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. 
Topic: Small negative house edge - page 6. (Read 6066 times)
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
safe-dice got rid of third party bot
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...
Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale 
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
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 dont know what succesfull martingale posts you mean but i havent seen any, could you link some?
I don't think that its healthy for the site if its a negative house edge. Its like giving out free money
Not only is it not healthy it will ensure the site does not last a few weeks, imho though it would be an excellent marketing method to promote negative house edge it would gain a lot of players for the few days-week the promotion is running. Has anyone done this yet do you no or is it even possible?
Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
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.
Martingale works really well for a very long time, it shifts the odds of you losing away so that it very infrequently happens. You can win 5000x in a row, but eventually it will get you, and you will lose your entire bank. During those 5000 wins, you will hear a lot about how great Martingale is, then at the end you will probably hear about how the game is rigged as it can never be black 12 times in a row!!
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 don't think that its healthy for the site if its a negative house edge. Its like giving out free money
I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?
The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative xD
That would be a really good marketing idea. Regarding people not playing when the edge would be positive to the house, I don't think that will be the case (to any significant degree, at least)
First, if the house edge would frequently change in a small range (and with a good bankroll this is what we could safely expect), say, from +0.1 to -0.1, this wouldn't make a difference to most players, which are driven by adrenaline, not by house edge. Second, if people play at dice sites where house edge is set to around 1% positive, why would they not play when it is set (or, rather, fluctuating) way below that? Indeed, some people would evidently wait for the house edge to turn negative, but their numbers should be small...
And the real house edge could be revealed only after the bet has been made
Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
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.
Even with negative house edge, house could win if gamblers are greedy / use martingale
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
But, negative house edge could attract many gamblers
In past, luckyb.it also did same thing. They offer 100,3% odds & able attract some gamblers
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it
At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet (about a year ago), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...
Because freebitco.in is a faucet and not a real casino wich attracts more people nevertheless no one with a lot of money would play on a casino that has 0.1 max bet
So people with real money come to real casinos to win, right? But if they come to win (since why would they ever come to lose?), this necessarily implies that they have a winning strategy (or, at least, they think so), even despite the positive house edge. In this manner, why wouldn't a casino have a plan to win even if it had a negative house edge set? As to me, the casino's chances are still higher than those of people coming to play there...
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it
At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet (about a year ago), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...
Because freebitco.in is a faucet and not a real casino wich attracts more people nevertheless no one with a lot of money would play on a casino that has 0.1 max bet
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it
At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet about a year ago (or even less than that), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%...
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it
@neoneros But they only lose money because the house has an advantage. If that changes and the player has an advantage, more players and the more they play, the more the house loses. In this case the chances aren't in favor of the casino.
When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.
For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.
I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?
The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative xD
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)
When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.
For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.
I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?
The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative xD
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
It would not matter, the chances are always in favour of the casino, there are enough people wasting their money hoping for a little luck. I think a negative edge might even attract more people who lost a lot on other casino's and try their luck, some will lose even more so. Others might be lucky. It is not the reserved and thoughtfull players the casinos earn their money from, it is the emotional betters that waste all their money.
Negative house edge makes no sense for the casino since it most probably have negative income.
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)
When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.
For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.
I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice sites)?
Jump to: