Playing a casino game without a house edge.

[uneng]

Of course gamblers would win the more they play, as we are inverting the roles of casinos and players. And that is where lies the problem. How are casinos going to operate if they are losing more money than they make? The money to pay the players has to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't come from the players themselves, there isn't any other source available.

This is a model of business doomed to failure. Even a simple zero house edge is risky enough for casinos, so we don't see it working for real.

[xenomorfo]

If there are no house edge it would mean that we cannot have business setups that would be giving gambling services because the business will not be profitable for them, also many gamblers that likes to win 10x and over 100x multipliers in their bets cannot do so because the casinos cannot afford to pay out more than 50% of their staked amount. I guess that if there were no house edge casinos would only afford to pay gamblers who win about 30% of their staked amount because they have to remove the cost of running their business through percentage whether a gambler wins or lose. Anything short of these would mean bankruptcy for them over a period of time.

Exactly, if there is no house edge, how do they make money? in that case they must necessarily steal or cheat.
In all honesty, i would stay far away from a mess like that. If it's not clear how they earn then something isn't right.

[vincentixz]

if the game actually had a negative house edge and the rules stayed the same, then yeah the math would technically be on the players side over a huge sample. but that does not mean every player wins, especially over shorter sessions. variance can still be brutal even when the expected value is slightly positive.

[Agbe]

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?

Yes there is possiblity of the gambler to win more but in such zero house edge game, the casino will not just allow you to play and win always, either you will be playing with a robot (computer) or playing against another player and in that case there will be percentage of the winning of each of them that will go to the casino. And that percentage might be the withdrawal fee. But I have not seen any casino company has such a zero some game where there is no house edge. Casino is for business and they must have that edge to make profit.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

with the choice of red and black is still luck, that 50% cannot guarantee a winning margin at the long run unless you have  too much money to play and play x2 everytime you lose a game.
Choosing 1 out of 2 still a 50/50 coz sometimes the 99% winning you will face that 1% chance of losing.

So for me it is better situation and choice but not a security of winning in the long run.

[el che]

Mathematically if a game offers a negative house edge, the player will win over an infinite sample size due to the law of large numbers. However real casinos would never run a game that pays out more than it takes in.

Even in a theoretical scenario where a game favors the player by a fraction of a percent, variance and human behavior will still destroy most players. Short term downswings and poor bankroll management will wipe out a player's capital long before the mathematical edge has time to work in their favor.

[SuperBitMan]

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?

Casino is for business and they must have that edge to make profit.

Sure casino is a business and they will always have that Ashe to make money than those using the casino.
All the casinos that you see today are making good money every day from there casino, what keeps casino in business for long is how much they continue making, any casino that is not making good amount of money will not stay in business for long, all the casinos you are seen today that have been in the casino business for long are actually making good profit from it.

Casino Business is one of the businesses that is giving huge amount of profit these days, because a lot of people are gamblers and it will continue this way and even more better for casinos as time goes on.

[Shinpako09]

Still no. Even without house edge, that won't change the fact that the house wins for most of the time. On paper, it looks like you have the advantage, but in reality, it's the same with house edge. You lose your bet, not entirely because of house edge, but because you pick the wrong side.

The house edge most casinos have is low already, with an almost 50-50 chance of winning, but still in the end, we end up losing most of the time. That's simply how gambling works. What we need is luck in order to win, not reducing the house edge or being passionate.

[mv1986]

Mathematically if a game offers a negative house edge, the player will win over an infinite sample size due to the law of large numbers. However real casinos would never run a game that pays out more than it takes in.

Even in a theoretical scenario where a game favors the player by a fraction of a percent, variance and human behavior will still destroy most players. Short term downswings and poor bankroll management will wipe out a player's capital long before the mathematical edge has time to work in their favor.

@el she your first paragraph says it all, you would win (apart from the fact that casinos won't offer it).

Your second paragraph suggests that there are still very dumb people out there and I agree. But all it takes is an excel sheet and calculate how many $0.10 spins or rounds of roulette it needs to approximately set the probability of a downswing destroying your bankroll to zero. If the casino is not rigged and if they allow you to make as many spins as you want, you will inevitably win the same way you will inevitably lose when the house edge is positive (no matter how positive). You automate, deposit $50,000, click $0.10, and choose 500,000 runs. It is essentially guaranteed positive if the house edge of the casino is -0.5%. The probability that you end with a loss (below $50,000) is 0.02%.

That would just be a game of patience or of bankroll and whether the casino limits you in any other regard. If you are allowed to deposit a million and play $2 rounds infinitely, things will escalate against the casino.

Where you are right is when someone doesn't have the patience and gets the smart of doubling their stakes at any point in time and loses it all. But in general, the law of large numbers wins you money under these hypothetical circumstances.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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.

The fact that casinos need to make money as well is something I haven't seen more people talk about on this thread. A house edge on minus doesn't really make it unfair to the casinos as they know a typical gambler's weaknesses--- Greed and impatience.

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

They can win in the long run only if they stay disciplined and have a bigger bankroll to wagering as long as it takes.

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 don't know of any casino that offers negative house edge and mathematically, it sounds like an impossible thing to adopt imo. Blackjack offers the lowest house edge which is ~0.5. Even if they decided to adjust it to 0, you'll barely break even than win more.

[Filicius]

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!

Exactly! It is like in the martingale -already mentioned by another member before, BTW. In the hypothetical case a very long run existed, the gambler would end with the same amount of money he started with, but in the meantime he would've doubled but also lost everything. Like he would experience the regression to the mean, but with deviations that would make him break at some point.

I do not enter into a debate about whether the casino could exist because I understand that we are debating a hypothetical case.

[YOSHIE]

Does this mean you'll win in the long run?

As far as I know and from my experience in the game of Roulette, it could be said that there is probably no casino that operates where the game of Roulette is run without a house edge, to be honest I have not found that.
In short, casinos in general are designed so that they gain long term profits for themselves not for us players, I have played for a long time in the game of Roulette, I did not get any long term profits.

Except in the Craps game, it is very likely that the dealer's advantage can be reduced to 0% or close to zero. In general, gamblers place bets after determining points, or poker based on cards and also Blackjack games, most of the dealer's advantage in roulette is high, so in Roulette games it is rarely possible for the long term.

[Orpichukwu]

some sites advertise low edge products but the small details can still change the expected return

Forget about those sites which promote low house edges; most of their promotions are deceitful. We should focus on the maths behind the game, which always gives them the upper hand, and the gamblers are always on the disadvantage side. We don’t have to be blinded by what they are offering.

[casey15]

If you really check it, playing without house edge or a negative house edge makes you profit more. In fact casinos may  now even  use it as a marketing strategy because they know that players are becoming aware of this. They tend to promise low house edge but that still doesn't guarantee profitability alone. If the gambler is not disciplined and doesn't work on his greed, he will loss all his money regardless. So It's not really about the house edge but about the personality of the gambler.
Most people will start falling for low house edge marketing and give casinos even more money

[Odusko]

Any casino that offers such zero house edge game's will be losing money on the long run, because the game will always go in the favor of the players and all that they need to do is to keep repeating same spins over a long period of time and they profits merging will keep growing, now the big contrain is that, can we find a casino with such negative house edge, and if yes, can their offer the games to Players on such market edge that favor the players over the casino, this games will only be limited and for promotional purposes purposes because the casino operates as a business and not charity or cash cow to the player's.

[Crypto Library]

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?

Having a low or negative House Edge and other mathematical analysis even after applying the Kelly criterion formula, there is no guarantee that the gambler will be profitable in the long run.
Many people talk about being profitable in the long run by applying the Kelly Criterion formula, but after applying this type of formula, we can only know what percentage of a player's capital is safe to bet, but this formula cannot tell us what our future results will be, so in the end, the mathematical formula can make us face losses.

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?

I have already given my main point in the quoted part above, but I will say this here. Even in the case of betting on specific games or even sports, I will say one thing, even if you have analytical skills, in the end the result is up to luck. So don't be over confident and don't bet with that amount what you can't afford to lose otherswise you have to regret in the long run instead of having profit.

[Merit.s]

Having a low or negative House Edge and other mathematical analysis even after applying the Kelly criterion formula, there is no guarantee that the gambler will be profitable in the long run.
Many people talk about being profitable in the long run by applying the Kelly Criterion formula, but after applying this type of formula, we can only know what percentage of a player's capital is safe to bet, but this formula cannot tell us what our future results will be, so in the end, the mathematical formula can make us face losses.

I agree with everything that you said above. Applying Kelly Criterion formula has nothing to do with the outcome of your bet in the long run and gambling is still the same, losses are more than profits and in the long run, you will definitely be in loss.

Kelly Criterion formula is a strategy by Kelly and I believe that hus strategy will only work for him because he understands it better than any one which is the reason why they say 'what work for me might not work for you'

[o48o]

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?

It wouldn't guarantee you would win. Zero house edge would just increase your changes to win to the same level that casino has. But it doesn't guarantee wins, not even with martingale strategy.

It would only guarantee that casino would take a huge risk, and who would want to fund such a casino? House edge is basically mathematical proof that casino makes money in the long run, so it's worth to invest even if it occasionally loses some.

[Findingnemo]

The tricky thing about probability is which resets for every roll, if the probability of the game is 50/50 or even 78/20 it doesn't mean you will one in every 2 or 5 bets, respectively. You can win many or none that is why we should not calculate our potential wins based on the probabiolity alone we should also include the randomness into the picture which makes it highly variable.

[Itz-prisigold]

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.

Yes what you said is nothing but the truth. I feel the issue is that lots of people will see this as a chance since they believe the odds are in their favour and not remember how fast big wagers can turn things around. Losing a round with high stakes can definitely hurt a lot. It doesn't matter how good the odds are, if you actually run out of funds before the advantage comes through.  So even when the game appears to be a good one on paper, the actual manner in which the game is played is important.