Topic: Small negative house edge - page 2. (Read 6066 times)

I'm glad someone understands.

Yes but say someone had a auto bet on at .00001 and kept betting for 10 days straight, they would be in positive alot.

Wouldnt negative house edge still be a winning format anyways?

Since there are short falls for the player to eventually keep betting longer term.

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

Wowow hold on a second, you are saying that the casino would change the odds in between bets depending on when the last bet was made? Like 51% chance to win, you bet and wait 2 secs and the next bet now has 50.5% chance? That would be a weird but good idea for a casino xD, quick register the patent!!

You've read but seem to have misunderstood my idea. I don't know how the house edge is actually implemented at dice sites (anyone care to explain?), but I see no problem in keeping track of the time passed since the last bet made by the user. Therefore it shouldn't be difficult to change the house edge appropriately at the moment the bet is executed...

No I read your post. My point doesn't really change, people can just find ways around the time limit, or make a bot that plays right when the time is up. It won't really help bring in "real" gamblers, just people looking to make money off of the casino. They won't benefit from this.

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

But you read just a part of my message. I didn't mean that those time limits should be firmly nailed down. Actually, I meant to say that the time limits (or rather time gaps between the bets) should ultimately determine the house edge. The faster you bet the higher edge you get...

Perhaps, I should update the opening post to make this clear at the start (since people tend to repeat what has already been said)

I said in this thread before, but I'll say it again. Having a time limit is absolutely detrimental to a casino. If the point of giving the players an edge is to get more players to play, the amount of players they can get that way is far less than the amount lost because of a time limit. And the quality of players is a lot worse.

What do I mean? Well, if you consider a gambling addict, do they really want to wait say an hour between bets? No, they want to bet again right away to win back their loss, or maybe they're on a winning streak and they're "hot". They're not gonna wait until their "luck changes".

There are some kinds of video poker have over 100% return, so you may try them.

But the figures are theoretical, when you play real money, you are very hardly to get Str8 flush or royal flush, so the actual return are lower than the theoretical returns(over 100%)

check out:  http://wizardofodds.com/pdf/video-poker-cheat-sheet.pdf

Double Bonus
Royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
4 aces 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160
4 2s-4s 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
4 5s-Ks 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Full house 10 9 10 9 9 9 8 9 7
Flush 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 5
Straight 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4
3 of a kind 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jacks or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.17%  99.11% 98.81% 97.81% 97.74% 96.38% 96.23% 95.27% 93.11%

Deuces Wild
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Four deuces 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 25 25 25 25 20 25 20 20 25 20 25
Five of a kind 15 15 16 15 12 15 12 12 16 10 15
Straight flush 9 11 10 10 9 9 10 9 13 8 10
Four of a kind 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
Full house 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3
Flush 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2
Straight 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Three of a kind 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.76% 99.96% 99.73% 99.42% 98.94% 98.91% 97.58% 97.06% 96.77% 95.96% 94.82%

Joker Poker (kings or better)
 
Natural royal flush 800 800 940 800 940 800 800
Five of a kind 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wild royal flush 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Straight flush 50 50 50 50 50 50 40
Four of a kind 20 18 17 17 15 15 20
Full house 7 7 7 7 7 7 5
Flush 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
Straight 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Three of a kind 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Two pair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kings or better 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 100.65%  98.94% 98.44% 98.09% 96.74% 96.38% 95.46%

I've seen once a gambling site with normal house edge and still gamblers seemed to win more than the house. (I asked them nicely to check their scripts.)
However, there's something I don't understand: how comes that Martingale has such popularity. Even myself, I thought at very start that it's a good technique.
Still, posts with successful Martingale seem to be more popular than those with fails.


And yes, such aggressive marketing technique (negative edge) could be a winning point for a casino / dice site.
But the market still seem to be able to accommodate plenty more such sites without this extra gamble/risk from the owner.

I've always been reproached for writing long sentences hard to comprehend, but you've beaten me this time (and my understanding, by the way). One sentence on 5 lines, wtf?

Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed

But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits per bet are set while max bet limits canceled (so the strategy is effectively whittled down), it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed (that is being negative), right?

Depends how much btc you have, if you have 10 bitcoins and max bet is 0.1 you can lose 100 times more than wins to lose everything and its not probable to happen if the house edge is like that, even if it happens to someone it wont happen to the other 5 players and they will just profit infinitely over a long period of time and using bots to be able to bet all day with a 0.05% house edge negative it would take you obviously a lot of bets to be able to make some profit. Lets say you make a bet every 2 seconds, 30 bets per minute, 1800 bets per hour, 43.200 per day, if 5 players are doing it thats 216.000 bets per day, in 10 days you have 2.160.000 bets wich theoretically would have made 0.05% more wins that loses

I assume that in this case max bet limits will be canceled (as I wrote). My point is that, you can't have it both ways if we consider a casino as a player ("If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the house")...

If that was the case the only thing that would happen is that it would be slower to destroy the house bankroll, it would take more time but eventually they will lose everything, at least in theory since they have max bets they cant win much money either so the house bankroll doesnt change much if someone loses