G A M B L E R S ❗❗ What are your thoughts on this?

[DaveF]

I am going to have to go with the option of why not both?

There are times I want to sit and watch the spinning wheels of a slot while not thinking.
There are other times I want to play some video poker, since although random, there are correct plays that you have to know.
And at other times I do like to go 'head to head' with other players.

-Dave

[traderethereum]

I am going to have to go with the option of why not both?

There are times I want to sit and watch the spinning wheels of a slot while not thinking.
There are other times I want to play some video poker, since although random, there are correct plays that you have to know.
And at other times I do like to go 'head to head' with other players.

-Dave

Playing with both casinos will be okay, as long as you can handle two tabs to check from one casino to the others and that is rare for gamblers to play on both casinos simultaneously.
It is hard to focus on both things at the same time and if you can do that, you have good control over yourself and hopefully, you can win one game or even win both games.
The greediness will always be behind us, especially if we win on one game and that can attract us to play on the other game to win for more.
That is what we need to be careful of, no matter how many gambling games we play later.

[Rruchi man]

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

[DoublerHunter]

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

^ It should be a P2P game, this game is most likely player-to-player which there is no need to verify a provably fair game. But for me, there is no difference if you will gamble on the against the house edge. If you don't have skills on gambling that are most likely on the P2P games, you can gamble against on the house which is very easy like dice, spinning wheels, and others that are purely based on luck games. However, we have different thought and preferences on which we choose or which we are comfortable in gambling with.

[dustboy]

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

I did feel the same when I was actively playing in some poker sites. I felt the game is fair more than provably fair game, but in fact it is not true since there is no provably fair system on the poker sites that I used to play. There were also many poker sites cheat their players by pretending to be players to play against real players while they knows all the cards own by all players so it gives them bigger winning chance.

The point is, not all games where you play against other player is fair especially if you play in online casino unless the casino is implementing a provably fair system where every single round of the games can be verified. 

[Oasisman]

~snip~

~snip~

^ It should be a P2P game, this game is most likely player-to-player which there is no need to verify a provably fair game.

There were instances that even the PVP gambling game could be look into for possible fraud and tag a "not-fair" gambling website. If you read what @Hydrogen wrote, you'll understand the possible fraud that even in PVP can happen.
The online casino owner could mess up with the game algorithm to let their own player get the best cards to win the game.

There being only 1 winner in the B scenario is a deterrent against selecting that option. Having been in crypto for years, I remember there being a player versus player (pvp) trivia website where players could compete for crypto winnings. Some suspect the owner of the trivia website participated in games. There was one player who knew the answer to every question who won a lot more than they probably should. Those types of potential scams, which have been around for many years, raise suspicion with the "1 winner per game" format.

This is a very possible scenario.

However, I as well prefer the option B. I'd always love to compete with other player's luck and skills.

[KTChampions]

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

How can you be sure of the fairness of the game if neural networks beat people in all of the existing games now? Neither chess players nor GO players can be sure that their opponent is not using special software to cheat. And if we are talking about games where only luck decides everything, then what is the difference between playing against a person and against a casino in this case?

[Lanatsa]

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

Very much prefer on dealing or playing against real people rather than on focusing myself into beating the house.It might be time consuming and not really that instantaneous kind of game but
I do have sufficient time to deal with.

Playing with dice and other luck based aren't really that bad either because this is just personal preference because some doesn't really like to get involved or spending too much time.

You can choose on what games you do like because its your money then its your decision on what you would be dealing with.

[tabas]

It's better to see that you're competing against the house but there is no way you can beat them. If you're beating others then you'll think about that when you win, there's someone that losses his money. If you're good with that then it's going to be your option.
I'll choose A since most houses have big bankrolls.

[harizen]

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

How can you be sure of the fairness of the game if neural networks beat people in all of the existing games now? Neither chess players nor GO players can be sure that their opponent is not using special software to cheat. And if we are talking about games where only luck decides everything, then what is the difference between playing against a person and against a casino in this case?

That's my always and usual concern about Player vs Player mode, the fairness of the game. We don't have any assurance that we are competing against a real human and not a bot. Even if let's say they are humans, there's a possibility that 1-2 players in that room do have a 3rd party program to directly help the player or guide them to the next move.

For new sites or doesn't establish yet a good reputation, I might bit hesitant to test their PvP mode. Will only do it on a site that has somehow already been in the industry for a long and already establish a large community and user-based.

[KTChampions]

How can you be sure of the fairness of the game if neural networks beat people in all of the existing games now? Neither chess players nor GO players can be sure that their opponent is not using special software to cheat. And if we are talking about games where only luck decides everything, then what is the difference between playing against a person and against a casino in this case?

That's my always and usual concern about Player vs Player mode, the fairness of the game. We don't have any assurance that we are competing against a real human and not a bot. Even if let's say they are humans, there's a possibility that 1-2 players in that room do have a 3rd party program to directly help the player or guide them to the next move.

For new sites or doesn't establish yet a good reputation, I might bit hesitant to test their PvP mode. Will only do it on a site that has somehow already been in the industry for a long and already establish a large community and user-based.

In fact, I do not see a solution to this problem (progress does not stand still and bots are getting better) and the long history of the site and its reputation in no way guarantees that players in PvP mode will not use bots or special software. It seems to me that the only way out now is to play live, which is probably why offline casinos will always be in demand despite the rapid development of the virtual world.

[RealMalatesta]

In fact, I do not see a solution to this problem (progress does not stand still and bots are getting better) and the long history of the site and its reputation in no way guarantees that players in PvP mode will not use bots or special software. It seems to me that the only way out now is to play live, which is probably why offline casinos will always be in demand despite the rapid development of the virtual world.

The problem of bots can be solved in certain games by implementing an anti-cheat mechanism that detects user behavior and bans them. I tell you an example, I used to play online games PubG and they have such a mechanism where they detect bots and cheaters and ban them instantly. So, if every game can implement that kind of mechanism, the problem of bots will be long gone.

Option-B is more satisfactory and less addictive because you will be bored after losing 10 times against a player but if you lose against the gambling house, you will be tilted.

[AicecreaME]

B is much fair rather than A in my opinion. Playing with other players means that you're up against something you know that is much weaker than the house, even if it is a pro player, unless that player is with the casino, then most likely you'll lose your money no matter how many tries you'll make. Playing up against a house is like fighting a boss in a game while you're just a level 1 character, that's why you don't want to compete with the house.

[adzino]

Those are two different kind of games provided. I would like to play on both "Casino A" and "Casino B" depending on my mood. Playing against the house (Casino A) means you will be getting faster results and most of the games will depend completely on luck. Isn't this what gambling is all about? Being lucky? On other hand, playing against real people (Casino B) would be more fun, but a little slower. It might require a little skill, but the result will also depend mainly on luck. So if you want to play quick games, go for casino A. If you want to be a bit competitive, then casino B would be your choice.

[semobo]

B is much fair rather than A in my opinion. Playing with other players means that you're up against something you know that is much weaker than the house, even if it is a pro player, unless that player is with the casino, then most likely you'll lose your money no matter how many tries you'll make. Playing up against a house is like fighting a boss in a game while you're just a level 1 character, that's why you don't want to compete with the house.

But the rewards also differ when we bet against house and players where luck plays some role in the game.

In my opinion, also B looks great because being completely blind is much worse than having difficulty in vision meanwhile we also need to remember that we are not going to win the game just because we are pro players since luck still plays a role with skill-based games.

[Smartprofit]

Assume you have $100 and must choose between the two casino versions shown below to turn a proft. Which will you choose?

1. Casino A:
Players in this casino compete against the platform (house) in games such as BlackJack, Rollet, Slots, etc... .
In this type of casino, players must rely on luck and other factors to make a profit.

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.
There is only one winner in each game (Ludo: first place, Poker/Rummy: last man standing).

If you don't want to express your thoughts, simply answer with A or B.

P.S: Here is an example of Casino B, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5352967.0.

Of course, I will choose Casino B....

What is the reason for my choice? 

In luck based gambling, long-term winning is not possible.  In such casinos on large timeframes, the casino itself always wins. 

Poker and similar games are another matter.  In such games of chance, players play against each other.  This is a zero sum game.  In this case, the payoff depends on two factors - your qualifications and the qualifications of your opponents. 

The second factor is very important.  Improving qualifications is not easy.  Choosing the right poker table is much easier. 

A table where inexperienced beginners play.

[TheGreatPython]

1. Casino A:
Players in this casino compete against the platform (house) in games such as BlackJack, Rollet, Slots, etc... .
In this type of casino, players must rely on luck and other factors to make a profit.

2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.
There is only one winner in each game (Ludo: first place, Poker/Rummy: last man standing).

I would go with type A casinos and I know it's not a common opinion but the reasoning behind choosing a luck-based casino where we compete against house edge is the lower edge. I have seen that in most platforms and games where a dealer is involved or players play among themselves, the platform charges hefty fees for that and that's much higher than the usual house edge.

If the house edge & platform commission are the same, then no doubt I would play multiplayer games because it's much more fun and engaging while also a good chance to show off the skills and make some money.

[KTChampions]

In fact, I do not see a solution to this problem (progress does not stand still and bots are getting better) and the long history of the site and its reputation in no way guarantees that players in PvP mode will not use bots or special software. It seems to me that the only way out now is to play live, which is probably why offline casinos will always be in demand despite the rapid development of the virtual world.

The problem of bots can be solved in certain games by implementing an anti-cheat mechanism that detects user behavior and bans them. I tell you an example, I used to play online games PubG and they have such a mechanism where they detect bots and cheaters and ban them instantly. So, if every game can implement that kind of mechanism, the problem of bots will be long gone.

Option-B is more satisfactory and less addictive because you will be bored after losing 10 times against a player but if you lose against the gambling house, you will be tilted.

I think that given the improvement of bots, sooner or later no one will be able to distinguish them from real people. I heard that YouTube 5 years ago was "deceived" by bots and began to perceive their patterns as human and began to consider real people as bots 
By the way, I think that after 10 losses to a person I will not be bored, I think I will be very angry and will be on tilt.

[redsun114]

I am going to have to go with the option of why not both?

There are times I want to sit and watch the spinning wheels of a slot while not thinking.
There are other times I want to play some video poker, since although random, there are correct plays that you have to know.
And at other times I do like to go 'head to head' with other players.

Haha yeah, a good answer but I think OP is concerned about "making money and profits" from the casino and I guess either option can't guarantee profits but playing skill games is more suitable.

I'll go with option B, because in playing with people, i have a certain level of assurance in my heart that the game is a fair game where the luckiest and most skillful amongst the contestants wins. Also knowing that an individual like me who maybe needs the earnings from the gamble more than i do has won it, rather than the house that has won alot of people's money will console me.

Actually, skill games are least fair because you might be playing against a computer script or simply an opponent who is far superior than you. In contrast, luck games are much more fair because they work on a provably fair system and you can verify your bets.

To me, the ideology of making money with gambling itself has a big hole in it.

[AhmadM]

Assume you have $100 and must choose between the two casino versions shown below to turn a proft. Which will you choose?

If I indeed have to choose one of them, I would prefer to pick the first casino. Reason? I think it is due to the variety of its game options, on the first casino they provide lots kind of games I could play so it wouldn't easily get bored on my gambling session. As for the second casino, besides it lacking the variety of its games, it's also quite bothersome to found a good reliable casino these days in order to play that kind of game (PvP) since there's not many casinos provide it.