Playing a casino game without a house edge.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Imagine playing casino games where the house edge is either zero or, in the latter case, slightly negative. Let's say the house edge in the latter case is -0.1% or -0.5%. Suppose you're playing roulette, which has an equal number of black and red sectors and no zero sectors. This means your probability of winning on each spin is 50% + -0.1% to 0.5%. Does this mean you'll win in the long run?

We're also assuming that players who play this roulette are quite passionate and don't bet too small. So, do you think players in this game will win in the long run?

[Oshosondy]

Yes, any games with negative house edge, players have higher chance to win after a long period of time and also in short period of time. This is the reason you can not see any game with a negative house edge.

If it is zero house edge, the player might either win or lose and the casino does not have any advantage.

I have heard of games with zero house edge on this forum, but that will be for a short period of time because casinos can not do without house edge.

[Darker45]

Not necessarily. Perhaps the bigger factor to consider is bankroll management. But if one bets with a uniform unit all throughout, without employing any betting strategy in the bet amount, it's probably either he/she wins a little or loses a little in the long run. But he/she probably won't go too far from breakeven.

But it's possible, for example in live poker, that casinos have zero house edge but charge fees or rakes. In which case, your bankroll would still be heading down rather than up.

[coinrifft]

Imagine playing casino games where the house edge is either zero or, in the latter case, slightly negative. Let's say the house edge in the latter case is -0.1% or -0.5%. Suppose you're playing roulette, which has an equal number of black and red sectors and no zero sectors. This means your probability of winning on each spin is 50% + -0.1% to 0.5%. Does this mean you'll win in the long run?

We're also assuming that players who play this roulette are quite passionate and don't bet too small. So, do you think players in this game will win in the long run?

Not sure if you can win in the long run despite no house edge.

50/50 probability does not mean 50/50 profitability.

You still need to consider luck here, what if you are unlucky and goes on a massive losing streak despite having a 50/50 chance? So this is in conjuction with what @ Darker45 has said.

[yhiaali3]

No, not necessarily, because most of them will likely go bankrupt and lose in the long run if they are enthusiastic and bet large sums.

Here comes an important factor, which is the players' behavior and the size of the bet, because even if the odds are slightly in the player's favor, there is a very high probability of a series of consecutive losses occurring in certain rounds when the players are "very excited" and betting large sums.

[Tony116]

Have you ever heard the term RoR? This is Risk of Ruin.

Compared to gambler, casino's capital is almost infinite. But a player's bankroll is limited.
Even if house edge is negative, without bank roll to handle such downswing player will eventually balance to zero and be out of the game!

Suppose you and your friend are playing coin toss. Rules of the game are such that you have 51% chance of winning and your friend has 49% chance of winning. That mean the game is on your side and you should win in the long run.

But the problem is, You have only $1000 in your pocket. And your friend has $100000 in his pocket.
At the beginning your friend won 10 time in a row due to your downswing!
If you bet $100 per move then your $1000 is completely gone after 10 move.

If you could have continued playing without balance being zero then you would have profited at the end of day, because your chance was 51%. But you're out of the game due to downswing. But your friend is sitting on $100000, he had enough money to cover that temporary rate. But you didn't have that backup money. Now consider your friend as Casino

[freedomgo]

The problem is, casinos offering that kind of setup are probably not doing it without limitations because it doesn't really make sense to offer zero house edge when they are operating for profit. Unless the system is rigged somehow, how would they make money from it?

There are casinos that offer no-house-edge games, but usually only in a limited way. At the end of the day, players can still get tempted to play other more popular games like slots where the casino actually has an edge.

Running a completely no-house-edge casino business would almost feel like running a charity.

[Swordsoffreedom]

We're also assuming that players who play this roulette are quite passionate and don't bet too small.

Right here is actual win for casino owner and game!

When any player gets emotional and start placing large bet they compromise both of their proper bet sizing and bankroll management.

Taking small flat bet with 50.5% win rate may yield some positive return in long run.

But passionate player quickly double his bets after winning or increase bets in martingale style to recover his losses asap.

As a result that small mathematical edge of 0.5% is lost due to his own mistakes.

[PostQuantumBTC]

50/50 probability does not mean 50/50 profitability.

Did you understand what you posted? It is like you are saying what is not right because 50/50 probability means 50/50 profitability.

You still need to consider luck here, what if you are unlucky and goes on a massive losing streak despite having a 50/50 chance? So this is in conjuction with what @ Darker45 has said.

The house edge is what that is causing those long unfavorable situations while gambling, just go with small amount of money that can let you go for more bets, it is possible also that the casino might lose.

[Upgrade00]

If you could have continued playing without balance being zero then you would have profited at the end of day, because your chance was 51%. But you're out of the game due to downswing. But your friend is sitting on $100000, he had enough money to cover that temporary rate. But you didn't have that backup money. Now consider your friend as Casino

Casinos will not still want to run a zero house edge policy permanently in any case, only as a bonus offered to attract are players from time to time.

There are players thay will come in with deep pockets, smaller than the casino but enough to allow them play until they break even. Casinos do not want that, they would rather have guaranteed profits. A physical.casino thay offers other premium services like food/drinks, accommodation, registration fee etc can run a zero house edge model with guaranteed profits from other areas.

[ralle14]

I still see the gamblers potentially losing here because it's easy for us to become greedy once the strategy starts working.

It's rare for gamblers to set up their bankroll for the long run and to me, mistakes are unavoidable when some aren't prepared for an early losing streak.

Those unexpected streaks can catch gamblers off guard, and I can imagine it being the losing factor if they don't have the patience to endure countless bets.

[Iranus]

Imagine playing casino games where the house edge is either zero or, in the latter case, slightly negative. Let's say the house edge in the latter case is -0.1% or -0.5%. Suppose you're playing roulette, which has an equal number of black and red sectors and no zero sectors. This means your probability of winning on each spin is 50% + -0.1% to 0.5%. Does this mean you'll win in the long run?

We're also assuming that players who play this roulette are quite passionate and don't bet too small. So, do you think players in this game will win in the long run?

How long do you mean by sayin long run? Can it be counted as a long run if you play 1000 or 10000 spin? It is a game of million of spin, dude.

Normal player like you and me might play few hundred spin and get high. And if you are passionate player maybe you will give up after playing up to few thousand spin. But in this short term the power of variance & our luck is the most. As a result that 0.5% advantage will be of no use in their long-term read it, short term session.

[GreatArkansas]

I have already experienced Martingale and long sessions before; greed kills the math fast.
Don't ignore the fact that these casinos need to make some good money too; casinos need fees somehow; a small edge needs tons of spins to show.

So for me, "win in the long run" only if they stay disciplined. Most passionate players won't.

[Tony116]

Casinos will not still want to run a zero house edge policy permanently in any case, only as a bonus offered to attract are players from time to time.

There are players thay will come in with deep pockets, smaller than the casino but enough to allow them play until they break even. Casinos do not want that, they would rather have guaranteed profits. A physical.casino thay offers other premium services like food/drinks, accommodation, registration fee etc can run a zero house edge model with guaranteed profits from other areas.

@Upgrade00, you’ve hit the nail on the head!

In reality no casino would harm its own business by offering permanent zero & negative house edge.
However, OP posed the question based on purely theoretical & hypothetical scenario. That is why I explained it from mathematical perspective.

Anyway, casinos are well aware that if we arrive with massive bankroll and keep playing until we break even or turn profit then it could pose threat to their own bankroll. That is precisely why casino establish minimum and maximum table limit.

[danherbias07]

Yeah, I do think so. That's where the gambling sites take their profits, so I bet that's also where the gamblers will make money if the house edge is negative.

Imagining it is difficult because I have not yet experienced it, and I doubt I will. But maybe we have some developers here in the forum who can test this out and prove that it should be a green for the gambler in the long run.
I have tried very low house edge, but I still cannot feel a good RTP. I think the games have a system also that generates more losses than wins for the players. I mean, it's meant to work that way, so even the games are already rigged to create results that are against the gambler.

[Livingleged]

Imagine playing casino games where the house edge is either zero or, in the latter case, slightly negative. Let's say the house edge in the latter case is -0.1% or -0.5%. Suppose you're playing roulette, which has an equal number of black and red sectors and no zero sectors. This means your probability of winning on each spin is 50% + -0.1% to 0.5%. Does this mean you'll win in the long run?

We're also assuming that players who play this roulette are quite passionate and don't bet too small. So, do you think players in this game will win in the long run?

For sure in the case of casino where the house edge is negative, there is going to be a high chance of players winning more than 50% of their trials. That should make them win more in multiple trials actually, but it’s doesn’t work like that with the casinos in the real sense. house edge is the reason why you see casinos players around. Without house always being favoured it wouldn’t even be regarded as a profitable business for the house.
Thats why its said that the casinos are rigged, and I kind of believe that actually.

[PostQuantumBTC]

I have already experienced Martingale and long sessions before; greed kills the math fast.

I am confused, what does the discussions on this thread has to do with martingale? I have read what are written as the topic but I did not see martingale. Only what I see is zero and negative house edge and which is not possible to be set by the casinos unless they want to go bankrupt.

Why did you post about martingale along?

[Cointxz]

Not necessarily. Perhaps the bigger factor to consider is bankroll management. But if one bets with a uniform unit all throughout, without employing any betting strategy in the bet amount, it's probably either he/she wins a little or loses a little in the long run. But he/she probably won't go too far from breakeven.

If we will assume same bet infinite times then it’s a guaranteed profit in the long run assuming house edge is negative. The larger the sample bet means the result is closer on obtaining that house edge.

You brought up a very good factor which this guaranteed profit might not work even on a negative house edge. Those negative house edge is useless on short term games especially if the player bankroll can’t absorb the losing streak.

It will be a spam fest bet on this casino with same small bet if ever there’s a casino that will offer negative house edge. 

[Frankolala]

For a casino to have zero house hedge isn't a guarantee for gamblers to be profitable in the long run because that's not how gambling works and you should know that losses are inevitable. Winning in the long run is easily said than done and I'm still waiting to see a gambler who is still in profit after gambling for two years or more.

You cannot take away the house edge from the casino because they are out for business and that's how they make their own profit for entertaining you with their games. Losses are more attached to gambling than profit.

[Upgrade00]

In reality no casino would harm its own business by offering permanent zero & negative house edge.

Just to be sure, there isn't a casino thay actually offers negative house edge, right? I have never heard about it and did a quick search now to find nothing. In such a situation, the casino will become the gambler and the players, the house.

I understood the point you were making, I was just adding a little extra context to it for the op.