Would a site with a slightly negative house edge still be profitible?

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jackg on October 19, 2018, 10:03:50 AM

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

Go back to the 1000 users, and for simplicity I'll make it 1024 users with 0% house edge. Assume they have a perfect distribution of winning and losing, and they keep playing "double or nothing"!
This is what happens:
Round 1: 512 winners (2 BTC each), 512 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 2: 256 winners (4 BTC each), 256 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 3: you get the point Cheesy

.......
Round 10: 1 winner (1024 BTC), all others lost all their money..

This is very linear though and almost impossible to happen without some sort of scatter.
The idea that that one person could also go on to lose that 1024BTC if indedd they did earn that and didn't go and bet each time and lose at some due to scatter...

And once they turned their 1BTC into 1024BTC maybe they'll keep gamblig on a martingale with 1BTC and end up profiting at the start but inevitably probably losing everything trhey've earnt on the site...

carlfebz2

hero member

Activity: 2926

Merit: 722

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

Outcome on most gamblers will be just the same no matter on what would be the house edge is but profiting is indeed possible with some gamblers tending to make advantage on that
-HE of 1%. Utilizing such percentage to make few rolls to earn profits and who the hell will create such gambling business with that house edge.We have seen lots of it ranging 0.8-1% common nowadays
and i can think that some owner will consider that -HE.

Ewinsane

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 523

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

How ? How would a casino with negative house edge could theoretically win money ?

There is literally zero chance of a casino making any money if they have negative house edge, hell even at zero house edge it is a big risk and you are betting for the fact that the casino is luckier than the gamblers, this is for zero house edge that has high risk, think of negative, it is impossible for a casino to stay open longer than one month because all the people with huge amounts will keep gambling there until they hit that house edge and make profit.

You are basically running a faucet, an expensive and big faucet for people with money. Mathematically you would be leaking money depending on how much wagering there is. Good thing is, you will definitely have the highest wagered amount in no time because people will definitely come there to gamble and make money.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: jackg on October 19, 2018, 10:03:50 AM

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

Go back to the 1000 users of my example, and for simplicity I'll make it 1024 users with 0% house edge. Assume they have a perfect distribution of winning and losing, and they keep playing "double or nothing"!
This is what happens:
Round 1: 512 winners (2 BTC each), 512 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 2: 256 winners (4 BTC each), 256 losers (0 BTC each).
Round 3: you get the point Cheesy

.......
Round 10: 1 winner (1024 BTC), all others lost all their money.

Now remember, this was at 0% house edge.
In reality: If the casino has a 1% house edge, it takes 1% of the total wagered amount on each bet. That means, each round, the total balance owned by all remaining players gets slightly lower.
Now imagine a casino with negative house edge, that means the total players' balance increases with each bet they place. It doesn't matter if players are greedy or not: bad luck can bankrupt them instantly, and good luck can multiply their balance a thousand times or more. That can happen with a positive or negative house edge.
A player winning a lot isn't a problem to the casino, as long as the house wins on average. For that, it has a house edge

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 19, 2018, 01:03:11 AM

Quote from: eternalgloom on October 18, 2018, 05:55:09 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 18, 2018, 01:41:21 AM

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

Yeah but freebitco.in has one of the highest house-edges of all crypto gambling sites, so I'm not sure if their other services would even be able to support a negative HE dice game.
I doubt that on-site mining operations would even support a negative -1% House Edge, plus it would definitely turn a lot of users away.

A negative house edge would just not work in the long term and counting on the addiction of your players is just a crappy thought to begin with.

Freebitco.in is just greedy, because they could have reduced the house edge from 5% to something much lower, but they are saying that the gambling income is subsidizing the other services. I personally think a lot of the interest that are paid on the deposits are not coming from the so-called mining operation, but rather from the higher than average house edge on the site. Roll Eyes

A variable house edge, might be a better solution. Example : High on weekends and lower in the week. Roll Eyes

Yes freebitco.in are definitely greedy. It would be interesting to see how much wetsuit actually pays TheQuin to ~~be a little bitch~~ work for him (it doesn't matter, he's still got me on ignore Grin

I can say whatever I want about TheQuin and freebitco.in now!) - but it would be interesting to note and have a figure of hoow much money freebitco.in has and how much wetsuit has earned from it so far. .

Anyway there is the obvious issue of the autobet strategy gethering some impact, but if users were given a few captchas to do every time they wanted to bet then we could probably solve that issue as much as possible because no one will pay or want to solve 1000000 captchas just for self satisfactionin gaining a couple of sats (in response to what loyce said).

Quote from: LoyceV on October 19, 2018, 05:12:39 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how casinos work

Over the years, I've noticed many times that the house edge remains a mystery to many gamblers. How about this as an explanation:
Imagine 1000 people all betting 1 Bitcoin once. At 1% house edge, the casino is expected to make 10 Bitcoin profit. If players are lucky, the casino will profit less, if players are unlucky, the casino profits more. On average (and that's the only thing that matters for the casino) the house wins 1% of the wagered amount.
Now imagine the same with a negative house edge: the casino loses 10 Bitcoin on average. It doesn't matter that almost half of the 1000 people lost their Bitcoin, because more than half of the users won another Bitcoin!

This is too simple for my idea.
My ideas is, once you go to a gambling site, deposit your money and place a bet, you don't go "ah well, that's that let's just move back to normality"... You keep gambling (sure you might have a stop win and a stop loss but inevitably you will probably go back to the site and keep gambling).

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: ?? on ??

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how casinos work

Over the years, I've noticed many times that the house edge remains a mystery to many gamblers. How about this as an explanation:
Imagine 1000 people all betting 1 Bitcoin once. At 1% house edge, the casino is expected to make 10 Bitcoin profit. If players are lucky, the casino will profit less, if players are unlucky, the casino profits more. On average (and that's the only thing that matters for the casino) the house wins 1% of the wagered amount.
Now imagine the same with a negative house edge: the casino loses 10 Bitcoin on average. It doesn't matter that almost half of the 1000 people lost their Bitcoin, because more than half of the users won another Bitcoin!

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Barcode_ on October 18, 2018, 02:33:02 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 18, 2018, 01:41:21 AM

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

I think there are a huge number of gamblers who would prefer to avoid gambling on an online casino that have a lot of ads placed around the site, as the ads could be quite distracting to some players when they are playing on the site for a long time, so I guess placing ads around the site would not be a good option for online casinos to generate extra income.

A lot of gamblers are not worried about the experience, because they want to win more and a negative house edge will be more important to them, than having to deal with ads. Roll Eyes

Quote from: eternalgloom on October 18, 2018, 05:55:09 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 18, 2018, 01:41:21 AM

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

Yeah but freebitco.in has one of the highest house-edges of all crypto gambling sites, so I'm not sure if their other services would even be able to support a negative HE dice game.
I doubt that on-site mining operations would even support a negative -1% House Edge, plus it would definitely turn a lot of users away.

A negative house edge would just not work in the long term and counting on the addiction of your players is just a crappy thought to begin with.

Freebitco.in is just greedy, because they could have reduced the house edge from 5% to something much lower, but they are saying that the gambling income is subsidizing the other services. I personally think a lot of the interest that are paid on the deposits are not coming from the so-called mining operation, but rather from the higher than average house edge on the site. Roll Eyes

A variable house edge, might be a better solution. Example : High on weekends and lower in the week. Roll Eyes

STT

legendary

Activity: 4102

Merit: 1454

^^ That might work with a big enough bank roll to test the odds out. I've heard of people trying to break the bank or basically clear the casino out of money on a certain game because they have a system to turn the odds in their favour. Read a very good court case in London for this where the gamblers were arrested and lost their winnings but eventually get everything returned to them because they in theory just garnered a fair advantage, those in the business no doubt study these things like a bible because its so dangerous if a house loses its edge and even worse has no cap or limit in force.

However its slightly possible a house could compromise and maybe run adverts or some kind of other profit running enterprise. Quite a few tech companies run a loss for years on end, the balance being they gain alot in market share and markets even support this behaviour in funding and valuation for the company and its debt while doing so. Problem is gambling is a select market not expandable to all

LoyceMobile

hero member

Activity: 1659

Merit: 687

LoyceV on the road. Or couch.

Please make such a site, so I can turn on a bot: 0.002 Bitcoin at any multiplier for 60 million bets.
In short: the house will lose.

avikz

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1500

Having a negative house edge is wrong business decision. Every gambling website relies on different methods to remain profitable and house edge is one of them - even though not a major one! They can get advertisers to monetize their site traffic, they can rely on the their algorithm to make them profitable from the games and they can do lot of other stuffs to remain profitable other than house edge.

But where house edge is one of the permissible method of earning money, why would a website loose that opportunity??

Betwrong

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 2198

I stand with Ukraine.

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

If there are only a few users of the site, anything can happen. You can win a lot or lose a lot depending on luck. But the more users you have, or rather the more money is wagered by various bettors on your site, the closer your profit to the established house edge, which is in your case negative and equals to -1%.

For example, over 100 BTC daily wagered on PrimeDice. So you can expect losing 1 BTC with the same amount of daily visitors.

Like some posters have noted, such a site theoretically can be profitable if some big advertisers will place their ads on your site and will pay accordingly. It's not that big companies skimp on their ads. For example, Coca-Cola spends $2.7 billion a year on advertising and $5 billion on marketing and promotion outside the US. But still I can't imagine someone paying over $6.5k daily for placing an ad on a gambling site.

Cacingkemi

hero member

Activity: 1484

Merit: 516

Quote from: SyGambler on October 18, 2018, 12:31:21 AM

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 05:05:13 PM

Quote from: crwth on October 17, 2018, 04:58:24 PM

In my opinion, if you have a site that has a negative value of edge, making the chances of players winning higher, it would still be profitable.

We could never really test that theory, only if you have that site who has -1% edge or you could make it if you want if you are just going to test the waters. It lessens your profitability but the chances of people going to lose is almost the same. They would think that they can win more and that's their problem. If they can control their emotions, probably they can beat the site.

This was my thoruhgts exactly.

With the person who suggested they could make 0.01BTC from 1BTC per day, it would get a bit boring wouldn't it. And you can just imagine "Oh look dear, I've just won 0.05BTC on a gambling site..." (few days later) "Oh no, I've lost all of my 1.2BTC to this site trying to be greedy" - my imagination's no good today but you get the point.

man you seriously think that making 0.01 BTC from 1 BTC a day boring Huh

if so then I don't know what types of investments you know that makes you 1% a day and would love to hear about them
for me if a site offer -1% HE this would be the craziest investment ever , I gave the example of 0.01 BTC profit assuming player will only wager 10K bets a day but in theory you can let the bot run all day and this will bring insane profits

it's just not possible to have -1% HE , the site will go broke in the very first day of launch

The site must have a large amount of money if want profits in each player's bet,I think not all players have good luck dude there must be those who lose every day and that is known to all the dev.well but I agree its impossible cause surely it will not be long that players use the Martiangle system right.

shield132

hero member

Activity: 2352

Merit: 905

Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

As you said -1% house edge would attract people and make addicted <- This proposal ruins everything, hope you know what I mean

Then there was one or two casino as I remember with 0% house edge, they weren't able to continue their business. -1% house edge won't attract so much people as you think and in reality you'll end up very bad instead of any kind of profit. Don't try this, believe me. If you have a math knowledge, then you'll understand reasons.

eternalgloom

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 18, 2018, 01:41:21 AM

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

Yeah but freebitco.in has one of the highest house-edges of all crypto gambling sites, so I'm not sure if their other services would even be able to support a negative HE dice game.
I doubt that on-site mining operations would even support a negative -1% House Edge, plus it would definitely turn a lot of users away.

A negative house edge would just not work in the long term and counting on the addiction of your players is just a crappy thought to begin with.

Barcode_

staff

Activity: 3206

Merit: 575

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Kakmakr on October 18, 2018, 01:41:21 AM

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

I think there are a huge number of gamblers who would prefer to avoid gambling on an online casino that have a lot of ads placed around the site, as the ads could be quite distracting to some players when they are playing on the site for a long time, so I guess placing ads around the site would not be a good option for online casinos to generate extra income.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

The only way this might work is if the site is generating massive profits from some other "service" on the site, which would cross subsidize the losses that would be occurred as a direct result of the negative house edge. A typical scenario would be using AD income to subsidize the gambling losses. Roll Eyes

Freebitco.in use cross subsidizing from mining operations and also deposits from users, to fund some of it's other services that are hosted on their site. Tongue

SyGambler

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1804

guess who's back

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 05:05:13 PM

Quote from: crwth on October 17, 2018, 04:58:24 PM

In my opinion, if you have a site that has a negative value of edge, making the chances of players winning higher, it would still be profitable.

We could never really test that theory, only if you have that site who has -1% edge or you could make it if you want if you are just going to test the waters. It lessens your profitability but the chances of people going to lose is almost the same. They would think that they can win more and that's their problem. If they can control their emotions, probably they can beat the site.

This was my thoruhgts exactly.

With the person who suggested they could make 0.01BTC from 1BTC per day, it would get a bit boring wouldn't it. And you can just imagine "Oh look dear, I've just won 0.05BTC on a gambling site..." (few days later) "Oh no, I've lost all of my 1.2BTC to this site trying to be greedy" - my imagination's no good today but you get the point.

man you seriously think that making 0.01 BTC from 1 BTC a day boring Huh

if so then I don't know what types of investments you know that makes you 1% a day and would love to hear about them
for me if a site offer -1% HE this would be the craziest investment ever , I gave the example of 0.01 BTC profit assuming player will only wager 10K bets a day but in theory you can let the bot run all day and this will bring insane profits

it's just not possible to have -1% HE , the site will go broke in the very first day of launch

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: crwth on October 17, 2018, 04:58:24 PM

In my opinion, if you have a site that has a negative value of edge, making the chances of players winning higher, it would still be profitable.

We could never really test that theory, only if you have that site who has -1% edge or you could make it if you want if you are just going to test the waters. It lessens your profitability but the chances of people going to lose is almost the same. They would think that they can win more and that's their problem. If they can control their emotions, probably they can beat the site.

This was my thoruhgts exactly.

With the person who suggested they could make 0.01BTC from 1BTC per day, it would get a bit boring wouldn't it. And you can just imagine "Oh look dear, I've just won 0.05BTC on a gambling site..." (few days later) "Oh no, I've lost all of my 1.2BTC to this site trying to be greedy" - my imagination's no good today but you get the point.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

In my opinion, if you have a site that has a negative value of edge, making the chances of players winning higher, it would still be profitable.

We could never really test that theory, only if you have that site who has -1% edge or you could make it if you want if you are just going to test the waters. It lessens your profitability but the chances of people going to lose is almost the same. They would think that they can win more and that's their problem. If they can control their emotions, probably they can beat the site.

SyGambler

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1804

guess who's back

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

no it's impossible for the site to win this way
having -1% HE means that gamblers should profit 1% of what they total wagered long run
for example I can deoposit 1 BTC and run autobet at x2 betting 10K sats a bet , it's kinda impossible to bust this amount and I can easily make 10000 bets a day which should easily generate me an average of 0.01 BTC

unless gamblers tended to martingale where there is a very good chance that they will bust everything chasing what they lost , but there will be no point at all in martingaling when you already know that you have the edge and can simply just let the auto bet run

there are many smart gamblers here in the forums and you can see them competing when they see +EV promotion for example , they will kill the site with few hours ( assuming someone launched it Cheesy

)

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: NeuroticFish on October 17, 2018, 08:51:59 AM

And the house doesn't rely on luck in order to win. That would be .. strange...

Generally the house relise on greed, in this new system, the house still also relies on greed.

Quote from: Barcode_ on October 17, 2018, 09:30:43 AM

There is still a chance for a casino to be profitable with a -1% house edge if most of the gamblers that plays on that casino are extremely unlucky with their huge bets, but I do not think it would make any sense for a casino owner to open a casino with a -1% house edge, since he would need to pay the expenses for the servers and he would also need to maintain the security of the site, if he is hiring a few developers to assist him on technical issues for the site, he would also need to pay those developers a salary too. If there is someone who is planning to start a casino with a -1% house edge, his chances to lose money would be obviously much more higher than earning profits from the site in the long run.

Yes but with the idea that gamblers generally get greedy and try to max out the amount that they can take from the site and doing what I suggest might make it profit from the aggressive whales we see on a lot of gambling sites already.

Barcode_

staff

Activity: 3206

Merit: 575

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

There is still a chance for a casino to be profitable with a -1% house edge if most of the gamblers that plays on that casino are extremely unlucky with their huge bets, but I do not think it would make any sense for a casino owner to open a casino with a -1% house edge, since he would need to pay the expenses for the servers and he would also need to maintain the security of the site, if he is hiring a few developers to assist him on technical issues for the site, he would also need to pay those developers a salary too. If there is someone who is planning to start a casino with a -1% house edge, his chances to lose money would be obviously much more higher than earning profits from the site in the long run.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: jackg on October 17, 2018, 08:09:42 AM

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

In theory such endeavor holds a great risk.

Usually, with a 0 edge, the overall wins should cover the overall loses and the site loses nothing (we talk about chances or infinite bets here).
If the edge is < 0 there's a chance the house will have to come with money from home.

And the house doesn't rely on luck in order to win. That would be .. strange...

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

I'm currently thinking that if someone made a dice site and had it to have a -1% house edge it could still be profitible.

When people gamble, they're either aggressive gamblers or gamblers for fun (a few botters but not so many). If there was a -1% house edge, this would attract people to your casino and they would usually get addicted to it or they'd not deposit more than they could lose. Things like the martingale strategy would still have a similar likelihood of failing too.

Am I confusing something here or is this correct?

Topic: Would a site with a slightly negative house edge still be profitible? (Read 485 times)