Playing a casino game without a house edge.

[free-bit.co.in]

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?

So you wanna know who will win at the end of the day?

Even any regular player can go bankrupt very quickly due to his large bet and emotional decision.
Only professional advantage player who strictly adhere to specific bankroll management strategy like flat betting or Kelly betting will be able to extract some profit from that -0.5% edge in long run.

If I just say it in short, even with positive edge, if you lacks money management and emotional control then your mathematical advantage becomes zero.
In blackjack professional card counters manage to shift odds their favor by about 0.5% to 1%, yet I have walked away broke most of the time! So I see no reason to believe that simply playing more zero or no-zero roulette will yield result in our favor.

[ZeroVinsonN]

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.

As long as they are trying to run a business they need the house edge to have any good chance at being profitable, even a zero house edge will be disadvantageous for any casino.
Doing from the beginning is one thing, at that point they are more interested in increasing their customer base then making profit, that's also why they have bonuses flying around at that time, but once they've had enough people playing with them, they will stop and the house edge will come in.

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.

I haven't seen those, I have seen one with zero house edge once or at least that's what I heard, I didn't really visit the casino at the time so I wouldn't know for sure.

[Haunebu]

There are certain crypto gambling sites that do offer zero house edge games such as Duel(Upto a certain limit) etc though they don't offer any extra promotions thanks to which your net profit/loss would be 0 in the long run while they profit in other ways.

No site offers negative house edge games which makes zero sense from a financial standpoint. House edge matters in games, but luck is the way, way bigger factor in comparison.

[Kelward]

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.

[DanWalker]

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.

If that were happen then casino itself would undoubtedly have become gambler, while players would have become the house!

However there are indeed exceptional scenario where some advantage shift in player's favor. You know, if one aggregate benefits like rakeback and daily, weekly or monthly cashback bonuse then they can sometime secure significant profit.

If we look strictly at  house edge then sum of RTP and house edge will always equal 100%. consequently there is no possibility of either value being negative.

[Fortify]

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's kinda painful you cannot understand basic maths. No, going from a 49.5% disadvantage to a 50/50 win rate does not magically mean you win all the money. You win fractionally more often and in a perfect world you would not lose any money not gain any on average. You don't have any control over the outcome, what you seem to be suggesting is that someone would go all in and double their money, but they have an equal chance of losing it all. Anyway, no casino is going to order such games (unless it's virtual currency aka meaningless). Casinos are a profit making business and not a charity giving money away to needy gamblers, so they have no incentive to set up such a losing algorithm.

[SportbetOne]

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!

This is the exact answer - Gambler's Ruin. A tiny +0.5% player edge doesn't protect you from a bad 15-spin downswing, and once your finite bankroll hits zero, the game is over. You can't realize a long-term mathematical edge if you get wiped out in the short term.

[markopolskiman]

You’re right; the main thing is to avoid scammers. I don’t play for the money, but for the sake of interesting games. In fact, my perspective has shifted quite a bit.
I used to think that a game was more interesting the more features it had, but I’ve changed my mind over time. Sometimes I prefer simpler games: you can focus on the core gameplay without getting distracted by a multitude of different mechanics. When choosing a game on the Winthrone casino games   site, I usually look at the overall design, the number of features, and how clearly everything is explained. If a game includes bonus rounds or special symbols, I want to know how they work beforehand rather than figuring it out by chance while playing. Of course, it all comes down to personal preference, but I’ve noticed that understanding the rules in advance makes it easier to decide whether you actually like the game.

[viljy]

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’s easier to introduce the condition in this thought experiment that at 0, the gambler wins. That is, the wheel remains the same, but the House Advantage becomes the gambler’s advantage. Then the gambler will be guaranteed to win more times than they lose, given a sufficiently large number of spins. Note: not to win in absolute amounts, but to win quantitatively in terms of spins. If a fixed bet amount is set, then in this case the gambler will be guaranteed to end up with a profit in terms of the amount of money.

PS What is the point of the experiment? There’s no hidden layer here. Everything is transparent. In the end, the side with a greater than 50% chance of winning wins.

[Somegory]

My point is going to base on the business side of things, like how the hell will a casino as a business gives the edge to players? I have never seen such before in my life, if it's possible the casino itself would prefer to become the gambler rather than the business.

Every business as the one advantage that will never be erased, that's their own price and profits, that's an edge for business owners, I have the right to sell my product however I like, you are the one in need so you will buy if you can afford it, that's an edge for businesses.

Casino own is just a bit crazier, because their service is giving you a chance to win, their game is all about luck and they know very well that luck isn't something easy to come by.

[drangos]

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.

What I believe is most important for this is to not confuse the house edge with the results of individual sessions. A Roulette game with a 0 house edge means that the player and the casino don't have a mathematical edge over each other in enough independent games. So, if the house edge is -0.1% or -0.5%, the player would actually have a mathematical advantage and given a large enough number of wagers, the expectation would be to bet the money. That doesn't mean that all players will end up with a profit in the short term or even medium term, as variance can be extreme and make for big losses. Plus if the casino had no other way to make money. They wouldn't be operating if they had a negative house edge. The casino would have to cover revenues from sources other than the game itself from fees, commissions. limits and other games that have a positive house edge. Casinos do not have to be rigged just because they have a house edge. The house edge is typically just the mathematical edge added into the game's rules, and it's this which makes the casino's long-term profits.

[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?

Mathematically, players' bets generate profit in aggregate. But for any individual player, nothing changes much: some win, others lose. Today's RTP is high enough that the gap between a modern game and a perfectly random roulette is too small for the average gambler to notice. That gap doesn't depend on bet sizes - it depends on the number of bets. So it will take a long time to gather enough real statistics to actually feel the house edge.

[sebiesz]

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

[arwin100]

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.

No they won't offer that, since it will go against on their business. Casino will be in the losing side if they decide to offer negative house edge to their players.

For sure they don't want that situation to happens. This is the reason most of them set a house edge, so anything their players do at the end their casino will still remain profitable.

But usually I saw that zero house edge thing in their original or in house games.

[Japinat]

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

Low edge is still an edge.

Some dice sites even advertise around 0.5% house edge and they are still making money from it.

So as long as the volume is good, even a very small edge can still make a casino profitable. For me, I would rather choose games that are fun and I don't really care that much about the house edge. Even on slots where the house edge can be around 3% to 4%, people still continue playing. That already shows that many gamblers are there more for the experience and entertainment than just looking for the lowest possible edge.

[Questat]

If it's only a small negative edge, it would not necessarily make them lose a lot of money. Besides, when a casino offers something like that, it doesn't mean all of their games will have the same setup.

Casinos nowadays already have sportsbooks, slots, card games, and many other options. So if one gambler only uses around 20% of his money on a negative-house-edge game, the rest may still go to other casino games where the house has the advantage.

What casinos really have is the long-term advantage. As long as players keep playing across different games, they can still remain profitable overall.

For sure they don't want that situation to happens. This is the reason most of them set a house edge, so anything their players do at the end their casino will still remain profitable.

But usually I saw that zero house edge thing in their original or in house games.

Yes, its usually in house game as no games providers would offer no house edge games since it does not benefit them.

[OsaiEmma]

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?

Well, with a net negative house edge, this means players now have the advantage, right? But this doesn't automatically translate to "winning in the long run" as a guarantee. But rather, it means the probability of losing especially over a long session reduce drastically. Over a very large number of bets, the probability of loss shrinks with a positive house edge to you as a player—negative house edge to the house is positive to players.

Another thing you'll have to consider is: if your funds will be enough to carry you over a long bet session that will bring your probability of loss very close to 0.

But, if you're lucky, and the variance within a short period is favorable to you, then you might just achieve a net gain before your funds run out.

[qurbanshah02]

If it's only a small negative edge, it would not necessarily make them lose a lot of money. Besides, when a casino offers something like that, it doesn't mean all of their games will have the same setup.

Casinos nowadays already have sportsbooks, slots, card games, and many other options. So if one gambler only uses around 20% of his money on a negative-house-edge game, the rest may still go to other casino games where the house has the advantage.

What casinos really have is the long-term advantage. As long as players keep playing across different games, they can still remain profitable overall.

Every game cannot be unique to you because in gambling you are shown some greedy things to attract your attention.  Yes, it is true that there are many games in the casino, but the real thing is that we are winning or losing.  Because whoever gambles, the purpose is to win and lose, not how many games there are in gambling.  Even if he plays every game and loses, gambling is harmful and the benefit is that he is winning.  Therefore, you will never be able to convince a gambler to one thing because when he wins, he will praise it and when we lose, he will either be disappointed or he will be angry because his purpose and need was to win, which did not come in his favor.  Gambling can be beneficial for you for fun because if you are expecting income from it, you will suffer a lot of loss, but some people are fulfilling their daily needs from it, but this is not right.

[BitBakerr1]

If it's only a small negative edge, it would not necessarily make them lose a lot of money. Besides, when a casino offers something like that, it doesn't mean all of their games will have the same setup.

Casinos nowadays already have sportsbooks, slots, card games, and many other options. So if one gambler only uses around 20% of his money on a negative-house-edge game, the rest may still go to other casino games where the house has the advantage.

What casinos really have is the long-term advantage. As long as players keep playing across different games, they can still remain profitable overall.

Gambling can be beneficial for you for fun because if you are expecting income from it, you will suffer a lot of loss, but some people are fulfilling their daily needs from it, but this is not right.

I agree with you gambling can be beneficiary when you are using it for fun, for me I am always happy and full of joy when I am gambling because it makes me happy and whatever makes me happy I really enjoy doing it.
When you see gambling as something you can use to make huge amount of money or to come out from poverty you are just going to put yourself into more poverty.

It is true that gambling has made some people rich, but the story of another person cannot be your story as a gambler you need not to gamble because you want to escape poverty.

[Africolo]

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's not very necessary for one to play casinos without an house edge because it has nothing to do with winning and even if it's zero, a gambler can still win or loose. Every game has its own uniqueness and if a gambler is not too greedy he can identify and know some certain games he won't bet on because if he does he might likely loose the game and the purpose of anyone that gambles is to win which is very important in the game.

There are ways that the casinos makes this games looks attractive to us which is by providing higher odds that are good to be true and because some gamblers are too greedy they decide to take their chances by staking the bets and end up loosing at the long run. With a net negative house edge I think the players have an advantage of winning games though it's not a guarantee that they must win but atleast their is a probability of a winning factor so players can win in a long run.