Topic: Small negative house edge - page 5. (Read 6068 times)
Risky and stupid, a casino is a business not a charity. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose its the risk we take to gamble.
After all, it makes no sense for the casino. Anyway they lose, so they will not make money this way. There for sure will be something that will help to suck money in another way.. It makes this idea very risky..
Negative house edge is very risky for a casino, at least if it's done for all players. It means an unlimited giveaway, even if the time and bet size are limited, because too many people (and multi-accounters, and bots!) can go there and do too many bets, and as a result losses of a casino may be unpredictable. For casino it's much better to give fixed bonuses or limit the number of participants of a promotion, then it won't be so risky for a casino.
That is why casino can put some restrictions to negative edge for example you can bet only X.XXX BTC maximum and only for XX bets. This should be fine as promotional value of this 'promotion' would be far greater than costs incurred by the casino. If there was a 50.5% chance of winning a 2x, I promise you greed would still make many people lose more than win.
With only 1 smart person the casino would go broke since he can win indefinitely
Negative house edge is very risky for a casino, at least if it's done for all players. It means an unlimited giveaway, even if the time and bet size are limited, because too many people (and multi-accounters, and bots!) can go there and do too many bets, and as a result losses of a casino may be unpredictable. For casino it's much better to give fixed bonuses or limit the number of participants of a promotion, then it won't be so risky for a casino.
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lotI think the next step in the development of online betting will be a floating house edge. That is, the house edge will fluctuate from a small positive to a small negative in the given range (say, from +0.1 to -0.1), depending on the amount of profit being earned at the moment...
If there was a 50.5% chance of winning a 2x, I promise you greed would still make many people lose more than win.
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lotI think the next step in the evolution of online betting will be a floating house edge. That is, the house edge will fluctuate from a small positive to a small negative in the given range (say, from +0.1 to -0.1), depending on the amount of profit being earned by the house at the moment...
This should give more incentive to players, and will obviously raise the heat in the Martingale thread as well
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot
It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?
I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)
I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)
According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.
The player will go on playing till he lose everything.
What if the player are just flat betting, say 1% of his bitcoin, over and over again? He will win 50.5% of the x2 bets and lose 49.5% only.
While he may have bad luck to have more loses than wins in the short term, it is not easy for him to lose everything with flat betting.
I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge. Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge. There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up. They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.
I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running...
casino will pay you for betting 18+ hours with autobet / bot? I dont think so, due note that most people actually use autobet or bot to gamble, and never heard of casino to give some dollars for playing for such 18+ hours
First of all, as you might have noticed, we are not talking about autobet, bots, and whatnot. We are talking about you (and me, for that matter) sitting most of the day betting at a dice site. But this is still just talk, and talk is cheap. Actually, 999dice.com does (did) just that. Specifically, they show (or did show) a button every 2 hours (approximately) for a few seconds in the chat, and if you were lucky enough to hit it, you would get a bonus of 10k-100k satoshi. As you can see, this amounts to the above mentioned few dollars per day (if you sit there long enough, of course)...
Even with a negative house edge, I still think the casino will win because people are stupid and emotional and greedy and they will go broke because of those reasons.
Aside from slots, casinos have very small edges at the moment anyways.
Aside from slots, casinos have very small edges at the moment anyways.
It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?
I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)
I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)
According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.
The player will go on playing till he lose everything.
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
Yes, and in this way my first thought would be that someone wants to bring as much as possible players and run away ..
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
I kinda have a felling that this would actually "un-promote" the site.Imagine a newbie registers an account here, opens a gambling site and offers - House Edge.Would you play it?I won't I would make an assumption that, either the owner is dumb or either that he wants to scam and run away with deposited BTC.
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?
What are you even talking about?A positive Expected Value is always good. It doesn't matter if you are a casino or a player.He is obviously saying that a negative house edge casino is bad for the casino and a positive house edge is good, wich is true and as i said before negative house edge casinos would go broke
From wikipedia:The roulette game consists of a small ball and a wheel with 38 numbered pockets around the edge. As the wheel is spun, the ball bounces around randomly until it settles down in one of the pockets. Suppose random variable X represents the (monetary) outcome of a $1 bet on a single number ("straight up" bet). If the bet wins (which happens with probability 1/38), the payoff is $35; otherwise the player loses the bet. The expected profit from such a bet will be
So that is -EV for a player and +EV for casino which is good for a casino.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
And yes negative house edge for casino is DEATH no matter how small the percentage is on average the player would always win.
You realize.. -EV is bad for the USER.. and +EV (house edge) is bad for the casino?
What are you even talking about?A positive Expected Value is always good. It doesn't matter if you are a casino or a player.He is obviously saying that a negative house edge casino is bad for the casino and a positive house edge is good, wich is true and as i said before negative house edge casinos would go broke
I don't think anybody will open a site with negative house edge.
A gambling site would rather organise giveaways than give the player the edge.
A gambling site would rather organise giveaways than give the player the edge.
Jump to: