Pages:
Author

Topic: House Edge -- Is It Really Required? - page 4. (Read 1275 times)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18748
June 08, 2020, 05:42:18 AM
#29
Statistically speaking, a zero house edge casino would not be profitable. Over infinite time, the variance trends towards zero, meaning the casino would pay out exactly what they took in.

However, for this to be true in practice, you would need all customers to be playing perfectly, have perfect money management, and have a combined bank roll equal to that of the casino. Obviously, this is not the case. The majority of people are bad at money management, especially when it comes to gambling, and so the majority of their customers will be poor at managing their bankroll and their bets. Players frequently tilt, bet overly aggressive, think they are on a winning streak, bet bigger and bigger trying to regain losses, etc., all of which works in the house's favor. Their bankroll also isn't combined. The average person who walks in with $100 isn't going to say "I'll walk away when I hit $200". The majority of people would keep going and aim for higher profits. In reality, this means a swing of several hundred dollars in their favor which the casino can take in stride, whereas a swing of only $100 in the other direction is enough to bankrupt them.

Also, if you've ever been in Vegas, you'll notice that when you're playing, the waitresses will bring you quite a lot of "on the house" drinks.
Those drinks pay for themselves. Drunk gamblers are more likely to bet big, play suboptimally, and make mistakes.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 503
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
June 08, 2020, 05:34:48 AM
#28
What is the smallest edge on crypto casinos ? Have someone ever seen a casino with a 0.1% edge or something similar ?
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
June 08, 2020, 05:33:58 AM
#27
It could end well, but it probably wont.
House Edge gives the casino a bit more protection from Variance

I certainly agree with you. However, the ranges of house edge we currently see in the industry (~1%, while sometimes even less than that if we account for things like rakeback) are not a good protection against variance. If we postulate this (which seems to be a valid assumption anyway), then we have only one avenue left through which most online casinos are able to profit and prosper. And this is same variance which leaves gamblers' balances empty with no way of retribution

Luck is on the side of the big bankrolls
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 503
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
June 08, 2020, 05:15:06 AM
#26
House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.
Yeah, but online casinos have a small maintenance cost. If the owner is a developer the casino will only cost them a few bucks for the server and some time spent in promoting it and solving problems related to its customers.
hero member
Activity: 2086
Merit: 761
To boldly go where no rabbit has gone before...
June 08, 2020, 04:24:28 AM
#25
House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.

Also, if you've ever been in Vegas, you'll notice that when you're playing, the waitresses will bring you quite a lot of "on the house" drinks.
Trust me, those are paid by the house edge as well.

My friend would go there and spend like $20, but go home with $100 of drinks in his guts
full member
Activity: 868
Merit: 151
June 08, 2020, 04:22:21 AM
#24
If the idea not to put a house edge in the casino to attract more gamblers is viable, that would have been implemented a long time ago, if there are casinos that implemented that kind of system, I think they are not successful as I haven't heard a popular casinos with no house edge.

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. 

All the players would like to have and play with no house edge, but at the end of the day casino owners or gambling sites will have t make money to bear the expenses and make profits. It is only possible via having the house edge and thus inspite of this people try their luck and lose lot of money as well as they play just to make money from gambling.
hero member
Activity: 3178
Merit: 661
Live with peace and enjoy life!
June 08, 2020, 04:20:22 AM
#23
House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.

That is why no casino that is in good mind that would operate a business without a house edge.

Casino is one of the most profitable business but they also have big maintenance, they need to ensure that they have a good place to cater the gamblers, pays their employees on a regular basis, and other necessary maintenance, and without a house edge, where would they get that.

Every business has to ensure that they are consistently profitable as expenses is constant, with that, they can operate longer.
I think if there's a casino that would operate without a house edge, they would not last long.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 503
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
June 08, 2020, 03:58:05 AM
#22
House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.
They are competing with zero advantage it's true, but one can argue that they are still competing in variance. If we suppose the players are acting irrationally and will gamble all their winnings, it becomes a battle in variance (the first to go bust loses) and in such a battle the bigger bankroll should have the advantage (meaning that in this scenario it will tend to win over time).
hero member
Activity: 3052
Merit: 606
June 08, 2020, 03:54:35 AM
#21
If the idea not to put a house edge in the casino to attract more gamblers is viable, that would have been implemented a long time ago, if there are casinos that implemented that kind of system, I think they are not successful as I haven't heard a popular casinos with no house edge.

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. 
hero member
Activity: 2086
Merit: 761
To boldly go where no rabbit has gone before...
June 08, 2020, 03:41:11 AM
#20
House edge typically nudges the odds into houses favor.
Since you basically have 50-50 %, and probability theory says that if you play long enough, you should remain at 0 (balanced out), the house edge just tips that in their facor.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 2721
June 08, 2020, 03:05:49 AM
#19
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.

In principle a very interesting idea, but one must also be aware that this is then a "charity gambling" platform and not (in the long term) a viable company.
The House Edge does not exist - as we have often discussed here - just for fun but to keep the company behind the casino alive. The House Edge also covers the costs that the company incurs for the operation of the site:
  • Server costs
  • Staff costs (server maintenance, ...)
  • Costs for advertising contracts (e.g. signature campaigns)

To put it in exaggerated terms, your proposal could also be applied to Apple and Microsoft: Both companies with an incredible amount of capital, but who still won't come up with the idea of offering their products for free.
legendary
Activity: 2982
Merit: 1028
June 08, 2020, 01:44:31 AM
#18
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

Just like Government gaining Income from tax payers,House edge is something like this,Gambling site needs direct profit and that is from house edge so they have assurance of having funds to spent in their Daily expenses because what if time comes that luck comes to all players?and the House losses all the games?so at least the house edge is there to cover things they need to pay for a day of operation.
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 272
Buy Bitcoin!
June 08, 2020, 01:31:34 AM
#17
It could end well, but it probably wont.
House Edge gives the casino a bit more protection from Variance.
Same goes for Poker Players, they will win win win, and then lose lose lose. Variance can be brutal and only a high enough BR will save you from go broke.

The Bankroll might seem big enough but can always be put to a test by a players luck.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1226
Livecasino, 20% cashback, no fuss payouts.
June 08, 2020, 12:21:44 AM
#16
Zero edge projects aren't new and guess what? They don't end well. At least, the ones I've used to follow.

Variance is a big problem for casinos, so house edge helps soften that problem (it actually doesn't protect them from it!).
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
June 08, 2020, 12:02:22 AM
#15
Let's take your example again, the bankroll of the casino was 100. The original number of gamblers was 1, and 10 makes it equal. But what if there were 20? 30? Or more? Even if the chances were equal, in the sense, the total bankroll of the gamblers exceeds the bankroll of the casino. This makes it a disadvantage for the casino. This is also the reason why jackpots exist that has a probably at the very minimum I suppose

I understand when people don't read entire threads

As I don't read them either, especially when there are dozens of pages (even though this thread has only a dozen posts all in all). But why not read the fucking OP, as small as this one? Just the first paragraph of it? But seriously, it is not my logic which seems idiotic (note that I'm speaking in your terms exactly), it is your post which makes it blaringly obvious that you didn't care to read the OP. Since if you did, you would know that:

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

Wouldn't reading just one sentence suffice to understand the point?
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1860
June 07, 2020, 09:43:28 PM
#14
Required? Nope. As a matter of fact, there are casinos which have zero house edge. Edgeless (EDG) comes to mind first because it was popular back then. But, for sure, it is not the only zero house edge casino out there.

Does a casino need an edge to earn? I think so. And even with that edge, you could still lose. However, you need to have it to make sure your business is sustainable. Otherwise, you could end up expanding your capital investment for operational and other expenses without end. 
hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 672
I don't request loans~
June 07, 2020, 09:05:54 PM
#13
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
Going by the same logic, then doesn't that mean that if ten people were to against the single one with a single bankroll make the chances equal? And putting up your finance in a 50-50 chance seems quite idiotic to me. Same with how casinos work, they have an overwhelmingly large bankroll which is used to support the entirety of their player base. Seeing as you don't actually know how many people would start playing at your casino, the larger the bankroll, the better. Now let's say that without a house edge, a casino was flocked by gamblers.
 
Let's take your example again, the bankroll of the casino was 100. The original number of gamblers was 1, and 10 makes it equal. But what if there were 20? 30? Or more? Even if the chances were equal, in the sense, the total bankroll of the gamblers exceeds the bankroll of the casino. This makes it a disadvantage for the casino. This is also the reason why jackpots exist that has a probably at the very minimum I suppose.
hero member
Activity: 1470
Merit: 521
No more Rekt and Bust
June 07, 2020, 06:05:24 PM
#12
The house edge is unbeatable but the professional gambler especially poker player can beat the other players or dealers on the long run. Why to leave in luck the tale of the casino instead of using proven success method? The house edge works for casino that is why they serve free drinks&meals to hold the gambler there for a long time.
hero member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 594
June 07, 2020, 05:22:12 PM
#11
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 would say theoretically, the house can still make a profit if the game is 50-50. They can still "hold" base on the sheer volume of their capital.

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
You got me thinking as well, so I think of one game that could fit this "even-game" scenario. First that come to my mind is bacarrat, you just have to bet Player or Banker. But to make it even though, you have to strip it off with every side-bet, tie, super-six or super-seven, pairs, and that's where the house edge comes-in, to insure casino's profit. So I don't know if there are casino's that really has this so called "even-game.
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
June 07, 2020, 04:27:50 PM
#10
At the end, in such a system, you are betting against rationality in players

This is always the case if the number of players is above a certain threshold (give or take)

The truth is, perfectly rational players could easily take out any online casino with a sensible house edge (say, 1%). It is a statistical certainty. Since we don't see it happen very often, it only goes to prove that most players are not rational. So, in a way, we are already there. Regardless, it would be tremendously interesting to see the financial stats of a real online casino to assess how much of their profits actually comes from the house edge and how much from busts
Pages:
Jump to: