⭐ Monk.gg ⭐ - 0% HOUSE EDGE GAMES | FREE DAILY FAUCET 💰

[monkgg]

Your 0% HE advertising, although technically true, is a way of beating around the bush. If to get that 0% I have to buy a shitcoin and for the swap they charge me 2%, I don't see what advantage that has over betting in a room that charges me 2% for betting in Bitcoin. I think that is another reason for the low traffic, that those of us who know the industry do not stop at the 0% headline and are not convinced by having to buy a shitcoin for which we are charged 2%.

Paying 2% one time at the swap one time is much different than paying a traditional house-edge on each bet.

You can easily see what I mean in these simulations below that display a user's balance over time with a 0% edge vs. a non-0% edge. In the non-0% case, the user's balance will always trend toward 0 for each **gambling session** they have. In the 0% edge case, the user should not lose or gain money no matter how long they play for - which will lead to longer and more enjoyable gambling sessions.



That being said, we view our token as software that enables us to facilitate this 0% edge in a trustless and transparent manner.

[Poker Player]

Paying 2% one time at the swap one time is much different than paying a traditional house-edge on each bet.

I don't see that it is so different because to the 2% of the one time swap you have to add the risk of holding a shitcoin like that, which usually tends to 0.

The second image is illogical. The more bets the more the balance should be equal to the initial one and not a profit. If you are going to claim that this is the result of the simulation, you could put another one that shows losses or make the sample larger (the larger the sample, the more the final balance should tend to the initial one).

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

Paying 2% one time at the swap one time is much different than paying a traditional house-edge on each bet.

I don't see that it is so different because to the 2% of the one time swap you have to add the risk of holding a shitcoin like that, which usually tends to 0.

The second image is illogical. The more bets the more the balance should be equal to the initial one and not a profit. If you are going to claim that this is the result of the simulation, you could put another one that shows losses or make the sample larger (the larger the sample, the more the final balance should tend to the initial one).

Poker Player, obviously paying a one time fee versus a fee every iteration is cheaper. Use your common sense. You are just stubborn and do not want to adapt to new practices, that will improve your gambling experience.

[monkgg]

We just added a free daily faucet! All you have to do is complete KYC Level-2 verification (takes less than a minute!)

Check it out now - https://monk.gg

[Poker Player]

Poker Player, obviously paying a one time fee versus a fee every iteration is cheaper. Use your common sense. You are just stubborn and do not want to adapt to new practices, that will improve your gambling experience.

Are you going to give me lessons, you fucking swindler? The questions I raise are legitimate. The 2% iteration on multiple bets would be worse than a one time fee (actually two) if we were talking about I can only bet with Bitcoin but if we are talking about a shitcoin or a shitcoin casino token like the many we have seen here, well you have to factor in the risk, quite likely, of the value decreasing.

And on the other hand the second graph is not true to reality and either the OP doesn't know it or is trying to mislead on purpose, I don't know which is worse.

By the way he has not responded to this and you had to come out. What is your relationship with this project?

[monkgg]

Poker Player, obviously paying a one time fee versus a fee every iteration is cheaper. Use your common sense. You are just stubborn and do not want to adapt to new practices, that will improve your gambling experience.

Are you going to give me lessons, you fucking swindler? The questions I raise are legitimate. The 2% iteration on multiple bets would be worse than a one time fee (actually two) if we were talking about I can only bet with Bitcoin but if we are talking about a shitcoin or a shitcoin casino token like the many we have seen here, well you have to factor in the risk, quite likely, of the value decreasing.

And on the other hand the second graph is not true to reality and either the OP doesn't know it or is trying to mislead on purpose, I don't know which is worse.

By the way he has not responded to this and you had to come out. What is your relationship with this project?

Not sure who unlimitedmoneygenerator is, he has no relation to this project.

The second graph was just to run a mock simulation to show how a house edge vs no house edge would affect a player's gambling session. You can see the house edge player approaching zero much more rapidly (should be self-explanatory as to why). If you're curious about the simulation parameters, I had a player start with 100 units, bet 1 unit per round on a random color, and have the game result be chosen randomly. You can see the code here if you'd like: https://pastebin.com/whdJNtG3

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

Poker Player, obviously paying a one time fee versus a fee every iteration is cheaper. Use your common sense. You are just stubborn and do not want to adapt to new practices, that will improve your gambling experience.

Are you going to give me lessons, you fucking swindler? The questions I raise are legitimate. The 2% iteration on multiple bets would be worse than a one time fee (actually two) if we were talking about I can only bet with Bitcoin but if we are talking about a shitcoin or a shitcoin casino token like the many we have seen here, well you have to factor in the risk, quite likely, of the value decreasing.

And on the other hand the second graph is not true to reality and either the OP doesn't know it or is trying to mislead on purpose, I don't know which is worse.

By the way he has not responded to this and you had to come out. What is your relationship with this project?

I have no relationship to the project, you are just a dumbass poker player, and terrible for the gambling community. Your actions do not push the gambling community forward, you push the gambling community back. You even flagged my trust repu, when my tool is built to help increase gamblers profits and safety.  'Swindler' you say.

Likewise, who is holding a shitcoin for long once they receive profits?

I am not trying to give you lessons, I just notice the only thing you do is shitpost threads, that attempt to make the gambling community safer and more lucrative. Only because you do not understand it, or do not have the capability to rationalize the significance of the project.

Just stay in your place and keep playing poker, you are not fit to ask intellectual questions. Or go play the Unlimited Money Generator and shut the hell up already.

Likewise, it is not the second graph that is messed up, it is the first.

Even in normal casinos, with a house edge, every bet.

A users, funds are not always decreasing, there are moments when a gambler will win. The first graph dictates, the gambler is losing over and over again, without a single win. This is not accurate, as even on a bad day in casinos a gambler will win a couple of times.

[monkgg]

A users, funds are not always decreasing, there are moments when a gambler will win. The first graph dictates, the gambler is losing over and over again, without a single win. This is not accurate, as even on a bad day in casinos a gambler will win a couple of times.

There are losses but it's hard to tell based on the previous graph's scale. Here's a zoomed in version:

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

A users, funds are not always decreasing, there are moments when a gambler will win. The first graph dictates, the gambler is losing over and over again, without a single win. This is not accurate, as even on a bad day in casinos a gambler will win a couple of times.

There are losses but it's hard to tell based on the previous graph's scale. Here's a zoomed in version:

Yes this graph is accurate monk, for the usual experience gamblers have playing in a casino.

[Poker Player]

The second graph was just to run a mock simulation to show how a house edge vs no house edge would affect a player's gambling session. You can see the house edge player approaching zero much more rapidly (should be self-explanatory as to why). If you're curious about the simulation parameters, I had a player start with 100 units, bet 1 unit per round on a random color, and have the game result be chosen randomly. You can see the code here if you'd like: https://pastebin.com/whdJNtG3

Well, you seem to be a reasonable person, unlike the other retard, but here I doubt if you are missing the point on purpose or what. The problem with the second graph is not that the one who plays a game with HE loses money. The problem is that the one who plays a game with 0 HE has profits. If the time scale is the same as the other line that graph should be equal to the initial balance, 100, at approximately the same time that the one who plays a game with HE loses his money and is left at 0.

In a game with 0 HE the long term tendency should be to stay with the initial balance, and not to have profits, as the blue line shows.

[monkgg]

The second graph was just to run a mock simulation to show how a house edge vs no house edge would affect a player's gambling session. You can see the house edge player approaching zero much more rapidly (should be self-explanatory as to why). If you're curious about the simulation parameters, I had a player start with 100 units, bet 1 unit per round on a random color, and have the game result be chosen randomly. You can see the code here if you'd like: https://pastebin.com/whdJNtG3

Well, you seem to be a reasonable person, unlike the other retard, but here I doubt if you are missing the point on purpose or what. The problem with the second graph is not that the one who plays a game with HE loses money. The problem is that the one who plays a game with 0 HE has profits. If the time scale is the same as the other line that graph should be equal to the initial balance, 100, at approximately the same time that the one who plays a game with HE loses his money and is left at 0.

In a game with 0 HE the long term tendency should be to stay with the initial balance, and not to have profits, as the blue line shows.

I know, my recent reply doesn't disagree with you

No house edge session should theoretically stay the same (1.00x). House edge session should theoretically go to 0. Simple

[Synchronice]

Paying 2% one time at the swap one time is much different than paying a traditional house-edge on each bet.

You can easily see what I mean in these simulations below that display a user's balance over time with a 0% edge vs. a non-0% edge. In the non-0% case, the user's balance will always trend toward 0 for each **gambling session** they have. In the 0% edge case, the user should not lose or gain money no matter how long they play for - which will lead to longer and more enjoyable gambling sessions.

That being said, we view our token as software that enables us to facilitate this 0% edge in a trustless and transparent manner.

0% house edge is risky, isn't it? But since this casino operates since 2023, how would you rate your business's success with 0% house edge? Is it profitable?
0% house edge technically means that casino plays with its luck. Yes, as you said, over time user shouldn't win and shouldn't gain and you make money by that 2% convert fee but what if someone comes and luckily wins lots of money? Even with high house edges, there are moments when player luckily wins a lot but house edge compensates that by giving casino an advantage over player that mathematically guarantees them profit. Even if you tell me that 0% house edge mathematically guarantees casino that it won't lose money but won't gain too, I think that 2% convert fee is not enough to cover server and team's expanses.

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

The second graph was just to run a mock simulation to show how a house edge vs no house edge would affect a player's gambling session. You can see the house edge player approaching zero much more rapidly (should be self-explanatory as to why). If you're curious about the simulation parameters, I had a player start with 100 units, bet 1 unit per round on a random color, and have the game result be chosen randomly. You can see the code here if you'd like: https://pastebin.com/whdJNtG3

Well, you seem to be a reasonable person, unlike the other retard, but here I doubt if you are missing the point on purpose or what. The problem with the second graph is not that the one who plays a game with HE loses money. The problem is that the one who plays a game with 0 HE has profits. If the time scale is the same as the other line that graph should be equal to the initial balance, 100, at approximately the same time that the one who plays a game with HE loses his money and is left at 0.

In a game with 0 HE the long term tendency should be to stay with the initial balance, and not to have profits, as the blue line shows.

Yes i am not reasonable and will not be tolerating your stupidity, poker player.

In a game with 0 HE the long term tendency should be to stay with the initial balance, and not to have profits, as the blue line shows.

That's not correct.

In a game with 0 house edge, with other players, it is much easier to profit.

This is because a large percentage of your funds are not being siphoned off each bet.

I am extensively, getting on you Poker Player, because I have noticed your presence in the community, is... harmful to say the least.

You flag scams as trusted, and you flag trusted sources as scams.

Your opinion is irrelevant

You are not fit to engage in intellectual conversations until you handle whatever vices you have.

[Poker Player]

That's not correct.

In a game with 0 house edge, with other players, it is much easier to profit.

Are you going to give me lessons on gambling games vs. other players?

FYI in games of skill vs other players there is no such thing as House Edge.

0% house edge is risky, isn't it?

Ehhh...no.

What is the risk of 0% HE? Do you understand the concept? The only risk is the variance, but in the long run the risk tends to 0.

(I am hopeful that you understand this but I am sure the unlimited scammer will have no fucking idea what I am talking about and will respond with a straw man fallacy, as usual).

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

That's not correct.

In a game with 0 house edge, with other players, it is much easier to profit.

Are you going to give me lessons on gambling games vs. other players?

FYI in games of skill vs other players there is no such thing as House Edge.

0% house edge is risky, isn't it?

Ehhh...no.

What is the risk of 0% HE? Do you understand the concept? The only risk is the variance, but in the long run the risk tends to 0.

(I am hopeful that you understand this but I am sure the unlimited scammer will have no fucking idea what I am talking about and will respond with a straw man fallacy, as usual).

You don't operate a casino, so the chances of you being aware of all the mechanics are slim to none. What you do not realize, is mostly, all gambling games, are player vs player in the backend. Some corps, just do need reveal this information.

FYI in games of skill vs other players there is no such thing as House Edge.

Wrong, not true. Entirely Wrong

You do not operate a casino, why speak about things you do not know?

Even cards on stake, is player vs player.

If you win too much, you will start losing, your money will go to other players.

Likewise, I own a game. Entirely Player vs Player. No House Edge. But the edge is still there.

Right now I can go tell hundreds of players how to play.

How to beat the system..

What would you call this? If I am telling all my associates how to play the game in hopes of beating other players? (hint: It's a house edge)

In blackjack... If I was the dealer, and I told you all the cards in my hand.... Does that not give you an edge over other players ?

It works both ways... You are just not aware of all the mechanics surrounding this industry. And that is not your fault.

It is the casinos fault, because their aim is to get more players by luring you in with unrealistic rewards.  



As we can see Poker Player has not had great judgement in the past.

He has flagged, frauds, as legitimate at times. Who knows, how many users were affected by his/her faulty trust ratings.

His/Her word cannot be trusted.

[seoincorporation]

0% house edge is risky, isn't it?

Ehhh...no.

What is the risk of 0% HE? Do you understand the concept? The only risk is the variance, but in the long run the risk tends to 0.

Risky for who? For the user or for the house?

The risk of 0 house edge for the site is the fact that they will not make a profit in the long run, is like trying to make money by flipping a coin, do a simulation with 10 million flips and you will see how it ends 50/50 or close to that number. Even if the event is random they follow a behavior.

But as Poker Player say, the risk is the variance, make 100 bets, with 50% chance of winning, if most of them lose then double the bet, and that way you can win in the long run against the house.

[Poker Player]

But as Poker Player say, the risk is the variance, make 100 bets, with 50% chance of winning, if most of them lose then double the bet, and that way you can win in the long run against the house.

Here you are describing the Martingale and it sounds like I have seen you in some thread also talking about this. It is basically a bad method because by doubling the bet you increase the risk exponentially to win only the initial bet on net.

[Poker Player]

You don't operate a casino, so the chances of you being aware of all the mechanics are slim to none.

What I don't operate is a scam, which is what you do.

What you do not realize, is mostly, all gambling games, are player vs player in the backend. Some corps, just do need reveal this information.

How can you be so retarded?

You do not operate a casino, why speak about things you do not know?

What I don't do is operate a scam, unlike you.

Even cards on stake, is player vs player.

If you win too much, you will start losing, your money will go to other players.

I've told you before, retard, in PvP games there is a rake or a commission charged by the house. There can't be a HE because you don't play against the house, retard.

Likewise, I own a game. Entirely Player vs Player. No House Edge. But the edge is still there.

Well, with this I'm not going to answer you anymore because the level of retardation you have is god mode. You've been saying the whole conversation that in PvP games there is a HE, me telling you there isn't, and now you admit there is no House Edge?

Dumbass.

[Synchronice]

Ehhh...no.

What is the risk of 0% HE? Do you understand the concept? The only risk is the variance, but in the long run the risk tends to 0.

(I am hopeful that you understand this but I am sure the unlimited scammer will have no fucking idea what I am talking about and will respond with a straw man fallacy, as usual).

In the end, yes, 0% house edge means that no one wins but when I say risky, I mostly mean that casino has many other expenses while player has none. Casino has to maintain and improve the product, casino has to pay salaries, marketing, bonuses and so on. What is player's duty? To win, just to profit, but casino on the other hand, has to spend significant portion of its profit on many things. That's why I think that 0 house edge is a risky thing for casino but I can be wrong.
If I were a casino owner, I probably wouldn't offer anything lower than 1% or would probably offer something like progressive house edge, just like moneypot.com does.

[unlimitedmoneygenerator]

You don't operate a casino, so the chances of you being aware of all the mechanics are slim to none.

What I don't operate is a scam, which is what you do.

What you do not realize, is mostly, all gambling games, are player vs player in the backend. Some corps, just do need reveal this information.

How can you be so retarded?

You do not operate a casino, why speak about things you do not know?

What I don't do is operate a scam, unlike you.

Even cards on stake, is player vs player.

If you win too much, you will start losing, your money will go to other players.

I've told you before, retard, in PvP games there is a rake or a commission charged by the house. There can't be a HE because you don't play against the house, retard.

Likewise, I own a game. Entirely Player vs Player. No House Edge. But the edge is still there.

Well, with this I'm not going to answer you anymore because the level of retardation you have is god mode. You've been saying the whole conversation that in PvP games there is a HE, me telling you there isn't, and now you admit there is no House Edge?

Dumbass.

Poker Player, lets just say.

Even if I was a fraud.

You would still play my game moron.

Are you not aware of the contributions I have made to the gambling community.

What you don't understand, is my technology, has changed and upgraded, the gambling technique.

Introducing new mechanics, you can not yet conceptualize.

Once you are playing, my game, which you eventually will, inevitably.

You will understand, Poker Player.

For now like I said.

Keep playing poker.

Likewise, it took you a couple of hours to forumlate, a response.

Clearly, you worked hard on this response, just for it to contain, again, your egregious behavior.

You cannot even articulate yourself, without spewing negative energy.