advantage is what makes their business profitable against majority of the gamblers. 

All the players would like to have and play with no house edge, but at the end of the day casino owners or gambling sites will have t make money to bear the expenses and make profits. It is only possible via having the house edge and thus inspite of this people try their luck and lose lot of money as well as they play just to make money from gambling.

[btcltcdigger]

House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.

Also, if you've ever been in Vegas, you'll notice that when you're playing, the waitresses will bring you quite a lot of "on the house" drinks.
Trust me, those are paid by the house edge as well.

My friend would go there and spend like $20, but go home with $100 of drinks in his guts

[Barnabe]

House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.

Yeah, but online casinos have a small maintenance cost. If the owner is a developer the casino will only cost them a few bucks for the server and some time spent in promoting it and solving problems related to its customers.

[deisik]

It could end well, but it probably wont.
House Edge gives the casino a bit more protection from Variance

I certainly agree with you. However, the ranges of house edge we currently see in the industry (~1%, while sometimes even less than that if we account for things like rakeback) are not a good protection against variance. If we postulate this (which seems to be a valid assumption anyway), then we have only one avenue left through which most online casinos are able to profit and prosper. And this is same variance which leaves gamblers' balances empty with no way of retribution

Luck is on the side of the big bankrolls

[Barnabe]

What is the smallest edge on crypto casinos ? Have someone ever seen a casino with a 0.1% edge or something similar ?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Statistically speaking, a zero house edge casino would not be profitable. Over infinite time, the variance trends towards zero, meaning the casino would pay out exactly what they took in.

However, for this to be true in practice, you would need all customers to be playing perfectly, have perfect money management, and have a combined bank roll equal to that of the casino. Obviously, this is not the case. The majority of people are bad at money management, especially when it comes to gambling, and so the majority of their customers will be poor at managing their bankroll and their bets. Players frequently tilt, bet overly aggressive, think they are on a winning streak, bet bigger and bigger trying to regain losses, etc., all of which works in the house's favor. Their bankroll also isn't combined. The average person who walks in with $100 isn't going to say "I'll walk away when I hit $200". The majority of people would keep going and aim for higher profits. In reality, this means a swing of several hundred dollars in their favor which the casino can take in stride, whereas a swing of only $100 in the other direction is enough to bankrupt them.

Also, if you've ever been in Vegas, you'll notice that when you're playing, the waitresses will bring you quite a lot of "on the house" drinks.

Those drinks pay for themselves. Drunk gamblers are more likely to bet big, play suboptimally, and make mistakes.

[tyKiwanuka]

Martingale seems really a fascinating topic for a lot of gamblers But don't worry @deisik, I like your approach and thinking out of the box, although you know my opinion about something that might work to a certain extent in reality (with small gains, if you play it safe), but not in theory.

As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own.

Imagine all those players putting all their funds in one pot and going all-in a few times - and getting lucky. Then this "syndicate" would suddenly have the house edge over the casino.

-

In general, this is of course a zero sum game, which is maybe good for money laundering, but else then that ? Your theory of a "bankroll house edge" makes sense, as far as I see it, but only, if you make Martingale mandatory for all players and no syndicates allowed. But all in all this is so far from reality, that it's hard to wrap your head around it (at least for me ).

[freedomgo]

What is the smallest edge on crypto casinos ? Have someone ever seen a casino with a 0.1% edge or something similar ?

I don't see any casino with that kind of very low house edge, and actually it depends on the game.
So let's talk a particular game, for dice, usually the average house edge is just 1%, gamblers would already think it's a good percent and they have a good chance of winning but that 1% if a gambler plays regularly, he will lose in the long run, unfortunately, only few realizes that, that is why sometimes they think they are cheated when they lose.

[Barnabe]

What is the smallest edge on crypto casinos ? Have someone ever seen a casino with a 0.1% edge or something similar ?

I don't see any casino with that kind of very low house edge, and actually it depends on the game.
So let's talk a particular game, for dice, usually the average house edge is just 1%, gamblers would already think it's a good percent and they have a good chance of winning but that 1% if a gambler plays regularly, he will lose in the long run, unfortunately, only few realizes that, that is why sometimes they think they are cheated when they lose.

It was quite a long time ago, but I remember at some point casinos were doing sub 1% edges. Maybe it's not profitable in the long run so they all stopped...

And it's always easy to complain once you lose, gambling should be about fun and excitement if you are gambling more than you can afford you should always reconsider.

[deisik]

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself.

In principle a very interesting idea, but one must also be aware that this is then a "charity gambling" platform and not (in the long term) a viable company.
The House Edge does not exist - as we have often discussed here - just for fun but to keep the company behind the casino alive. The House Edge also covers the costs that the company incurs for the operation of the site:

• Server costs
• Staff costs (server maintenance, ...)
• Costs for advertising contracts (e.g. signature campaigns)

If it turns out that the house edge is not how casinos turn in most of their profits, I leave it to you to decide on how charitable this type of gambling would be

To put it in exaggerated terms, your proposal could also be applied to Apple and Microsoft: Both companies with an incredible amount of capital, but who still won't come up with the idea of offering their products for free

Your analogy is skewed on so many levels

It would fit (to a degree) if users would have to pay for using these "free" products. And lo, it suddenly emerges as a perfectly viable business model in plenty of areas such as a mobile telecommunications industry where a network operator gives you a cell phone virtually for free provided you use it according to a specified data plan

And while we are at it, you are mistaken even on purely technical grounds. I don't know about Apple, but Microsoft offers a lot of its products for free as they earn by providing support. Just recall the inkjet printers manufacturers who are selling printers below cost of production, and then earning by selling extremely overpriced ink cartridges 

[Sadlife]

Im not a fan on leverage gambling so it maybe best to make it optional as some players are only there to play for entertainment not to drown in debt with percentage accumulated resulted in house edge especially when the one's im playing are random with no guarantee result.

[Saisher]

The answer is really obvious because majority of the gambling casinos has house edge if a gambling casinos can manage to overcome losses and make a profit, then he can launch one making it the first no house edge casino and every gambler will play here because they have a huge chance of making a profit than those with a house edge.

[btc78]

Im not a fan on leverage gambling so it maybe best to make it optional as some players are only there to play for entertainment not to drown in debt with percentage accumulated resulted in house edge especially when the one's im playing are random with no guarantee result.

all of us do mate,we are not fan of leverage but we can't do anything about that if the gambling site we are using needs to put this.

The answer is really obvious because majority of the gambling casinos has house edge if a gambling casinos can manage to overcome losses and make a profit, then he can launch one making it the first no house edge casino and every gambler will play here because they have a huge chance of making a profit than those with a house edge.

what do you mean the gambling casino need to overcome losses?make name even one gambling site that bankrupt (those legit and not some stupid scammers that close and open their site0

Look how long those casino business here in crypto talk.they are gaining more and more as years passed by.

[deisik]

Just like Government gaining Income from tax payers,House edge is something like this,Gambling site needs direct profit and that is from house edge so they have assurance of having funds to spent in their Daily expenses because what if time comes that luck comes to all players?

How do you know that the profits casinos earn come from the house edge?

Or at least the majority of them? We don't know that for sure. Moreover, as my example with a coin tossing shows, if your bankroll is incomparable to that of the casino, you are going to lose even with a relatively small negative house edge as the size of the bankroll itself is an effective house edge on its own, unless you utilize something like a safe martingale setup. But in the latter case you will be able to continually earn small profits despite a positive house edge

[Lakai01]

First of all thank you very much for coming back to me, unfortunately it is not self-evident here in the Gambling section that a discussion is actually taking place

If it turns out that the house edge is not how casinos turn in most of their profits, I leave it to you to decide on how charitable this type of gambling would be

Yes, of course. Assuming that the House Edge is not the (main) source of income, one cannot speak of a "charity" action. But when I look at the countless online casinos, the question arises for me, what other sources of income are there besides the House Edge? Hardly any portal shows advertising, only a few offer the opportunity to invest directly in the bankroll - as Bustadice does, for example.

Your analogy is skewed on so many levels

I'm fully aware of that Hence the "to put in exaggerated terms".
This comparison stands and falls of course also with the assumption that the House Edge is the main source of income of the casino.
What do you think these sources of income are?

[buwaytress]

The House Edge also covers the costs that the company incurs for the operation of the site:

• Server costs
• Staff costs (server maintenance, ...)
• Costs for advertising contracts (e.g. signature campaigns)

Probably the most practical explanation for why house edge. This correlation is demonstrable by the higher house edge for physical casinos, which have a higher overhead costs (more staff, refreshments, bills, rent, maintenance, marketing). Digital casinos have server fees (instead of rent), but also have maintenance and security costs, but fewer staff, cheaper marketing, etc. And a corresponding lower house edge.

House edge also allows for fewer restrictions that attract micro gamblers and high rollers. A casino that doesn't want house edge would probably want to lower exposure to variance, so they restrict max bets and min bets. With many crypto casinos, you get 1 satoshi min bets with 1 BTC upwards max bets, allowing martingale strategies with up to 30+ losing streaks (but house edge gives them less exposure to variance).

[deisik]

Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor

It is ironic how people start to make references to probability theory without actually knowing how it is going to play out in real life. In real life, though, if you play long enough on square odds, you will either bust or bust your opponent first (all other things equal). So 50-50 here refers to the odds of busting if the bankrolls are the same at the outset. In other cases, the higher the discrepancy between the bankrolls of the players, the sooner the one with a smaller bankroll is going to bust (and still faster if the stakes can be raised at will)

Something quite different from balancing out, however

[serjent05]

Dont know if this line do really fits out " the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own" No matter how big it is, it cant really be considered nor treated as an house edge

But that's how things turn out to be

In fact, it is not very difficult to show how the bankroll size can be an effective house edge in real life. Imagine you are tossing a coin with your friend. When you lose you pay them a dollar, if you win they pay you as much. Pretty simple setup, isn't it? And it looks like your chances are equal. And they are, at least as long as you toss a coin a couple times or so. However, if you have only 10 dollars while your friend 100, their chances of busting you are 10 times higher than yours busting them. This is the "house" edge that a bigger bankroll provides

True indeed but if your friend quit halfway while bagging 20% of your money, then what left is 80%.  That is just for one player, what about if you play with 80 players more and these players do the same tactics.  Then you will find out that your bankroll no matter how huge it is will become depleted.

Another thing, Casino establishment is a business so the owner wants to ensure that they will take profit no matter what happens and they see house edge as their advantage.

[deisik]

If the idea not to put a house edge in the casino to attract more gamblers is viable, that would have been implemented a long time ago, if there are casinos that implemented that kind of system, I think they are not successful as I haven't heard a popular casinos with no house edge

It is next to impossible for several reasons

First, all casinos are more or less small fish, and they have to be very careful in managing their bankrolls. There are people who have more bitcoins (for example) than most online casinos would ever dream of. In these circumstances a no house edge business model may not be economically viable (though it remains to be seen). Second and most important, people are taking a small house edge (say, 1%) as something legitimate. In other words, it won't give any substantial advantage by reducing it further (apart from happy hours and similar ideas)

For gamblers, we certainly like to play in a casino where we think we have a decent chances of winning, but it's not gonna happen as casinos advantage is what makes their business profitable against majority of the gamblers

Again, we don't know how much of an online casino revenue flow is due to house edge and how much of it comes from variance (i.e. people being irrational) and sheer bankroll size. The point is that the house edge can be easily overcome by variance if you know how to take advantage of randomness. The bankroll size, on the other hand, is unbeatable. To repeat, it is a statistical certainty that cannot be meaningfully challenged

[ralle14]

It was quite a long time ago, but I remember at some point casinos were doing sub 1% edges. Maybe it's not profitable in the long run so they all stopped...

And it's always easy to complain once you lose, gambling should be about fun and excitement if you are gambling more than you can afford you should always reconsider.

I also recall there's a gambling site that had a very low house edge 0.2%-0.7% and it's only possible because they operated through moneypot no bankroll was required for them. Unfortunately their site didn't gained players and enough wager volume so they couldn't continue to operate on their own. Safedice had one of the lowest house edge in dice sites but the owner disappeared and their management suddenly crumbled.

[shoreno]

many casinos now have growned alot since the day they have started but they still have a house edge . some have a different house edge based on the games they have  but majority of these sites have other forms of promotions too and one of it was rain or rains .  i heard before that funds came from rains are from house edge  . you can also get your house edge back in the form of rakebacks and other gambling promotions just to be fair for other big bettors because rains was random too

[Yatsan]

many casinos now have growned alot since the day they have started but they still have a house edge . some have a different house edge based on the games they have  but majority of these sites have other forms of promotions too and one of it was rain or rains .  i heard before that funds came from rains are from house edge  . you can also get your house edge back in the form of rakebacks and other gambling promotions just to be fair for other big bettors because rains was random too

Agree! And casino owners are gambling too with their business so it's normal to have a house edge for their advantage. All of the Casino's have different ways to make a promotional campaign and honestly I think they are spending more on giving back to player than their house edge. For me it's not really required if you are big, but most of the casinos are still implementing it for more profit and promos for their website.

[SquallLeonhart]

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.

Why Microsoft is not stopping about catching pirated copy of windows even they are one of the world's biggest corporate and their founder is top richest of world for consistently more than a decade.

Bill Gates is ready to donate millions to billion dollars for philanthropy purposes but never think about forgiving a licence issue which costs ~$150.

Without the income stream, microsoft will be no more a giant. You may do lots of giveaways but you should never think about giving up your primary source of income. To be sustaining, you must collects fees and then you may donate or may not. If you start sacrificing your basic fee itself then you may end up bankrupted. Just the basic economic rule of a business model.

Houses may think about zero house edge in this possible ways:

• By having house specific coin/token. All gambling should be done on that coin/token alone.
• By introducing monthly subscription fee.
• Zero house edge only for some hours.

[abel1337]

many casinos now have growned alot since the day they have started but they still have a house edge . some have a different house edge based on the games they have  but majority of these sites have other forms of promotions too and one of it was rain or rains .  i heard before that funds came from rains are from house edge  . you can also get your house edge back in the form of rakebacks and other gambling promotions just to be fair for other big bettors because rains was random too

Agree! And casino owners are gambling too with their business so it's normal to have a house edge for their advantage. All of the Casino's have different ways to make a promotional campaign and honestly I think they are spending more on giving back to player than their house edge. For me it's not really required if you are big, but most of the casinos are still implementing it for more profit and promos for their website.

Right, I am also wondering that casino is spending more on their promotion than the extra profit they get from house edge, It is also possible that it is for long term sustainment for their gambling sites like for domain fees and other fees for the gambling site. As a gambler, I don't really make the house edge as a big deal because it knows it exists for the sustainment of the gambling site. A house edge is pretty normal for an online casino that's why we shouldn't complain about that.

[deisik]

It is only possible via having the house edge and thus inspite of this people try their luck and lose lot of money as well as they play just to make money from gambling

This is not the only way to make profits

When you bust, all your money becomes casino's. And the bigger the bankroll of a casino relative to your bankroll, the higher are your chances to bust even if the odds are equal, i.e. when there's no house edge as it is commonly understood. Put differently, a bigger bankroll already gives a casino advantage over you, and this is a house edge on its own, and as such it can generate profits in exactly the same way as a regular house edge

Statistically speaking, a zero house edge casino would not be profitable. Over infinite time, the variance trends towards zero, meaning the casino would pay out exactly what they took in

People often appeal to theories, even resort to posting some arcane stuff, without truly understanding the very basic ideas behind these theories, how they work in practice. But let's return to my example of tossing a coin. You have 10 dollars and your friend has 10 dollars too. You pay 1 dollar for each loss and receive 1 dollar when you score a win. And one of you will inevitably bust in the end, and it won't take long, probably in fewer than 100 tosses

This is what statistics actually says

[o_e_l_e_o]

This is what statistics actually says

This is what statistics says when you have a finite resource, which in your example is each person's bankroll. When you have infinite bankrolls, then statistics says that over infinite time the variance will be 0.

And one of you will inevitably bust in the end, and it won't take long, probably in fewer than 100 tosses

The probability of tossing heads 55 times or more in 100 tosses, therefore giving you a swing of at least 10 over the other person tossing 45 tails, is only 0.1841. Similarly, the probability of tossing tails 55 times or more will also be 0.1841. So the chance of someone going bust in 100 tosses is around 36.82%, if we ignore the variation in the order of the tosses. So that wouldn't quite be "probably".

If we are taking "probable" to mean a >50% chance of it happening, then you would need 180 tosses. There is a probability of 0.2512 to toss 95 heads or more in 180 tosses, meaning a a 50.24% chance for someone to go bust.

[Finestream]

For gamblers, we certainly like to play in a casino where we think we have a decent chances of winning, but it's not gonna happen as casinos advantage is what makes their business profitable against majority of the gamblers

Again, we don't know how much of an online casino revenue flow is due to house edge and how much of it comes from variance (i.e. people being irrational) and sheer bankroll size. The point is that the house edge can be easily overcome by variance if you know how to take advantage of randomness. The bankroll size, on the other hand, is unbeatable. To repeat, it is a statistical certainty that cannot be meaningfully challenged

A casino having a house edge does not just take all the bets a gambler would put even if they have a house edge.
House edge will remain as fix, something that they won't remove on the part of the casino, but in terms of bets, the house can always put a limit especially to those lucky high rollers, and that again gives them the advantage.

They are into profit, and they like to make sure that they will win and stay profitable, that's why high rollers usually choose a casino that has big limits so they can gamble within their range.

[deisik]

Martingale seems really a fascinating topic for a lot of gamblers But don't worry @deisik, I like your approach and thinking out of the box, although you know my opinion about something that might work to a certain extent in reality (with small gains, if you play it safe), but not in theory

You know what they say?

Right, there is nothing so practical as a good theory (the emphasis on good, obviously). And the theory says that on finite timeframes (dealer's choice), it is not something which "might work to a certain extent in reality" but rather something which would work most of the time given enough sample size (to make the theory fully applicable)
 

As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own.

Imagine all those players putting all their funds in one pot and going all-in a few times - and getting lucky. Then this "syndicate" would suddenly have the house edge over the casino

This would be sheer luck, indeed. However, you don't need luck for that at all. A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved. Ironically, it would turn to be a matter of extreme luck for the casino to stay afloat in that case

In general, this is of course a zero sum game, which is maybe good for money laundering, but else then that ? Your theory of a "bankroll house edge" makes sense, as far as I see it, but only, if you make Martingale mandatory for all players and no syndicates allowed. But all in all this is so far from reality

It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day

And I'm not sure what martingale has to do with that unless you actually mean the opposite of what you have written above. A thought-out martingale strategy takes away from the house edge, in whatever form it may exist. It is hard to beat a mighty bankroll, but if your goal is limited only to taking something from it, a small piece of the pie, the more the merrier

[swogerino]

In order for a casino to be successful and profitable it is a must to have the house edge implemented.In the Op theory that the larger bankroll makes you stay longer online and play longer is not true in all cases.Some player can be smart and win a lot in poker making this casino lose all its bankroll.Also in slot machines if you don’t have an house edge strange things can happen depending on the pay frequency and variance of the slot.

[tyKiwanuka]

It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day

How so ? If I play with 0.1% stake (or whatever) of my bankroll for each "bet", I can never go broke. And with no house edge, over a big enough sample size, my bankroll will be the same as to when I started playing.

And I'm not sure what martingale has to do with that unless you actually mean the opposite of what you have written above.

When you talk about "staying in the game longer", this is Martingale:

(...) but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.

If you disallow Martingale and everyone plays with a proper money management*, there are no winners here, it's a zero sum game. Doesn't matter if the casino has gazillion times the bankroll of all their players combined. 

*The casinos play with proper money management too, i.e. the bet limits they set for their customers.

[sujonali1819]

My opinion about the house edge:

I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge).

[o_e_l_e_o]

A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved.

How? There is no way to "surely" drain a casino's bankroll, unless that casino is offering flawed games that can be cheated, such as blackjack with only one or two decks and not clamping down on card counting. Even then, with the odds in the player's favor, it is not guaranteed by any means. If it were possible, then casinos would all have gone out of business by now. Whenever you play at a casino, there is always the risk that you lose.

It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day

A zero sum game is a game where the net gain and net losses by all participants is balanced - hence the sum of all gains and all losses is zero. Gambling is indeed a zero sum game, since the gains of the player are perfectly balanced by the losses of the casino, and vice versa. If my bankroll is $100 and I go bust, then I have lost $100, but as the casino has gained that $100, the sum is zero. It is a zero sum game.

[Captain Corporate]

 How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.

 There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.

[deisik]

First of all thank you very much for coming back to me, unfortunately it is not self-evident here in the Gambling section that a discussion is actually taking place

If it turns out that the house edge is not how casinos turn in most of their profits, I leave it to you to decide on how charitable this type of gambling would be

Yes, of course. Assuming that the House Edge is not the (main) source of income, one cannot speak of a "charity" action. But when I look at the countless online casinos, the question arises for me, what other sources of income are there besides the House Edge? Hardly any portal shows advertising, only a few offer the opportunity to invest directly in the bankroll - as Bustadice does, for example

Remember Steve Ballmer's famous developers?

So I have four words for you. It is variance, variance, variance, variance. When you go all-or-nothing path, the house edge as it is commonly understood will be of little help as luck (another term for variance) will be dominating the scene in this case. And now, all of a sudden, it is one bankroll against another. Put differently, if your bankroll is way bigger than the casino's (and there are no limits on how much you can bet), the house edge becomes irrelevant as the size of your bankroll will be your own "house" edge. Now reverse the situation and read this post to see how casinos are earning dough

Your analogy is skewed on so many levels

I'm fully aware of that Hence the "to put in exaggerated terms"

Then let's get it straight, it is not an analogy

With many crypto casinos, you get 1 satoshi min bets with 1 BTC upwards max bets, allowing martingale strategies with up to 30+ losing streaks (but house edge gives them less exposure to variance)

You're welcome, bro!

This is what I've been doing with doges, and you know what? People are still in deep denial, and refuse to accept the fact that with small house edges of 1% at the outside, variance beats the house edge hands down (read, you should be extremely unlucky to bust if you do everything right)

[DoublerHunter]

^ There should be a house edge because that gives the gambling owner generate revenue just for them to survive on this kind of business.
As we know the house edge is always in favor of the casino owner, so, why we gamble if it's still possible to win? Because luck anything could happen in a short term of gambling and most gamblers hoping for luck that probably they have while they are in gambling. Nevertheless, for me technically speaking, the house edge has been a built-in mathematical advantage on every game and maybe can make a profit.

[bearexin]

I would say just to protect the casino it is really required to have a guarantee. Not saying without house edge they can't make any profit, I remember there was one casino who tried 0% edge for a while but they didn't had a big bankroll so they couldn't cover the losses long enough to wait for a win, and they just bankrupted basically.

This doesn't mean it will be the same for all casinos, this doesn't mean it will always be bankruptcy for the casinos if they have no edge, but at the same time we are talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" and I would pick guaranteed income for my casino over a probable one any day of the week. Considering even with the current house edge system there is abundant amount of costs to run, they really need that guaranteed income for sure.

[xxjumperxx]

 How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.

 There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.

Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.

[xxjumperxx]

-snip-

that sounds greedy . gambling is a kind of business yes but many business does care and value thier costumers so why not gambling business can be that way ?  also business is a business , a business owner must agree that he can loose more than what he expects to earn  .  add in that his business was a literal gambling , so why not take risks .   house edge is not really required , i see a couple of gambling sites that have no house before  but right now , modern casinos already come up with an idea of putting a house edge

Of course they value their customers.
When you done have customers, you don't have any income. Its important to treat all the customers fair, with respect and make sure they are happy.
Of course running a casino or any business has its risks, from being cleaned out, from being hacked etc.
Why would a casino want to take a risk in giving up the house edge? For their customers?

Would you want to jeopardize your business which is running fine with a house edge just to make your clients happier?

Many Casinos try to give back with rewards and bonuses (but also to lure you in to play more)

Gambling is a business, just look at Vegas  

[MCobian]

Because I am a businessman, I will look at the house edge from a business perspective. Which in my opinion is very important house edge
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.

[peter0425]

 How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.

 There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.

Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.

that sounds greedy . gambling is a kind of business yes but many business does care and value thier costumers so why not gambling business can be that way ?  also business is a business , a business owner must agree that he can loose more than what he expects to earn  .  add in that his business was a literal gambling , so why not take risks .   house edge is not really required , i see a couple of gambling sites that have no house before  but right now , modern casinos already come up with an idea of putting a house edge

Because gambling is too far from other Business,In gambling there are people that must lose their money without getting product or anything in return while in other business we can at least take what we want to have before going home.

So in this sense yeah there are greediness and some cheating if needed(but of course i don't put words into them,only some occasions lol)

[Mauser]

Because I am a businessman, I will look at the house edge from a business perspective. Which in my opinion is very important house edge
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.

For an online casino, what other sources of revenues do they have if not an house edge? If they would only run games with payouts exactly in line with there probability of winnings, the casino wouldn't make any money in the long run. But they still have to pay their employees, servers, maintenance, security, and so on.
Without any edge, the casino would just lose money every month. Better to give your money to charity then I think.

An alternative would be to fill your website with Ads. But who wants to play on casino where you are getting constantly pop ups? I wouldn't enjoy that.

[deisik]

Dont know if this line do really fits out " the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own" No matter how big it is, it cant really be considered nor treated as an house edge

But that's how things turn out to be

In fact, it is not very difficult to show how the bankroll size can be an effective house edge in real life. Imagine you are tossing a coin with your friend. When you lose you pay them a dollar, if you win they pay you as much. Pretty simple setup, isn't it? And it looks like your chances are equal. And they are, at least as long as you toss a coin a couple times or so. However, if you have only 10 dollars while your friend 100, their chances of busting you are 10 times higher than yours busting them. This is the "house" edge that a bigger bankroll provides

True indeed but if your friend quit halfway while bagging 20% of your money, then what left is 80%.  That is just for one player, what about if you play with 80 players more and these players do the same tactics.  Then you will find out that your bankroll no matter how huge it is will become depleted

It is true even further

Your or my friend may quit halfway with 20% of our money, but that would work out only for a very limited number of players. If we take 80 players or even more, then it will be roughly half of them leaving with 20% of their money lost. But their loss is our win, no matter how you look at it. So, at the end of the day, given the irrationality of most players, those who don't leave halfway will end up losing all. Otherwise, it is "a zero-sum game" (read, 50-50)

Another thing, Casino establishment is a business so the owner wants to ensure that they will take profit no matter what happens and they see house edge as their advantage

The point is, I'm not sure that the house edge is any guarantee at all, at least as long as we take a real casino with real players. Variance and irrationality are these guarantees, hands down

[Saint-loup]

This is not entirely my idea, so, as they say, don't shoot the messenger

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own

I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel

For which games are you talking about please? How it could work for dice games, slots and crash games for example?

[robelneo]

Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.

Although your chances are not really that high if you are playing with a house edge, we tend to ignore it and proceed, because the house edge is industry standard and we cannot consider it as cheating investors, I'm very much ok with house edge, we still see and read people winning, and most of all enjoying.but as always only gamble what you can afford to lose, so you cannot blame that you have been cheated.

[Ryker1]

Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.

Although your chances are not really that high if you are playing with a house edge, we tend to ignore it and proceed, because the house edge is industry standard and we cannot consider it as cheating investors, I'm very much ok with house edge, we still see and read people winning, and most of all enjoying.but as always only gamble what you can afford to lose, so you cannot blame that you have been cheated.

Well, even what games you play that has the house edge it is the same way of low odds, which means that your chances of winning in the casino are less than the odds of your winning the casino's money. But that is right, people tend to ignore those outcomes of losses because they think that the house edge in online gambling has a provably fair system which is you can trust by verifying on it, --but, don't expect that gambling is a form of a business which is you can easily earn a profit. The gambling industry was existed until now because of the business model in place designed to ensure its profitability, which means it is built for making a profit.

[deisik]

Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.

Why Microsoft is not stopping about catching pirated copy of windows even they are one of the world's biggest corporate and their founder is top richest of world for consistently more than a decade

I don't really know

I don't know about how things have been for the last decade or so, but before that they were famous for very lax policies toward software piracy. As I can see, quite a few people in this thread come up with examples without checking or just caring about whether their examples have any bearing on real circumstances or events. Regardless, Microsoft or its policies against pirated copies of Windows have nothing to do with the topic raised here

Bill Gates is ready to donate millions to billion dollars for philanthropy purposes but never think about forgiving a licence issue which costs ~$150

We have already agreed that Microsoft was a poor analogy, up to a point of not being an analogy at all. But you are welcome to suggest a better one

[DarkDays]

I understand what you're saying, but you're basically arguing that they'll stand a better chance at turning a profit if they're betting against the player simply because they can outlast them.

This isn't the case really when you consider that people are playing with multipliers. They'd need to be tens of thousands or even millions of times larger than the max win amount possible from a bet allowed by the platform. Otherwise a large number of players would eventually turn the tides against the banker, even if they don't match their bankroll.

That said, I'd like to see a zero house edge casino that is instead funded by advertising revenue or a different business model. Not sure any currently exist right now.

[serjent05]

That said, I'd like to see a zero house edge casino that is instead funded by advertising revenue or a different business model. Not sure any currently exist right now.

This is indeed a good idea but considering the spam of ads, that might scare the players away.  I also wanted to see a zero house edge casino but without these advertising revenues .  Imagine playing a game when every 5 or 10 turns, ads pop up (I was talking about a mobile game), that is so irritating.

[deisik]

In order for a casino to be successful and profitable it is a must to have the house edge implemented.In the Op theory that the larger bankroll makes you stay longer online and play longer is not true in all cases.Some player can be smart and win a lot in poker making this casino lose all its bankroll

There's no house edge in poker

In poker rooms you play against other (allegedly) human players. In that case the casino just subtracts some percentage from the amount taken home by the winner. With that said, I agree that a smart player can take on a house edge provided by a bigger bankroll in exactly the same way as he can do on a regular house edge, and ultimately drain the casino's bankroll empty. It doesn't happen in real life for the sole reason most players are not reasonable at all (pardon the pun)

[dothebeats]

Survival of the fittest model, eh?

Relying simply on a huge bankroll to outlast the players isn't going to cut it. The house also need some profit in order to make it through and pay their employees' wages. If no house edge is imposed, it will be like charity on games wherein luck + house edge matters, e.g. dice. While they can 'last' longer than their players' burnt wallets, I can see no profits for them in order to motivate them to operate. Well, card games and other PVP games aren't affected by house edge but hey, most of the games on a casino are just you and yourself.

[freedomgo]

In order for a casino to be successful and profitable it is a must to have the house edge implemented.In the Op theory that the larger bankroll makes you stay longer online and play longer is not true in all cases.Some player can be smart and win a lot in poker making this casino lose all its bankroll

There's no house edge in poker

In poker rooms you play against other (allegedly) human players. In that case the casino just subtracts some percentage from the amount taken home by the winner. With that said, I agree that a smart player can take on a house edge provided by a bigger bankroll in exactly the same way as he can do on a regular house edge, and ultimately drain the casino's bankroll empty. It doesn't happen in real life for the sole reason most players are not reasonable at all (pardon the pun)

It's like a sports betting IMO, there is no house edge but you have to pay the commission if you win. Also, as a bookies, they also balance the bets so in the end they will still end up with a good commission, and that's the different with casinos as sports betting is specifically like a player vs player game, bookies are just the facilitators.

[verita1]

I did a search and found AGLC a charitable gaming model located in Canada.
Alberta manages licenses for charity activities related to the casino, raffle, bingo and pull ticket.
I see that Alberta is an organization that aims to reach big casinos and that they can create their charity events.

https://aglc.ca/gaming/charitablegaming/albertas-charitable-gaming-model

[deisik]

It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day

How so ? If I play with 0.1% stake (or whatever) of my bankroll for each "bet", I can never go broke. And with no house edge, over a big enough sample size, my bankroll will be the same as to when I started playing

It's actually quite the opposite

I'm not sure what you mean by "a big enough sample size" (and while we are at it, there are issues with understanding what you mean by "a zero sum game" here as well). If by "never" you mean never in your life, then I would agree with you. If, on the other hand, you mean never as never on an infinite timeframe, then it is just a matter of time until someone busts, you or your opponent. You can bet 1 dollar out of 10 dollars and bust in a hundred bets, or you can bet 1 dollar out of 1 million dollars and still bust at a certain point in the future, no matter how distant it could be

(...) but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.

If you disallow Martingale and everyone plays with a proper money management*, there are no winners here, it's a zero sum game. Doesn't matter if the casino has gazillion times the bankroll of all their players combined

It is not a "zero sum game" in the way you mean it ("no winners here"). To repeat, on an infinite timeframe with finite bankrolls there'll be enough variance to take out everyone but the winner (as the winner takes it all). And someone with a bigger bankroll (read, a casino) has a higher chance to be that winner at the end of it since once you bust, it's a gameover for you (and your money)

[spike420211]

It seems that everything rests solely on the value of consumption.

In the current world, with the current spread of the "religion" of consumption and private property, one cannot expect that someone will do something just like that.

However, if you imagine that the owners of the casino do not need profit and have unconditional income from the state.
Then in this case, they may well have no reason to collect House Edge because they will not need profit.

[deisik]

My opinion about the house edge:

I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge)

And the house edge of 1% seems to be a well established and widely accepted figure

I'm sure that wealthy casinos could make it even lower without incurring any losses, but it would likely raise unnecessary suspicions and concerns about the legitimacy of their operation. Really, we are all so used to the house edge that if we were to see a casino boasting a zero house edge, it would instantly trigger alarm bells among the gambling folks. And other casinos would be just as quick and happy to point a finger and then pull a trigger. So that's how the house edge came to be and will stay around

[Barnabe]

My opinion about the house edge:

I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge)

And the house edge of 1% seems to be a well established and widely accepted figure

I'm sure that wealthy casinos could make it even lower without incurring any losses, but it would likely raise unnecessary suspicions and concerns about the legitimacy of their operation. Really, we are all so used to the house edge that if we were to see a casino boasting a zero house edge, it would instantly trigger alarm bells among the gambling folks. And other casinos would be just as quick and happy to point a finger and then pull a trigger. So that's how the house edge came to be and will stay around

I believe there are now safe methods to check if a casino is honest about its odds. If they can do that and let people verify their numbers there should be no problem.

[deisik]

A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved.

How? There is no way to "surely" drain a casino's bankroll, unless that casino is offering flawed games that can be cheated, such as blackjack with only one or two decks and not clamping down on card counting

No, I don't mean anything to that tune

I mostly refer to dice as I'm best familiar with this game and how things work in practice with it. If we have one casino (more or less provably fair) and 1000 players, all of them using a very safe martingale setup, within a limited time span, say, a year, they will drain the casino bankroll dry, even if some of them are set to bust based on their probabilities. In other words, their combined profits will exceed their combined losses, and it can and most certainly will be enough to drive the casino out of business. The keyword here is variance, and in this case it will be playing against the house and its edge

It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day

A zero sum game is a game where the net gain and net losses by all participants is balanced - hence the sum of all gains and all losses is zero. Gambling is indeed a zero sum game, since the gains of the player are perfectly balanced by the losses of the casino, and vice versa. If my bankroll is $100 and I go bust, then I have lost $100, but as the casino has gained that $100, the sum is zero. It is a zero sum game

This is not how the term has been used here. It is used in the context of no one winning in the very long run on square odds

[Renampun]

of course, that Required IMO...
a house edge is a form of our support for a gambling site. without a house edge, the gambling site developer will have difficulty building their businesses and will only make them close their businesses in the future due to the lack of funds to support.

[suvo05]

Gambling websites used to earn from the house edge. So if there is no house edge then they will go for an alternative income source  like showing ads to the players that will not be that much comfortable for a player.
There are some casinos that used to have lots of giveaways, lotteries using a part of the house edge to make the platform more enjoyable.

[deisik]

but at the same time we are talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" and I would pick guaranteed income for my casino over a probable one any day of the week. Considering even with the current house edge system there is abundant amount of costs to run, they really need that guaranteed income for sure

In fact, we are not talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" revenue flows

If anything, these two revenue flows are adding up, not canceling each other out. And if we could leave a casino with the income procured by the house edge alone, I think most casinos would quickly starve to bankruptcy. This is just an assumption but a pretty solid one, though. If the casino operators were earning only the house edge, like 1% on the gamblers' balances, there wouldn't be much to run it on, anyway

[o_e_l_e_o]

If we have one casino (more or less provably fair) and 1000 players, all of them using a very safe martingale setup, within a limited time span, say, a year, they will drain the casino bankroll dry, even if some of them are set to bust based on their probabilities. In other words, their combined profits will exceed their combined losses, and it can and most certainly will be enough to drive the casino out of business.

It could, but it absolutely isn't certain. If the house edge is 1% then any Martingale setup, including a "very safe" one (or any setup or strategy for that matter), will average at returns of 99% for the player(s) and 1% profit for the casino. It doesn't matter if there is 1 player or 1000, if some of them bust or none of them do, how "safe" their strategy is. Their expected returns will be 99% of their amount bet.

They could get lucky and drain the casino dry, but they could equally all go bust and give the casino a nice profit.

This is not how the term has been used here.

Regardless of how you use the term, "zero sum game" has a very precise and clear meaning, in which there is no net gain or net loss between all participants. If you mean something else, then you should use a different term.

[robelneo]

of course, that Required IMO...
a house edge is a form of our support for a gambling site. without a house edge, the gambling site developer will have difficulty building their businesses and will only make them close their businesses in the future due to the lack of funds to support.

This what makes online casinos profitable and they can run for a long time because of the house edge I am supporting house edge, no business can sustain without profit, as long as they can process payout and people have no issues with their support people will play on these online casinos.

I don't think gamblers are complaining from the house edge, they are only complaining if they are not processing their payout I have seen a lot of complaints in the scam section some casinos are very slow in processing the payout when the amount is big.

[Debonaire217]

It is likely to favor the House in the long term so to explain, House edge is really required especially to sustain the casino's service as a business and gamblers should understand that but it doesn't mean that they will often lose.

Most of the gambling casinos programmed their advantage in a long term operation, and that means that gamblers will still have a good chance of winning even huge amount of bets.

The House Edge is a term used to describe the mathematical advantage that the gambling game, and therefore the commercial gambling venue, has over you as you play over time. This advantage results in an assured percentage return to the venue over time, and for you an assured percentage loss of what you bet.

- ABOUT THE HOUSE EDGE

[aioc]

Most of the gambling casinos programmed their advantage in a long term operation, and that means that gamblers will still have a good chance of winning even huge amount of bets.

The House Edge is a term used to describe the mathematical advantage that the gambling game, and therefore the commercial gambling venue, has over you as you play over time. This advantage results in an assured percentage return to the venue over time, and for you an assured percentage loss of what you bet.

- ABOUT THE HOUSE EDGE

Yes, I agree house edge is not a mean to scam or cheat us, it has certain parameters before it is implemented, if you are playing in gambling casinos you will notice that you will not feel or will have an idea that you have been cheated it's still fair, you just have to get used to it to fell that house edge is really required.

[deisik]

Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.

that sounds greedy

As the saying goes, every business serves two masters, its customer and its bottom line

Because gambling is too far from other Business,In gambling there are people that must lose their money without getting product or anything in return while in other business we can at least take what we want to have before going home

I don't think gambling is actually different

What players (consumers) are supposed to get in return is satisfaction from the game, i.e. essentially the same as with any other product sold out there. If you are not satisfied with what you've got, this is understandable and kind of expected. But you can be just as dissatisfied with virtually anything you pay your shekels for