Playing a casino game without a house edge.

[TheUltraElite]

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.

Being able to hold the capital for long give some advantage if you are trying to run it for long term. It does not guarantee the profit but it gives a cushion where it can absorb a large cumulative volume of reds. Of course the green that is coming after that is never guaranteed even if the game is zero house edge, but it can probably wipe out the red and put the gambler in a position of net profit.

Often the gamblers dont understand it but the green is never going to come before the balance runs out. So there needs to be a "hard deck" below which they need to stop betting further.

[mak013]

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?

This is like cheating, any casino that hand over house edge in the hands of gamblers they will land in debt and they will be the one struggling with addiction instead, and this is why you will never see such thing in any online casino.

Would have loved you to share where this idea came from, or share the name of the online casino if you believe that it's the case, such casino should be known, I might decide to gamble on there if they are still alive and functioning.

I give them few weeks only, they will fold up and close business.

If you'll read more attentively, you can see that the first word is "imagine" that means, that there is no such casino. It is just an idea, all of us understand that casino will never play against itself.
The same time, i don't sure that you will win enough to close casino in few weeks with so small win advantage.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

It is just an idea, all of us understand that casino will never play against itself.
The same time, i don't sure that you will win enough to close casino in few weeks with so small win advantage.

I have not even come across any casino game currently that has such negative house edge that OP mentioned and even as I tried to search if there's any casino that has a a game with such house edge, I did not find any reliable information about that, what I only saw which I could not verify with other source is that Full Pay Deuces Wild Video Poker has give a −0.76% house edge before but was a long time ago. I do think that with such house edge, some players would actually take advantage of it and that's why the casino owners can not even make it available, if actually it will favour them more, they will add a game like that.

[bhadz]

Possible, but chances don't mean that it gives more favor to the gamblers just because there's a lesser or negative house edge. Because in the end, that still depends on the impulse of the gambler. If he's profitable in the beginning and starts to believe that he is for the entire day, he won't stop. Technically, it changes the sum game but there are other factors that can make a gambler win in the long run per se. But we know it all that when we have no control to ourselves, everything can turn into zero and even negative for the ourselves even with that kind of house edge.

Certainly, the mathematical edge of the roulette table is always on the side of the casino in the long run. Even when the player makes money at first stages of playing, the greed factor takes over the reasoning, making the earned money vanish into thin air.

Although we say that the house always wins, even with these conditions that we put up into a situation still doesn't make them lose at all times. It's still the opposite.

The lack of control of gambling addiction is one of the biggest reasons why many gamblers end up broke. With no controlling factor, even the tiniest margin of any casino will clean you out.

Gambling addiction is hard to control. Even those who say that they're responsible gamblers still fall for it. In that situation, even the gambler knows that they're going to lose in the long run, they won't even stop.

[abaeze]

Honestly If the house edge of a game is 0.1% to 0.5% and there are no hidden fees, betting limits or other disadvantages then players will have a much higher chance of winning in the long run and even in the short run but in reality it is rare to see a game with such a negative house edge. I don't think casino operators have the mentality to provide such a service because if there is no profit, the business will not last long. And even if the house edge is zero, players will either win or lose but the casino will not have much of an advantage in the long run.

[WhoYouCantKill]

Honestly If the house edge of a game is 0.1% to 0.5% and there are no hidden fees, betting limits or other disadvantages then players will have a much higher chance of winning in the long run and even in the short run but in reality it is rare to see a game with such a negative house edge. I don't think casino operators have the mentality to provide such a service because if there is no profit, the business will not last long. And even if the house edge is zero, players will either win or lose but the casino will not have much of an advantage in the long run.

Whenever a player makes enough bet, then even the smallest house edge can become extremely meaningful because the advantage is applied repeatedly. And that’s why it can be quite misleading if one focuses only on the percentage, without also focusing on the number of bets, the stake size and the variance because these are the things that also affects a gambler’s actual experience. What a low house edge does is to potentially reduce the mathematical advantage, but it can never turn gambling into a guaranteed source of generating revenue.

[Bushdark]

It is just an idea, all of us understand that casino will never play against itself.
The same time, i don't sure that you will win enough to close casino in few weeks with so small win advantage.

I have not even come across any casino game currently that has such negative house edge that OP mentioned and even as I tried to search if there's any casino that has a a game with such house edge, I did not find any reliable information about that, what I only saw which I could not verify with other source is that Full Pay Deuces Wild Video Poker has give a −0.76% house edge before but was a long time ago. I do think that with such house edge, some players would actually take advantage of it and that's why the casino owners can not even make it available, if actually it will favour them more, they will add a game like that.

I will see this as fallacy for anyone to think that there would be a game that has a zero house edge. What would be the gain of the casino offering this kind of games if their is no way they can make money from the games they are offering and also no developer would ever create a game without an house edge which is one of the ways they can recover their expenses and make profit from the games they have developed in order to create room for new games that will be developed. There is a cost to building a game and with all the cost, adding an house edge to developed games is a normal way to make profits for the casino and the developer.

[sompitonov]

Whenever a player makes enough bet, then even the smallest house edge can become extremely meaningful because the advantage is applied repeatedly. And that’s why it can be quite misleading if one focuses only on the percentage, without also focusing on the number of bets, the stake size and the variance because these are the things that also affects a gambler’s actual experience. What a low house edge does is to potentially reduce the mathematical advantage, but it can never turn gambling into a guaranteed source of generating revenue.

Of course, nothing in a casino is guaranteed that is precisely the point there is a great deal of uncertainty, including the possibility of massive wins by casual players who wagered just a few dollars for fun. Furthermore, many players are drawn in by the belief that their knowledge surpasses that of others, leading them to think they will win more frequently than the rest or beat weaker opponents. However, it is crucial to understand that, in the long run, only professional players who have mastered every aspect and nuance of the game stand a chance of winning; yet even they can suffer catastrophic bad luck and end up with massive losses.

[WhoYouCantKill]

Of course, nothing in a casino is guaranteed that is precisely the point there is a great deal of uncertainty, including the possibility of massive wins by casual players who wagered just a few dollars for fun. Furthermore, many players are drawn in by the belief that their knowledge surpasses that of others, leading them to think they will win more frequently than the rest or beat weaker opponents. However, it is crucial to understand that, in the long run, only professional players who have mastered every aspect and nuance of the game stand a chance of winning; yet even they can suffer catastrophic bad luck and end up with massive losses.

Even players who are experienced can often confuse skill with control you know. Getting acquainted with the game may only improve decision making, but there’s no way it’ll remove variance or offer some kind of guaranteed outcome unlike how some players may look at it. In the long run it’s not always about making the right or most logical decisions because it’s very possible for a player to make the right decisions repeatedly and still end up experiencing a major losing streak, which is why regardless of how confident a player is, they should never use it as an excuse to risk what they can actually afford to lose.

[uchegod-21]

Honestly If the house edge of a game is 0.1% to 0.5% and there are no hidden fees, betting limits or other disadvantages then players will have a much higher chance of winning in the long run and even in the short run but in reality it is rare to see a game with such a negative house edge. I don't think casino operators have the mentality to provide such a service because if there is no profit, the business will not last long. And even if the house edge is zero, players will either win or lose but the casino will not have much of an advantage in the long run.

Such house edge exist, but not all casinos will welcome it. It shouldn't surprise you that it is rare seeing games with such negative house edge. Casinos want profits, so they will not do what will make them be on the losing side. It is important  also to note that some casinos that give zero or negative house edge may only be doing that to attract customers for just a short period of time. Once that is achieved, they may adjust the house edge.

I will see this as fallacy for anyone to think that there would be a game that has a zero house edge. What would be the gain of the casino offering this kind of games if their is no way they can make money from the games they are offering and also no developer would ever create a game without an house edge which is one of the ways they can recover their expenses and make profit from the games they have developed in order to create room for new games that will be developed. There is a cost to building a game and with all the cost, adding an house edge to developed games is a normal way to make profits for the casino and the developer.

Casinos may be offering zero or negative house edge but be earning profits through other means like fees, commissions, or even through other games. The casino is not a charity organisation, definitely they should have alternative means to generate profits.

[Hispo]

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?

Mathematically, if you gambled in a casino game which offered negative house edge similar to those you mention, it would indeed mean gamblers would have an advantage against the house and they would be set to get guaranteed money in the long run. Basically, the casino would lose money with their gambling volume. It is the contrary to what happens in real life, and that is why casinos like Duel which offer zero edge on some of their games actually apply some restrictions on those games with zero edge.

When comes to negative edge... That is something I have never encountered myself, since no casino would be crazy enough to give money away in exchange for nothing.

[Franklyn-wood]

If the house edge is really -0.5%, then the mathematical advantage of the game will be in favor of the player. That is if you play with the same stake for a long time, the player will make a small profit as the expected result, although it is not certain that any particular gambler will make a profit. Because capital or bankroll plays a big role here, even though the probability of winning in roulette is more than 50 percent, if you lose several times in a row, many people get emotional and bet big and make their balance zero. Even though the probability of getting heads or tails in a coin toss is equal, if heads come up ten times in a row, then if there is no backup fund, the game will end before the loss is recovered, So if the house edge is zero or negative, everyone will win and become debt free, I don't think the real picture is actually that simple.

It's not as simple as you actually think because probability and capital at ones disposal has a lot to play here.
A small edge given by the casino might be an open field for every gambler to try their luck and maybe get lucky, but it still isn't a yardstick for a big win because the casino house isn't as stupid as we think when they allow such small or negative house edge, they intend to make the gambler waste more resources if they are careless about risk management practices of their capital and emotions and that's what makes the difference.

 

The house edge is a trap for more gamblers to come in and participate in the games and gamblers who can't control themselves will find it difficult to stop with expectations that if more funds are invested they can recover from all they have lost.
All the casino are with the same aim, which is to make profits, staking very low if one must multiply the bet amount while trying same game but it's not guaranteed.

[danadc]

 It doesn't work out well for the casino or game owner because things even out, and there's no advantage for them. We know that when we play, it's because we understand the house edge, and it's something we have to accept; otherwise, there wouldn't be any casinos left because they would have gone bankrupt. It's good for us as players because we can win more; the odds might help us, but for the owner, it represents a risk that will cause them to lose their business.

[iv4n]

The house edge is a trap for more gamblers to come in and participate in the games and gamblers who can't control themselves will find it difficult to stop with expectations that if more funds are invested they can recover from all they have lost.
All the casino are with the same aim, which is to make profits, staking very low if one must multiply the bet amount while trying same game but it's not guaranteed.

Well, without a house edge, a casino wouldn't make any money off the games... So if a casino doesn't have a house edge, should we worry about how it stays in business? I hope you get the point...

Nothing in gambling is guaranteed... The house edge, or RTP in slots, is how casinos/providers make a profit. But a low house edge, or high RTP, doesn't mean much over a couple hundred rolls/spins. We can double our money or lose everything in 5-10 minutes... no matter how low/high the house edge/RTP.

And I tried so many sites, in-house games, slots... and it all comes down to a lucky or unlucky session. Deposit what you can afford to lose, have fun, try different games & strategies (if you have any), and you will see what happens... and try to be at peace with any outcome! After all, you gave it a try...

Good luck.

[r_victory]

Even without the house edge, you'll still depend on luck, so I don't think it will make much difference in the end. Thinking about the roulette example, the gambler will still have to guess the number, the color, whether it's even or odd, in short, whatever they decide to bet on.

[DiMarxist]

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?

Definably consistency will pay off at the end of the day if the player is persistence about wining and continues to place bet, every day. Every you you put your mind and body into will reward you on the long run that is more of like a rule when it comes to life. But what you should take note of when gambling persistently especially on slot games like this is the money that you are going to be kissing.

Gambling involve money and so any gambler who is persistence about wanting to win on slot games no matter how good that the odds are should be ready to lose money before thinking about wining huge money at the end of the day. Casinos game's should not be taken as do or die because these are not live events as they are programmed games with a very low probability of you wining.

[henmark]

Honestly If the house edge of a game is 0.1% to 0.5% and there are no hidden fees, betting limits or other disadvantages then players will have a much higher chance of winning in the long run and even in the short run but in reality it is rare to see a game with such a negative house edge. I don't think casino operators have the mentality to provide such a service because if there is no profit, the business will not last long. And even if the house edge is zero, players will either win or lose but the casino will not have much of an advantage in the long run.

I don't understand why people think and believe that house edge is the only reason why gamblers lose money either in short run or long run. What makes you say that a gambler will have a higher chance of winning in the long run or even in the short run if a game doesn't have a house edge? Because the house edge has nothing to do with chances or probabilities, it only takes a small percentage of the winning amount, which is the reason why we say that a gambler usually loses in the long run because the house edge keeps taking their winnings away because if the house edge is 3%, you are gambling with a fixed budget, and you win 30 bets apart from the losses, you basically give away 90% of your winnings back to the house.

But, even if there is no house edge, that doesn't mean the gambler won't lose in the long run, because your chances of winning and losing will stay the same, and a loss streak will still make you lose money in the long run. When we talk about the short run, then maybe if the gambler wins a few bets, and then stops betting, they might be on the positive side, but we all know that gamblers don't stop so easily, which means that when you continue, you will still have the same chances of losing, it is just that you won't lose any money to the house edge, but the general risk will still be there.

[Su-asa]

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.

That's a good point you made, without an house edge most players would get carried away which would eventually lead to them losing. No house edge = a high chance of winning but it doesn't mean that it's totally risk free, the moment a lot of gamblers have such opportunity it is actually going to cause more harm than good for them because they are going to lose more than they gain. once they feel that the betting system works they would stake high and that's where their problem starts from.

[Grace333]

This can actually increase the chances of winning slightly but in the long run gamblers are still going to end up losing if they Don't manage their Bankroll. Just because there is no house edge a lot of gamblers would start staking carelessly and just as we all know I'm gambling you could be winning for a certain period of time but when they start increasing their stakes as a result of being too confident they end up losing, this could take all their wins they have gotten within a matter of minutes.
Playing casino without a house edge doesn't mean that it is totally safe, losses are still bound to happen and this is inevitable.

[Chinesebaby]

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?

Playing a game whose house edge is around 0.1% to 0.5% doesn't guarantee that you will win at the end in the long run. Because despite the fact that the house edge is at the advantage of the gambler theoretically, its outcome is still a possible expected value which the gambler can win if only he is lucky enough while playing the game. Because there are different factors and variance that affect the probability and payout of the outcome of each game played. Hence, for the fact that a game has 0.5% house edge, it doesn't mean the outcome of each game will be a 50% success. So it's still possible for you to lose even in a long run. But however, such games are always worth giving a try with an amout of money you can always afford to lose.