Playing a casino game without a house edge.

[henmark]

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.

If they will cheat, that only backfires the no house edge that they have given earlier. And I am sure that not long enough, gamblers will noticed it. But what about they will allow sponsorship? Or they will start displaying other casino brands on their website?

I already saw some casinos who are doing this deal lately. These casinos are only telling that it was their trusted partners but pretty sure they are also benefiting on this financially. Will that idea counts as earning a profit in order to sustain their casino operations and survive longer? Another option would be is just like a typical site that displays any sorts of ads (not only limited to casino). I think this has to do by having an AdSense account first or something like that.

[Royal Cap]

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.

[Cryptomultiplier]

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.

 

[M47AK16]

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?

I don't think so, because the house edge is not the only thing that makes a gambler lose in the long run, there are a lot of factors that contribute in that, and greed is probably at the top of the table. A person who is greedy will never be able to gamble just for fun, they will always be gambling for profits, and do you know what that does? Such people won't be able to just keep playing with the same bet size, because if you are using the same bet, you win, you lose, and even after playing for sometime, you might still be at the same position from where you started. For someone who is gambling only to kill some time or try their luck, they might not be bothered, but for someone who is gambling only for profits, this don't cut it.

So, what such a gambler does is they will start experimenting with their bets, increasing and decreasing the bets, and they will win and lose again, but their wins and losses will not be of the same size this time, and since we all know that a gambler gambling for profits will always chase their losses, which means that if they lose a bet where the size of the bet was large, they will try to recover that with a larger bet, and no house edge doesn't mean there won't be any loss streaks, which means that losing in the long run will still always be possible.

[gracreavix]

To be profitable in a long run, certain things has to happen, let's say conditions needs to be met. But even with a game with no house edge, you still have to compete with probability and uncertainty. That's something. So at the end of the day, there's no one side to gambling. There's always two sides just like a coin with head and tail same as gambling with two sides a win and a loss. No certainty about a game of whatsoever.

[Smartprofit]

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?

When playing a hypothetical roulette wheel without a zero slot, the casino will still win over players in the long run. It's just that the process of making a profit will take longer. 🙋

This is because the casino has a virtually infinite amount of money, while the player's bankroll is limited. Sooner or later, the player will face a long losing streak that will wipe out their bankroll. Casinos aren't afraid of such long losing streaks. Even if we assume the casino doesn't have enough money to pay out the player's winnings, it can always simply refuse to pay out. Yes, this is unfair. But in practice, employers, governments, and online casinos sometimes do this.

The player plays with real money, while the casino plays with virtual money (on the promise of paying out winnings). Understanding this is crucial. This is why it's important to choose your online casino very carefully.💁

[lodocus]

I think that due to fluctuations in people’s emotions and some times bad luck, players can lose money even if a casino game’s RTP is in their favor. Even in a game with a 0% RTP, which is completely fair and doesn’t favor either side, I believe the casino still has a slight advantage. After all, the casino is the one with more money. That’s why the casino is much more likely to hold out until the player runs out of money.

[bhadz]

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?

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.

[lombok]

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?

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.

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.

[Darker45]

I think that due to fluctuations in people’s emotions and some times bad luck, players can lose money even if a casino game’s RTP is in their favor. Even in a game with a 0% RTP, which is completely fair and doesn’t favor either side, I believe the casino still has a slight advantage. After all, the casino is the one with more money. That’s why the casino is much more likely to hold out until the player runs out of money.

What do you mean 0% RTP? That would be terrible. That means there's nothing the players would get back from their wagers.

You're probably confusing RTP with house edge. They're the opposites. RTP, which means Return To Player, refers to the percentage of the total bets of players that would be returned to them as winnings or prizes, say 97% or 98%. What's left or the remaining percentage is the casino's house edge. RTP and house edge add up to 100%.

So, there's no such thing as 0% RTP. That would mean 100% house edge, meaning every bet means the casino would win.

[Cleanshit]

I think that due to fluctuations in people’s emotions and some times bad luck, players can lose money even if a casino game’s RTP is in their favor. Even in a game with a 0% RTP, which is completely fair and doesn’t favor either side, I believe the casino still has a slight advantage. After all, the casino is the one with more money. That’s why the casino is much more likely to hold out until the player runs out of money.

What do you mean 0% RTP? That would be terrible. That means there's nothing the players would get back from their wagers.

You're probably confusing RTP with house edge. They're the opposites. RTP, which means Return To Player, refers to the percentage of the total bets of players that would be returned to them as winnings or prizes, say 97% or 98%. What's left or the remaining percentage is the casino's house edge. RTP and house edge add up to 100%.

So, there's no such thing as 0% RTP. That would mean 100% house edge, meaning every bet means the casino would win.

The distinction in between house edge and RTP is very important, but also as a gambler we should understand that RTP does not mean during their session they will personally get that percentage back. This is base on expected return over a large number of bets.
In the short term game with 98% RTP can still see a player loss heavily of win big. That why when deciding how much of risk, looking only at RTP is not enough, the player own betting behavior and variance can have a much bigger effect on actual result of a session.

[Julien_Olynpic]

By the way, many people here have asked why casinos need to give players a zero advantage. This isn't relevant to the main line of discussion, but I can name several reasons, all of which relate to marketing in one way or another. For example, a zero or even slightly negative house edge could exist as part of a short-term marketing promotion. Or as a welcome bonus. Or as joint marketing with other casinos or bookmakers. Or as a reward for engaging play. There could be many reasons, but, again, they're all related to marketing in one way or another.

[Smack That Ace]

a zero or even slightly negative house edge could exist as part of a short-term marketing promotion. Or as a welcome bonus. Or as joint marketing with other casinos or bookmakers. Or as a reward for engaging play. There could be many reasons, but, again, they're all related to marketing in one way or another.

Fair point, mate!

It is absolutely true that casino sometime offer zero & negative house edge as marketing trick or promotional loss leader.
But NGL, casinos are always one step ahead of us when it comes to terms and condition!

TBH, in real life most of us will end up with zero balance. Many have already pointed out the reason. Casino's capital is limitless but our bankroll is limited.
Also as you mentioned players are quite passionate and don't bet small. So IRL, after losing just once or twice we often let our emotions drive us to increase our bet size tenfold. The moment over-betting kicks in, variance wipes us out in heartbeat!
So, by exploiting our emotion, limited bankroll and poor bet sizing, casino eventually claws back the entire cost of those marketing promotion right out of our pocket.

[Rhow]

I find your reasoning interesting. If that were true (although it probably won't happen), then many people would probably be gambling all day long.

However, if there were no zeros, there were equal numbers of red and black, and the winnings were equal, then we would have a 50 percent chance of winning, even if the casino's advantage were zero. But if the casino's advantage were to be negative, then the player would have to be given an additional advantage. The problem is that simply removing the zeros would not give us an advantage.

As for the profit, yes, if we have a mathematical advantage, then the average outcome of many bets would be more likely to be in our favor. But the profit of a particular player is not guaranteed.

[Peanutswar]

A small percentage to the house does mean that there is a chance people who are addicted and enthusiast in playing gambling will grab the opportunity to earn money and become more profitable to the casino of course no one let it happen how does casino earn money it's like they are just giving away a money to the users. Even with the RTP is you can see that there is a higher RTP rate but still players are still losing because it's not guaranteed return but takes a lot of games before you got your played amount as return.

[vincentixz]

i think the interesting part is how much variance could hide that small edge. even if the math is slightly in the players favor, you could still have a long stretch of bad results. so i would not expect a short session to prove much either way.

[Mr Reporter]

By the way, many people here have asked why casinos need to give players a zero advantage. This isn't relevant to the main line of discussion, but I can name several reasons, all of which relate to marketing in one way or another. For example, a zero or even slightly negative house edge could exist as part of a short-term marketing promotion. Or as a welcome bonus. Or as joint marketing with other casinos or bookmakers. Or as a reward for engaging play. There could be many reasons, but, again, they're all related to marketing in one way or another.

Well i still think there is still more to that it not just only marketing promotion. I think sometime  casion can even go as far to offer zero house edge games and still players don't even show interest in them, for example a 0% edges only exist if you use perfectly and get use to the strategy which 70% of  players do not have an idea about it, so some how the casino still makes profit from mistakes, which it is a very smart psychological trick...

For example, a 0% edge blackjack only exists if you use perfect basic strategy, but 90% of players don't know it, so the casino still makes profit from mistakes. It is a smart psychological trick.

A small percentage to the house does mean that there is a chance people who are addicted and enthusiast in playing gambling will grab the opportunity to earn money and become more profitable to the casino of course no one let it happen how does casino earn money it's like they are just giving away a money to the users. Even with the RTP is you can see that there is a higher RTP rate but still players are still losing because it's not guaranteed return but takes a lot of games before you got your played amount as return.

You have a point here even with 100% RTp most people's would still lose, and this is some bitten truth that most gamblers don't find happy when they are been told such,

The RTP is bee. Calculated over spins, and this is what you do not no the small house edge is enough because the casino has unlimited bankroll and the funniest part is you don't have such lager bankroll to gamble with so that the difference..

[Dareo]

Honestly the biggest obstacle here, outside of the mathematical calculations is the time factor. If you can get a 0.1 percent edge, you will only be making $1 over the long run for every $1,000 you bet. For this mathematical benefit, you might need to spin millions of times and that is not something a common man can do. People that play high stakes games with a passion are just wishing for a lot of money in a brief period. As with the stock market, not everybody is patient enough to content themselves with small profits and sit in front of the screen for hours. When they are impatient and act out of the rules, they lose everything before they can make use of the genuine advantage and come back empty handed.

[xenomorfo]

Fair point, mate!

It is absolutely true that casino sometime offer zero & negative house edge as marketing trick or promotional loss leader.
But NGL, casinos are always one step ahead of us when it comes to terms and condition!

TBH, in real life most of us will end up with zero balance. Many have already pointed out the reason. Casino's capital is limitless but our bankroll is limited.
Also as you mentioned players are quite passionate and don't bet small. So IRL, after losing just once or twice we often let our emotions drive us to increase our bet size tenfold. The moment over-betting kicks in, variance wipes us out in heartbeat!
So, by exploiting our emotion, limited bankroll and poor bet sizing, casino eventually claws back the entire cost of those marketing promotion right out of our pocket.

this is definitely for a short period of time or limited to one game, they don't do it for the whole mess!
As in supermarkets where they put the flirty product, even in casinos they certainly put the flirtatious game.
This wouldn't surprise me at all, it would even make sense.

[5W-KILO]

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.