Topic: Proposition: Higher house edge reduces overall gambling losses - page 2. (Read 290 times)
Up.
well this is somehow true , personally I have lost way less money with slots and roulette for example than what I lost playing dice
this was because I already know that these games HEs are way to higher than dice so I end up playing dice more
but also the money I used for fun , so if dice wasn't available I would had gambled the same amount of money on higher HE games so I would had ended up with way more loss
I'm sure pokerstars may like such topic since they keep raising their rake , they would love to hear that more rake is better
this was because I already know that these games HEs are way to higher than dice so I end up playing dice more
but also the money I used for fun , so if dice wasn't available I would had gambled the same amount of money on higher HE games so I would had ended up with way more loss
I'm sure pokerstars may like such topic since they keep raising their rake , they would love to hear that more rake is better
Confused?
Action
It seems paradoxical to anyone who knows basic probability. If E(X) < E(Y) then X is clearly worse than Y. In a mathematical sense, this is absolutely correct. However, allow me to add a claim:
An individual is more likely to be a problem gambler if they have won a large amount during their first session as opposed to one that does not.
From what I know, research has shown that gamblers chase the jackpot feeling. This makes sense from a biological perspective: when one wins a large amount, there will be a rush of dopamine to incentivize the wager. This will result in a habitual urge to gamble since it felt so euphoric to the gambler. Even if the individual knows that the odds are not in their favor, they will still receive this natural response. In fact, it may be stronger due to their "beating the odds".
Analysis
Let us rephrase the claim:
if winnings(A) > winnings(B) then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits.
I would further change this to:
if winnings(A) > 0 then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits than if winnings(A) < 0.
Certainly, if an individual were to lose most of their bets, or in an extreme scenario, if an individual were to lose all of their bets, they would not be likely to return. There is the lack of the sensation of winning. This seems to be more effective when the gamblers are unaware of the increased edge.
"when participants had a lower expectation that they would win, their response to winning equal rewards was elevated."
Source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160721-the-buzz-that-keeps-people-gambling
All of this is assuming, however, that the individual has not gambled in their life.
Addendum
Assuming an increase in house edge doesn't affect non-problem gamblers' behaviors (lots of people typically set a lower bound on their bankroll), we should expect to have less problem gamblers in general due to the claim.
Problem gamblers will still contribute to the total losses, however, the % increase in house edge and % increase in losses will not be 1:1.
With house edge, 0 < E(X) < 1 and each additional wager has the gambler approaching 0. Most problem gamblers don't stop until they lose it all. Much of the time, it is merely a game to see how long they can last before busting.
Thus, we can assume that the % increase in losses is significantly less than the % increase in house edge.
Since problem gambling is less likely to develop in new gamblers, this results in a long-term decline in gambling losses.
Feel free to discuss. More will be added to this post as time goes on.
Action
It seems paradoxical to anyone who knows basic probability. If E(X) < E(Y) then X is clearly worse than Y. In a mathematical sense, this is absolutely correct. However, allow me to add a claim:
An individual is more likely to be a problem gambler if they have won a large amount during their first session as opposed to one that does not.
From what I know, research has shown that gamblers chase the jackpot feeling. This makes sense from a biological perspective: when one wins a large amount, there will be a rush of dopamine to incentivize the wager. This will result in a habitual urge to gamble since it felt so euphoric to the gambler. Even if the individual knows that the odds are not in their favor, they will still receive this natural response. In fact, it may be stronger due to their "beating the odds".
Analysis
Let us rephrase the claim:
if winnings(A) > winnings(B) then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits.
I would further change this to:
if winnings(A) > 0 then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits than if winnings(A) < 0.
Certainly, if an individual were to lose most of their bets, or in an extreme scenario, if an individual were to lose all of their bets, they would not be likely to return. There is the lack of the sensation of winning. This seems to be more effective when the gamblers are unaware of the increased edge.
"when participants had a lower expectation that they would win, their response to winning equal rewards was elevated."
Source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160721-the-buzz-that-keeps-people-gambling
All of this is assuming, however, that the individual has not gambled in their life.
Addendum
Assuming an increase in house edge doesn't affect non-problem gamblers' behaviors (lots of people typically set a lower bound on their bankroll), we should expect to have less problem gamblers in general due to the claim.
Problem gamblers will still contribute to the total losses, however, the % increase in house edge and % increase in losses will not be 1:1.
With house edge, 0 < E(X) < 1 and each additional wager has the gambler approaching 0. Most problem gamblers don't stop until they lose it all. Much of the time, it is merely a game to see how long they can last before busting.
Thus, we can assume that the % increase in losses is significantly less than the % increase in house edge.
Since problem gambling is less likely to develop in new gamblers, this results in a long-term decline in gambling losses.
Feel free to discuss. More will be added to this post as time goes on.
Jump to: