Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.
Topic: House Edge -- Is It Really Required? - page 2. (Read 1248 times)
Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.
Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.
This is not entirely my idea, so, as they say, don't shoot the messenger
Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own
I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel
For which games are you talking about please? How it could work for dice games, slots and crash games for example? Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own
I know every casino wants money, and it is unlikely we will see something described above in real life. However, it would be interesting to hear about examples which follow the logic of the bankroll size being a house edge in and of itself. If you know of such cases, especially when the advantage of this kind is subtle or even deliberately disguised, please share them with the inquiring minds here. Don't hide your knowledge under a bushel
Dont know if this line do really fits out " the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own" No matter how big it is, it cant really be considered nor treated as an house edge
But that's how things turn out to be
In fact, it is not very difficult to show how the bankroll size can be an effective house edge in real life. Imagine you are tossing a coin with your friend. When you lose you pay them a dollar, if you win they pay you as much. Pretty simple setup, isn't it? And it looks like your chances are equal. And they are, at least as long as you toss a coin a couple times or so. However, if you have only 10 dollars while your friend 100, their chances of busting you are 10 times higher than yours busting them. This is the "house" edge that a bigger bankroll provides
True indeed but if your friend quit halfway while bagging 20% of your money, then what left is 80%. That is just for one player, what about if you play with 80 players more and these players do the same tactics. Then you will find out that your bankroll no matter how huge it is will become depleted
It is true even further
Your or my friend may quit halfway with 20% of our money, but that would work out only for a very limited number of players. If we take 80 players or even more, then it will be roughly half of them leaving with 20% of their money lost. But their loss is our win, no matter how you look at it. So, at the end of the day, given the irrationality of most players, those who don't leave halfway will end up losing all. Otherwise, it is "a zero-sum game" (read, 50-50)
Another thing, Casino establishment is a business so the owner wants to ensure that they will take profit no matter what happens and they see house edge as their advantage
The point is, I'm not sure that the house edge is any guarantee at all, at least as long as we take a real casino with real players. Variance and irrationality are these guarantees, hands down
Because I am a businessman, I will look at the house edge from a business perspective. Which in my opinion is very important house edge
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.
For an online casino, what other sources of revenues do they have if not an house edge? If they would only run games with payouts exactly in line with there probability of winnings, the casino wouldn't make any money in the long run. But they still have to pay their employees, servers, maintenance, security, and so on.
Without any edge, the casino would just lose money every month. Better to give your money to charity then I think.
An alternative would be to fill your website with Ads. But who wants to play on casino where you are getting constantly pop ups? I wouldn't enjoy that.
How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.
There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.
Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.
that sounds greedy . gambling is a kind of business yes but many business does care and value thier costumers so why not gambling business can be that way ? also business is a business , a business owner must agree that he can loose more than what he expects to earn . add in that his business was a literal gambling , so why not take risks . house edge is not really required , i see a couple of gambling sites that have no house before but right now , modern casinos already come up with an idea of putting a house edge
Because gambling is too far from other Business,In gambling there are people that must lose their money without getting product or anything in return while in other business we can at least take what we want to have before going home.
So in this sense yeah there are greediness and some cheating if needed(but of course i don't put words into them,only some occasions lol)
Because I am a businessman, I will look at the house edge from a business perspective. Which in my opinion is very important house edge
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.
for casinos. One of the casinos income is obtained from the house edge, if there is no house edge I am sure casinos will not last long.For us
gamblers, we must understand that every casinos has a house edge, that's part of the profit for casinos.
that sounds greedy . gambling is a kind of business yes but many business does care and value thier costumers so why not gambling business can be that way ? also business is a business , a business owner must agree that he can loose more than what he expects to earn . add in that his business was a literal gambling , so why not take risks . house edge is not really required , i see a couple of gambling sites that have no house before but right now , modern casinos already come up with an idea of putting a house edge
Of course they value their customers.
When you done have customers, you don't have any income. Its important to treat all the customers fair, with respect and make sure they are happy.
Of course running a casino or any business has its risks, from being cleaned out, from being hacked etc.
Why would a casino want to take a risk in giving up the house edge? For their customers?
Would you want to jeopardize your business which is running fine with a house edge just to make your clients happier?
Many Casinos try to give back with rewards and bonuses (but also to lure you in to play more)
Gambling is a business, just look at Vegas
How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.
There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.
Exactly.
Noone is running a casino out of the kindness of their heart.
Its a business and that business is here to make the owner money.
Simple as that.
I would say just to protect the casino it is really required to have a guarantee. Not saying without house edge they can't make any profit, I remember there was one casino who tried 0% edge for a while but they didn't had a big bankroll so they couldn't cover the losses long enough to wait for a win, and they just bankrupted basically.
This doesn't mean it will be the same for all casinos, this doesn't mean it will always be bankruptcy for the casinos if they have no edge, but at the same time we are talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" and I would pick guaranteed income for my casino over a probable one any day of the week. Considering even with the current house edge system there is abundant amount of costs to run, they really need that guaranteed income for sure.
This doesn't mean it will be the same for all casinos, this doesn't mean it will always be bankruptcy for the casinos if they have no edge, but at the same time we are talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" and I would pick guaranteed income for my casino over a probable one any day of the week. Considering even with the current house edge system there is abundant amount of costs to run, they really need that guaranteed income for sure.
^ There should be a house edge because that gives the gambling owner generate revenue just for them to survive on this kind of business.
As we know the house edge is always in favor of the casino owner, so, why we gamble if it's still possible to win? Because luck anything could happen in a short term of gambling and most gamblers hoping for luck that probably they have while they are in gambling. Nevertheless, for me technically speaking, the house edge has been a built-in mathematical advantage on every game and maybe can make a profit.
As we know the house edge is always in favor of the casino owner, so, why we gamble if it's still possible to win? Because luck anything could happen in a short term of gambling and most gamblers hoping for luck that probably they have while they are in gambling. Nevertheless, for me technically speaking, the house edge has been a built-in mathematical advantage on every game and maybe can make a profit.
First of all thank you very much for coming back to me, unfortunately it is not self-evident here in the Gambling section that a discussion is actually taking place 
Yes, of course. Assuming that the House Edge is not the (main) source of income, one cannot speak of a "charity" action. But when I look at the countless online casinos, the question arises for me, what other sources of income are there besides the House Edge? Hardly any portal shows advertising, only a few offer the opportunity to invest directly in the bankroll - as Bustadice does, for example
If it turns out that the house edge is not how casinos turn in most of their profits, I leave it to you to decide on how charitable this type of gambling would be
Yes, of course. Assuming that the House Edge is not the (main) source of income, one cannot speak of a "charity" action. But when I look at the countless online casinos, the question arises for me, what other sources of income are there besides the House Edge? Hardly any portal shows advertising, only a few offer the opportunity to invest directly in the bankroll - as Bustadice does, for example
Remember Steve Ballmer's famous developers?
So I have four words for you. It is variance, variance, variance, variance. When you go all-or-nothing path, the house edge as it is commonly understood will be of little help as luck (another term for variance) will be dominating the scene in this case. And now, all of a sudden, it is one bankroll against another. Put differently, if your bankroll is way bigger than the casino's (and there are no limits on how much you can bet), the house edge becomes irrelevant as the size of your bankroll will be your own "house" edge. Now reverse the situation and read this post to see how casinos are earning dough
Your analogy is skewed on so many levels
I'm fully aware of that Hence the "to put in exaggerated terms"Then let's get it straight, it is not an analogy
With many crypto casinos, you get 1 satoshi min bets with 1 BTC upwards max bets, allowing martingale strategies with up to 30+ losing streaks (but house edge gives them less exposure to variance)
You're welcome, bro!
This is what I've been doing with doges, and you know what? People are still in deep denial, and refuse to accept the fact that with small house edges of 1% at the outside, variance beats the house edge hands down (read, you should be extremely unlucky to bust if you do everything right)
How could you make any money with zero house edge? I mean come on, are you going to just left it to gods will and hope for the best? With zero house edge you are going to get either a player who makes as much money as possible without losing they will just bankrupt the casinos. Sure there is a chance they get unlucky and lose all of their money as well but you have to be insane to just wing it.
There is no way a casino could operate without house edge, its their insurance and they will definitely continue with the house edge as well. Its required, its a must, it has to exist, otherwise there is point on starting a casino at all.
A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved.
How? There is no way to "surely" drain a casino's bankroll, unless that casino is offering flawed games that can be cheated, such as blackjack with only one or two decks and not clamping down on card counting. Even then, with the odds in the player's favor, it is not guaranteed by any means. If it were possible, then casinos would all have gone out of business by now. Whenever you play at a casino, there is always the risk that you lose.It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day
A zero sum game is a game where the net gain and net losses by all participants is balanced - hence the sum of all gains and all losses is zero. Gambling is indeed a zero sum game, since the gains of the player are perfectly balanced by the losses of the casino, and vice versa. If my bankroll is $100 and I go bust, then I have lost $100, but as the casino has gained that $100, the sum is zero. It is a zero sum game. legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1189
Need Campaign Manager?PM on telegram @sujonali1819
My opinion about the house edge:
I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge).
I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge).
It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day
How so ? If I play with 0.1% stake (or whatever) of my bankroll for each "bet", I can never go broke. And with no house edge, over a big enough sample size, my bankroll will be the same as to when I started playing.
And I'm not sure what martingale has to do with that unless you actually mean the opposite of what you have written above.
When you talk about "staying in the game longer", this is Martingale:
(...) but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.
If you disallow Martingale and everyone plays with a proper money management*, there are no winners here, it's a zero sum game. Doesn't matter if the casino has gazillion times the bankroll of all their players combined.
*The casinos play with proper money management too, i.e. the bet limits they set for their customers.
In order for a casino to be successful and profitable it is a must to have the house edge implemented.In the Op theory that the larger bankroll makes you stay longer online and play longer is not true in all cases.Some player can be smart and win a lot in poker making this casino lose all its bankroll.Also in slot machines if you don’t have an house edge strange things can happen depending on the pay frequency and variance of the slot.
Martingale seems really a fascinating topic for a lot of gamblers 
But don't worry @deisik, I like your approach and thinking out of the box, although you know my opinion about something that might work to a certain extent in reality (with small gains, if you play it safe), but not in theory
But don't worry @deisik, I like your approach and thinking out of the box, although you know my opinion about something that might work to a certain extent in reality (with small gains, if you play it safe), but not in theoryYou know what they say?
Right, there is nothing so practical as a good theory (the emphasis on good, obviously). And the theory says that on finite timeframes (dealer's choice), it is not something which "might work to a certain extent in reality" but rather something which would work most of the time given enough sample size (to make the theory fully applicable)
As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. Put differently, the sheer size of its bankroll will be the house edge on its own.
Imagine all those players putting all their funds in one pot and going all-in a few times - and getting lucky. Then this "syndicate" would suddenly have the house edge over the casino
This would be sheer luck, indeed. However, you don't need luck for that at all. A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved. Ironically, it would turn to be a matter of extreme luck for the casino to stay afloat in that case
In general, this is of course a zero sum game, which is maybe good for money laundering, but else then that ? Your theory of a "bankroll house edge" makes sense, as far as I see it, but only, if you make Martingale mandatory for all players and no syndicates allowed. But all in all this is so far from reality
It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day
And I'm not sure what martingale has to do with that unless you actually mean the opposite of what you have written above. A thought-out martingale strategy takes away from the house edge, in whatever form it may exist. It is hard to beat a mighty bankroll, but if your goal is limited only to taking something from it, a small piece of the pie, the more the merrier
For gamblers, we certainly like to play in a casino where we think we have a decent chances of winning, but it's not gonna happen as casinos advantage is what makes their business profitable against majority of the gamblers
Again, we don't know how much of an online casino revenue flow is due to house edge and how much of it comes from variance (i.e. people being irrational) and sheer bankroll size. The point is that the house edge can be easily overcome by variance if you know how to take advantage of randomness. The bankroll size, on the other hand, is unbeatable. To repeat, it is a statistical certainty that cannot be meaningfully challenged
A casino having a house edge does not just take all the bets a gambler would put even if they have a house edge.
House edge will remain as fix, something that they won't remove on the part of the casino, but in terms of bets, the house can always put a limit especially to those lucky high rollers, and that again gives them the advantage.
They are into profit, and they like to make sure that they will win and stay profitable, that's why high rollers usually choose a casino that has big limits so they can gamble within their range.
This is what statistics actually says
This is what statistics says when you have a finite resource, which in your example is each person's bankroll. When you have infinite bankrolls, then statistics says that over infinite time the variance will be 0.And one of you will inevitably bust in the end, and it won't take long, probably in fewer than 100 tosses
The probability of tossing heads 55 times or more in 100 tosses, therefore giving you a swing of at least 10 over the other person tossing 45 tails, is only 0.1841. Similarly, the probability of tossing tails 55 times or more will also be 0.1841. So the chance of someone going bust in 100 tosses is around 36.82%, if we ignore the variation in the order of the tosses. So that wouldn't quite be "probably".If we are taking "probable" to mean a >50% chance of it happening, then you would need 180 tosses. There is a probability of 0.2512 to toss 95 heads or more in 180 tosses, meaning a a 50.24% chance for someone to go bust.
Jump to: