Wagering contest question.

[Beparanf]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

That's because they know that if gamblers bet on sports they would have more chances of winning and this games doesn't give the casino enough Profit. It's easy for gamblers to lose a huge amount of money when playing casino games, sports betting on the other hand is kinda slow, after placing a bet it's possible to wait for several hours before knowing the outcome of the game. Casinos are after making quick income

I doubt gambler will have high chance of getting profit when playing sports betting but you’re right that they do choose slot games for the reason that players lose more on this game due to volatility and pure random of this game compared to sports betting that player can minimize their risk through proper sports betting analysis.

Slot games is the worst game to choose for a wagering contest if you want to accumulate wager for the sake of tournament. So if there’s a choice of game, house games like Plinko is the best due to the option with high winning chance and have a turbo mode.

[Hispo]

... Any reason why that’s the case?

Yes, it is a way for the house to make money while at the same time rewarding those who wagered the most to get to the top 10 or top 20 by wager. It depends on the rules of the contest and the way prizes are distributed among winners.
You need to remember casinos and exchanges highly depend on a high enough volume, to the edge they have programmed on their games can start to work and they ultimately pocket money from that volume, that is the reason for those races or contests to exist, and unlike sport betting, casino games are resolved instantly, so it is more appropriate for people who do not wish to have any constraint when comes to gambling and accumulate wager at the own pace.
Those contests/races are not for everybody, one needs to be aware those are mostly targetted towards individuals with much money, and can afford to lose tens of thousands or even morey for the sake of claiming the biggest prize, small gamblers and middle class gamblers should avoid those races if they feel they are driven by money and not for entertainment.

[Odohu]

If they allow sports betting people can hedge their bets on a different cassino to always win and game the contest.

With casino games you need to be luck and play for real on their games, and this is probably more profitable for the casino so they see the idea as good for business. Getting people used and hooked to your games is necessary to make more money.

I'm wondering how feasible this will be because not all casinos have contest the same time. If you hedge your bet, you will lose miserably because you will be spending more money across the various casinos and when you add up your wins, it may be cancelled out by the losses. Even if you decide to play sports events that have only two options such as total goal even or odd, there is a way they designed it such that if you bet both ways, you lose.

[swogerino]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

That is because slots are the most played game for a casino. People love spending time on playing games with an instant result much different than other games, even poker for me would be a great way to run those contests like making it with rounds, like you start with a sit n go and you have some scheduled tournaments with players knocking each out other until some persons reach the top. Again this is not very much profit for the casino operator running such contests and that is why most such contests run on slots, they provide a whole lot more profit for the casino operator compared to running such contests in other games, plus in the slots even if someone gets lucky winning a lot the majority will lose a lot so in this case there is guaranteed profit for the casino operator.

[summonerrk]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

And my answer is that if a bettor finds the same competitions in different bookmakers, then he can constantly bet on different results in different bookmakers, and in the end one of his results will turn out to be very productive.
Therefore, this can be considered not as his skill, but as a scam, which ultimately will simply be unprofitable for different bookmakers.

And if casinos organize competitions specifically in slots, then they see that none of the gamblers can cheat.

[BitGoba]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

It’s because casino games like slots have a built-in house edge, so the casino always makes money in the long run, even during contests. With sports betting, outcomes are less predictable and skilled bettors could actually win long term, which is riskier for the house. Also, slots let you place tons of bets quickly, which fits better with “highest wager” contests.

[Doan9269]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

It’s because casino games like slots have a built-in house edge, so the casino always makes money in the long run, even during contests. With sports betting, outcomes are less predictable and skilled bettors could actually win long term, which is riskier for the house. Also, slots let you place tons of bets quickly, which fits better with “highest wager” contests.

Since i have not been into a casino business i cant be precise about their main reason behind this, but as we already, house edge is more common with the slots games and other related games of its kind, while in terms of sport bets, we may have a long time experience playing it and still have almost the same proportion of winning and losing at the long run, if we look at the two in consideration, there is no one having more edge than the other, either in playing slot or sport bets, they are all known for their kind and requirements to play them.

[Alex077]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

Honestly , casinos arent here to be your sugar daddy, they rule ""slot multiplier"" competitions and freeroll poker tournaments to boost turnover and sweep, garner attention and hold players spinning under a built in house edge so most players suffer a loss in general. The slot competitions arent just, they are cunning marketing playing dopamine circle and UX. Freeroll poker may seem free but it functions as a funnel, operators built in , pull sweep from converting players later on and profit from your future action. Rewards arent charity, they are ads with payback.

Recently, I've played daily 24‑hour BTC prize‑race contests on a reputable casino, they run such contests not only for slots but also for sportsbook, which seems quite good to me.

[DanWalker]

Since i have not been into a casino business i cant be precise about their main reason behind this, but as we already, house edge is more common with the slots games and other related games of its kind, while in terms of sport bets, we may have a long time experience playing it and still have almost the same proportion of winning and losing at the long run, if we look at the two in consideration, there is no one having more edge than the other, either in playing slot or sport bets, they are all known for their kind and requirements to play them.

You know, most slot games prop up a fixed house edge something like 3%. Stake.com is offering near around 96.5% RTP on most slot games, even some slots like Mega Joker can go as high as 99% . So, slots in general provide a lower long‑term loss rate than skill based sports gambling, spesh if you are doing parlay or hunt tight margin. So I don't think house edge is the main fact, the main fact is that some sports games are too much predictable and time consuming.

Recently, I've played daily 24‑hour BTC prize‑race contests on a reputable casino, they run such contests not only for slots but also for sportsbook, which seems quite good to me.

Hi Alex, Im sure you are talking about Stake.com. the 24‑hour BTC prize races via Stake.com which indeed offer $100K daily across both slots & sportsbook. If you are heavy bettors, then such volume contests suit for you.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I feel they don't need to include physical games.. I'm not able to figure out the main reason for now, but the quickest one in my mind is that those games can turn out to be rigged for a contest of say -- $100k

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

It's simple.. casino games takes only few seconds to click the tabs and produce the synthetic results that determines who the winners will be. Sports games need to run for at least 90 minutes in football, 2 hrs in basketball and the rest to determine who the winner is. How much of those can you bet with in the space of 8 hours to the stoppage time for an entry? Way less than what a casino gambler will submit.

[KTChampions]

If they allow sports betting people can hedge their bets on a different cassino to always win and game the contest.

With casino games you need to be luck and play for real on their games, and this is probably more profitable for the casino so they see the idea as good for business. Getting people used and hooked to your games is necessary to make more money.

The bookmaker's margin in betting is higher than the casino's margin in roulette, so I don't think your assumption is correct. In roulette, you can also make hedging bets (simultaneously bet on red and black, for example, sometimes losing money when the ball lands on zero) and increase the wager very quickly. I think casinos avoid betting because it is a different kind of gambling, not the one they are interested in advertising.

[Crypto Library]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

If we look, we can see many contest threads on games and round boards about sports betting where casinos or sportsbooks are running betting content. So it's not just about wagering contests here.

And besides, I think that the casino team has a marketing plan here, and if you want to run betting on sports games, you have to do it according to the fixtures of the sports, on the other hand, the casinos can run wager contests at any time according to their convenience.

[xLays]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

For me, it's because wagering contests are not meant to reward players but to make users lose more specially if the wager contest only counts on games with house edge.
I usually only win a wagering contest when the online casino has just launched and there are only a few users playing, so the chances of winning are higher. Also, they don’t count sports wagers, only like slot wagers because the idea is for you to lose more and keep chasing your losses.

I know you have your own opinion on this. And I want to hear that. lol

[mindrust]

Isn’t it self explanatory? It is because that’s how the casino generate the most money from its luck based games. Yes some lucky people will make some money but if you look at the big picture, you’ll see that the casino makes a killing from these contests alone. You know what house edge is probably. It prints money for the casino as long as there people playing those slot/dice games and the best way to attract players is to give them an incentive to play. It is a brilliant idea when you think about it. Casino operators really know their shit.

[Furious 7]

I quite agree with some people who have given their arguments because however the nature of sportsbetting can clearly still be used as a thing that leads to analysis not only about luck so that maybe this can be minimized to get more benefits in terms of wagers than some casino games such as slots or original games that they prepare.

If the bookmakers provide flexibility for wagers, it is certain that sportsbetting will be the main place for gamblers because it has a greater winning ratio than some casino games such as slots which although this can also still be an option for the shortest way but the winning ratio will be much smaller than we choose sportsbetting so it is quite natural in the end when the bookmakers and casinos do not make wagers for all games and only focus on casino games compared to sportsbetting.

[Oasisman]

Why is it that wagering contests are usually on games with a house edge and not on sports betting?

I’ve seen a few contests where you need to reach a certain wager amount to qualify, and sometimes the player with the highest total wagers wins by the end of a set date and time. But it’s almost always on slots or other casino games with a house edge, not on sports. Any reason why that’s the case?

I think the goal for the wagering contest is for the casino to gain a massive amount of bets/profit, as the bettors will probably get enticed with the amount of money to whoever wins it.
Sports betting purely depends on the event, and bettors have different preferences in choosing the sports they like to place a bet on. So, It is less profitable for them. Whereas, on the pure luck-based games, bettors can roll the slots & the dice as much as they want, and that means more profit for the casino.

[mikel_012]

If they allow sports betting people can hedge their bets on a different cassino to always win and game the contest.

With casino games you need to be luck and play for real on their games, and this is probably more profitable for the casino so they see the idea as good for business. Getting people used and hooked to your games is necessary to make more money.

The bookmaker's margin in betting is higher than the casino's margin in roulette, so I don't think your assumption is correct. In roulette, you can also make hedging bets (simultaneously bet on red and black, for example, sometimes losing money when the ball lands on zero) and increase the wager very quickly. I think casinos avoid betting because it is a different kind of gambling, not the one they are interested in advertising.

But which is more profitable? Running a casino with slots and roulette or a bookmaker for sports? I think slots give you a lot more profit since it's more addicting and people like to shoot for big wins, compared to sports betting where you only bet if you think the team will win and if you are going to watch the match.

I think it's because they want to get you hooked on the game, so you come back for more.

[Odogwu-Blockchain]

Isn’t it self explanatory? It is because that’s how the casino generate the most money from its luck based games. Yes some lucky people will make some money but if you look at the big picture, you’ll see that the casino makes a killing from these contests alone. You know what house edge is probably. It prints money for the casino as long as there people playing those slot/dice games and the best way to attract players is to give them an incentive to play. It is a brilliant idea when you think about it. Casino operators really know their shit.

Casino operators get back their total prize pool ten times more by hosting contest, imagine a player depositing more just for reaching the top position and still yet other players knocking him out of the line, it's really competitive and interesting while casinos are calculating the profits off the competitive situation. It's just happening this way making them to be more profitable.

[terrific]

Casino operators get back their total prize pool ten times more by hosting contest, imagine a player depositing more just for reaching the top position and still yet other players knocking him out of the line, it's really competitive and interesting while casinos are calculating the profits off the competitive situation. It's just happening this way making them to be more profitable.

They sure do and the more the participants, the more return that they'll get. It's an effective strategy for them to attract a lot of gamblers.
So, these wagering contests are also a pride moment for all of the joiners because it's something that they can make records for themselves.
As long as they have all the means to wager and continue to rank on the leaderboard for the eligibility of each prizes shown there per rank.
They'll continue to wager and most of them even have more than double of the wagers that they do than the receiving prize reward that they'll have.

[ralle14]

For me, it's because wagering contests are not meant to reward players but to make users lose more specially if the wager contest only counts on games with house edge.
I usually only win a wagering contest when the online casino has just launched and there are only a few users playing, so the chances of winning are higher. Also, they don’t count sports wagers, only like slot wagers because the idea is for you to lose more and keep chasing your losses.

I also have the same winning experience when it comes to wagering contests. Once there's actual competition and the big users start to flock in, i'd rather give up and play normally. It's very rare to see contests with little competition, but it still happens whenever several casinos launch around the same time and one of them overshadows the rest.

Wagering contests for sports are just not that effective, and it's why bookies prefer to push for parlay or multiplier contests instead, because gamblers tend to lose a lot with those kinds of bets.