What if... 1% house edge would simply be a charge?

Generations of gamblers had been doing this wrong, but the help is on the way. In every casino game the house advantage is part of the rules, making the game mathematically unfair. It is left to the Lady Luck whether the player will trigger it or not (or more accuratelly - if he will trigger it more often then expected). Only Betfair Zero Roulette was a short-living experiment with fair odds. They had scrapped it after incurring 100.02% Actual RTP on selected markets. It hit me like a diamond bullet right through my forehead - why make the odds unfair in the first place? Why not give the FAIR ODDS (EXACT 100% RTP) and CHARGE BEFORE PLAY? That way it would be far more fair and accurate, IMHO. It would turn the house edge from a mean of cheating into a charge for playing. Right now it's unclear at best. The simplest (and accidentally economially viable) charge would be 1%. It would work like this: 1 cent from every dollar weagered on a 100% RTP game, like no zero roulette. Hence 1 cent goes to the casino's coffer and 99 cents is bet. The player can win 1.98 (on even money) or bust, but the "expected loss" would be turned into single sure loss before every spin. A charge for playing, simply. There would be less gambling in gambling. The only thing left to luck would be the spin itself. This is how it should be, I dare to say. It could also help addicts because they would no longer fool themselves that they don't pay for it. A history of charges could appear on the screen every 5 or 10 spins, for example. Please note that with 1% charge it would be better than 1.35% house edge in French Roulette. Actually that would be better than 1.01% on a single deck baccart.
The only similar approach that I am aware of is 10% commission on winnings used by Betvoyager.
What are your thoughts on that? Why we don't have it? Why do we pretend it's fine to play a skewed game instead of paying for playing a game with fair odds?

Indian casinos already kind of do this... they charge a flat rate per hand, but still have a house edge. So, you're getting doubly-screwed.

All you are doing is changing the odds. The house edge is still there.

In your example of no-zero roulette, let's say you bet 100 on Odd - which, in effect, is actually a bet of 99 plus a charge of 1 - then you make a profit of 98 (win 99 on the bet, lose 1 on the charge) half of the time, and a loss of 100 the other half, so the house edge on the bet is 2%. It is not a "fair game" as, for all intents and purposes, the "even money" bets only pay odds of 49-50.

A flat rate per hand sounds like a message "for rich people only". It's a tax on luxury companionship, nothing else.

> All you are doing is changing the odds. The house edge is still there.

Oh dear. Of course the advantage would not disapear. But it would be transparent, measurable and stable charge instead of unpredictable house edge which CAN be higher then expected. That's the just of it! You pay for a fair roulette instead of accepting skewed variant. I think it would be more fair and transparent with additional benefits. For example, the wheel would be divided into 36 slots, exactly 10 degrees each and 9 on every quarter. You would no longer be gambling with the push. It's converted into a small flat charge, the same for every spin.
Thanks for correcting my mistake through - of course 1 cent for every dollar is equivalent of 2% house edge. 1% equals to 1 cent on every 2$, but that's aside of the question. Of interest is that 1 cent on every dollar is still 0.7% better then the European Roulette.

Matt,

Your idea seems nice enough, so that way you could at least play a "fair" game. However, there are a lot of reasons this will NEVER happen.

1) It would educate the regular joe about the unfairness of the games. Not just the addicts you mentioned, but regular folk, including tons of baccarat heroes, think they can beat the games with money management or hit and runs, etc, not realizing the long run WILL ALWAYS catch up to them. If you do this, it will educate the degenerate and non-degenerate alike. The last thing casinos want is to educate their patrons.

2) You'd be taking away the ability for casinos to fleece people on edges MUCH LARGER than 1%. Take almost any center action bet in craps... 10-20% edges on those bets. Not to mention again combining this with #1... but yeah, why would the casino settle for 1% when they have plenty of ploppies willing to give them 10-20% edges? Not just craps, but look at all the other games with 5% edges, or side bets with 10-20% edges, etc. Slot machines are almost always 7-20% house edges. Would they make the slots fair and just take money out up front?

3) More and more people are very slowly wising up to casino games.... and the fact that the new generation is instantly in massive debt coming out of any schooling (typically the people who had good jobs and extra income to gamble) they are less likely to gamble the money they don't have, or the money they've learned the value of due to the massive debt in getting there. Thus, the casino industry in regards to gambling is shrinking. There's a ton of evidence of this... from the fact that most casinos in vegas are now trying to be more "entertainment resorts" with clubs, shows, fancy restaurants, etc. Back in "the day" it used to be more about gambling, but now it's more about the other entertainment factors. Next, look at the deterioration of the games. 6:5 blackjack is probably the most prevalent example of this. They took a game with ~.5% HE, and they've now made it 2%, quadrupling the house advantage. They're in no rush to come out with "better lower house edge" games.

As ever "educated" gambler figures out, the games are unfair... but that's what you're going to get with any casino. They're the ones building elaborate facilities, they're the ones offering the games, and they're also run by wall street companies that are in it for a profit (like all other businesses). Can't blame them for wanting to make a profit off their business, I personally just hate the 'deception' they put in it to people about their games. But none the less, they're a business that provides a service to make money... thus they'll never make a business decision to make less money, especially while customers are still lining up to play these horrible games/bets. Maybe in another 100 years when people stop going to casinos they'll be forced to offer better odds/games to attract people back in.... maybe.

Romes, thank you posting the first insightful post.
I totaly agree with you that reason 1 is the most obvious and powerful obstacle. As long as the average joe is not CHARGED he thinks that it's everything down to luck, even if he's actually being robbed like with keno. This way it's much easier to swallow losing a lot then being charged a single dollar. For some people being stupid is a bliss - their stupidity shields them from facing reality. On the other hand that's exactly why this disruptive idea is needed.
Your reason 2 is about two things - high house edge and "sucker bets". In principle my idea is not about lowering the house edge but making it clear, flat and apparent. It can work with 2 cents charge on every dollar, equivalent of 4% HE, 3 cents charge on every dollar, equivalent of 6% HE and so on. Looking from this angle it doesn't change anything because most online casinos have a RTP list. As to the sucker bets, you're right, but then this idea works best with games with a single HE, like European Roulette (100/37 %).
Your point 3 is both pessimistic and ambiguous. I see a growing trend to make online gambling more transparent, honest and competitive. Preying on gambler's fallacy and unawarness is so yesterday. Disruptive ideas are emerging. One of them is 0% house edge on skills-based games like blackjack and poker. Single charge on fair odds random games is just another. The best online casinos are those who understand this and at least try to offer something instead of robbing thier own customers. Sure, not every casino thinks this way, but let them die like dinosaurs. The future belongs to those who create it.

Quote: MattUK

...Your point 3 is both pessimistic and ambiguous. I see a growing trend to make online gambling more transparent, honest and competitive. Preying on gambler's fallacy and unawarness is so yesterday. Disruptive ideas are emerging. One of them is 0% house edge on skills-based games like blackjack and poker. Single charge on fair odds random games is just another. The best online casinos are those who understand this and at least try to offer something instead of robbing thier own customers. Sure, not every casino thinks this way, but let them die like dinosaurs. The future belongs to those who create it.

Agree to disagree. Online gambling still has to be competitive due to there being 1 million online sites to compete with, let alone brick and mortar. Online gambling is a whole other world. IF you find a site that doesn't have rigged games (yes there are plenty, but there are also plenty of rigged sites - even having been posted on these boards by the wizard prior). Then you have to pay processing fee's for depositing, cashing out, bank fees for foreign transactions, etc. Then, you have to actually win. Then you have to ACTUALLY get paid out, which MANY posts on these forums point out can be quite difficult, even if you just got dumb lucky and didn't do any promotional plays, etc.

Anyways, back to brick and mortar shops... There is no trend to make gaming ANY more transparent. The first step with that wouldn't even be to change the house edges, but to POST the house edges so people had any kind of idea what they're playing... such as EVERY GAME IN THE CASINO. You can go online and lookup table game odds and VP odds, but they still aren't even posted anywhere inside a casino... let alone slot machines which you can't even lookup most of the time and the other part of the time the manufacturer just tells you a "range" it could be set at, like 85-95%. Good luck figuring that one out. Next, blackjack is not a 0% HE game. RARELY can you find a game that has extremely low house edge (.12% perhaps), and usually it comes with a higher minimum, and online (see above about concerns). There might be a couple places in all of the US that have a house edge of .12%, and it's going to be in a high limit room, and it's countable so it could swing to a players edge which involves watching these games like a hawk and kicking anyone out for just USING THEIR BRAIN to play the game the best they can.

Even the "trial run" of 0% HE roulette you referred to got pulled, after returning "slightly" more than 100% to the players. Why bother when they could just do single zero roulette and people would already like that a lot more, and they get to keep a nice house edge? There's just no incentive for casinos, who truly thrive on their patrons being uneducated in their games, to make the games better or more transparent.

Next, and probably the biggest
They couldn't charge that small.... Think of it logistically at any real casino. Are the players expected to bring ROLES of pennies to sit and pay 4 cents per hand to play? Does the casino really want to deal with millions of dollars in pennies? Is it going to be collected every 10 hands so it's solid dollars? What if someone goes broke and leaves before then? It would HAVE to be collected hand by hand, which would also slow the games down, slowing down hands per hour, and again - costing the casino more money.

Lastly, the casino industry IS a slimy misleading industry overall. Every single casino I've ever been to has some advertising about "come in and win!" or "come beat us" or "1,000,000 in winnings!!" when if you play a hand of VP for $1.25, and PUSH, they count that as $1.25 in WINNINGS they've paid out (aka entirely misleading). The whole industry is to bring people in, keep them entertained while they unknowingly play ever increasing house edge games poorly (making the edge even higher). The average blackjack player doesn't play with a .5% house advantage on a .5% rule based HE game. They play with more like a 2-3% HE because of their poor uneducated play. If the casino made things more transparent or lower HE or taught the players, they'd be literally taking money out of their own pockets... Thus their incentivised to be deceptive and to keep their clients "unskilled" and "unaware" of their games.

Just to clarify - it would work only with online casinos and it's not about the percentage charged (equivalent of house edge). 1% would beat single deck baccarat, but I would prefer to play this variant over European Roulette even with the same odds. The idea itself is revolutionary. The current paradigm to play unfair games instead of paying for fair games is exactly the poison you are talking about. Instead of talking about "how little unfair" games are (therefore: how little dumb we are to play them) let's talk about the charge for the equal opportunity to win. Because that's how it works. People don't gamble to lose little but to win and they pay for that because no one gives that for free. This is what is mistakenly treated as a "house edge" instead of a "casino's commission". We live within the constrains of our language and that's why I'm sure this would spark a revolution.
If every online casino could set up its own commission on no-zero roulette just imagine what competition we would immediatelly have out of nowhere!!! And this is exactly what we DON'T HAVE now because the only difference is within the rules!

Quote: MattUK

Of course the advantage would not disapear. But it would be transparent, measurable and stable charge instead of unpredictable house edge which CAN be higher then expected.

Since you talked about roulette: I’ve always thought all wagers available for table games have a house advantage that is completely transparent, measurable, stable, predictable, and as expected. If that isn’t true, are there any examples where I’m wrong?

While I appreciate the concept the only games where this can really apply to is no-commission Paigow (Push on ties) and Roulette (no zero). The odds of all other table games are set by the cards that are played.

Gamblers understand that there is a house edge on every game. They completely understand that casinos make a huge amount of money from gamblers and that every bet carries a house advantage running against them. Casual gamblers will bet with a set bankroll and will be fine with blowing the bankroll or coming out ahead and play for a set limit of time.

Setting a fee on each hand takes a win and make it .99 of a win. It's not the same and doesn't feel the same.

I feel it would be widely unpopular.

Happy to help, Tom. You are wrong everywhere. The house advantage is always unpredictable. Out of, say, 100 spins you can have 0,1,2,3,4 or even 5 zeros, losing the bet. Under my idea it would always be a fixed % of the wager. Therefore "theoretical house edge" is not "actual house edge", so to speak. With my idea it's one and the same.

Quote: MattUK

Happy to help, Tom. You are wrong everywhere. The house advantage is always unpredictable. Out of, say, 100 spins you can have 0,1,2,3,4 or even 5 zeros, losing the bet. Under my idea it would always be a fixed % of the wager. Therefore "theoretical house edge" is not "actual house edge", so to speak. With my idea it's one and the same.

The house edge is always predictable. What you are referring to is variance, which is the short term difference between expected value and actual wins/losses.

Quote: boymimbo

While I appreciate the concept the only games where this can really apply to is no-commission Paigow (Push on ties) and Roulette (no zero). The odds of all other table games are set by the cards that are played.
Setting a fee on each hand takes a win and make it .99 of a win. It's not the same and doesn't feel the same.
I feel it would be widely unpopular.

It would work on any game without house advantage and it's fairly easy to make such a game. Actually it requires skills to built-in a house advantage, not the other way round! But even if we stick to no-zero roulette it is still enough to make a case, because roulette is the highest grossing game.
As to your second point I appreciate your point of view. Yes, some people may be confused at least initially, but the cruicial part is that the casino would gain the power to set up the commission and make for example happy hour. It would no longer be part of the rules, as it is now. Once a customer would get less then 100/37 % for European Roulette (equivalent of 1 cent for every 75 if I'm not mistaken) I am pretty sure the popularity would jump to the moon...
It works a bit like craps. In craps casino management can increase RTP by changing the multiplicator and here - by changing the amount from which 1 cent is deducted. You can even have higher amount (= lower commission) for VIP customers. The possibilities are endless.

Quote: MattUK

Romes, thank you posting the first insightful post.

I’ll be the one to say it, you had a response of facts from “Don”, one of the smartest math guys in a room full of them, and this is your response? Great way to get educational responses. But somehow it seems you are not looking for that. So what is your agenda?

Quote: Boz

I’ll be the one to say it, you had a response of facts from “Don”, one of the smartest math guys in a room full of them, and this is your response? Great way to get educational responses. But somehow it seems you are not looking for that. So what is your agenda?

I replied to him on 11:52:28 AM. He seemed to rebuke it as merely changing the odds, but it's trivial and not what I mean. There is much more than this. It would empower the gamblers, add transparency and predictability, show the real PRICE of gambling currently hidden under the viel of skewed odds and best of all - give online casinos the power to set their own price thus create almost infinite competition (and only that could reduce the commission from 2.7% to around 1%). Currently, it's almost a cartel - everyone sells for 2.7% and it's called European Roulette. The only glimmer of hope is a French Roulette, but it has its own dead end of 1.35% for shifting even money. He is one of the smartest math guys in a room full of them so I was hoping for more focus on that.

Quote: MattUK

I replied to him on 11:52:28 AM. He seemed to rebuke it as merely changing the odds, but it's trivial and not what I mean. There is much more than this. It would empower the gamblers, add transparency and predictability, show the real PRICE of gambling currently hidden under the viel of skewed odds and best of all - give online casinos the power to set their own price thus create almost infinite competition (and only that could reduce the commission from 2.7% to around 1%). Currently, it's almost a cartel - everyone sells for 2.7% and it's called European Roulette. The only glimmer of hope is a French Roulette, but it has its own dead end of 1.35% for shifting even money. He is one of the smartest math guys in a room full of them so I was hoping for more focus on that.

You could call it, 'House Edge,' or, 'Casino Commission,' or whatever verbiage you want, but it doesn't change the math.

Roulette is honestly about as transparent as a game could be, and if not, that can easily be remedied with a simple Google search.

If you're a Craps player, you could charge 1% of all monies bet, but for a Line/Come Don't Pass/Don't Come + Odds player, that's actually going to end up being worse for them because the overall House Edge as compared to their action is less than 1%.

As you should be aware, many (if not most) online Blackjack games also have a House Edge of less than 1%, provided one is playing Basic Strategy. If one is playing Blackjack online, then there is really no excuse not to be playing Basic, because you can look up any hand you want.

Let's address your other statements really quickly:

Quote:

It would empower the gamblers, add transparency and predictability, show the real PRICE of gambling currently hidden under the viel of skewed odds and best of all - give online casinos the power to set their own price thus create almost infinite competition (and only that could reduce the commission from 2.7% to around 1%).

-They do not want to, 'Empower,' gamblers.

-The House Edge of Table Games is quite predictable and is readily knowable. For many of the larger online casinos, the reviews on the Wizard of Odds pages list the House Edge for all of the Table Games an online casino may have as well as Keno and Video Poker. Many casinos, to my earlier point, have VP with a House Edge of under 1% with Optimal Strategy. Again, there's really no excuse for sub-optimal online VP play when one can look up the right decision whenever one wants to.

-The casinos already have the power to set their own price amongst the competition. They could do precisely what you are suggesting, if they wanted. They could go to French Roulette rules if they wanted to do that, or they could offer a direct kickback to players to effectuate the 1% you're talking about. For instance, if they really wanted to, they could set their, 'Points,' at such a value that they give 1%, 1.5% or any other amount they like back to players on direct.

Thank you, Admin. Looks like my idea is unfortunately not going to take the casinos by storm. What you've said can be summarized as follow:
1) craps is a game of luck with the highest RTP, >99.00% so "my" roulette would beat French Roulette, but not craps
2) while blackjack is not strictly speaking a game of luck it's almost one when played with the basic strategy table and that can be as high as 99.9% (with a few extinct games virtually edgeless)
3) casinos already have the power to increase the RTP without changing the odds by a cashback program

I agree with you that for reasons 1 & 2 my idea would not be beneficial for super-savy gamblers like users of this forum. It certainly wouldn't have effect on me because I play Microgaming Blackjack Classic @ 99.9%. However it doesn't mean that the very idea is flawed or cannot be implemented. Especially in 1 cent for every 2$ wagered variant, equal to 99% RTP. That would make it best game of luck without built-in pitfalls aka sucker bets. It could help vast majority of gamblers in more ways then just boosting RTP. The reality is that billions of pounds are staked on roulette in the UK alone and the gambling industry cannot have worse press for sucking life out of impoverished communities and teaching young people irresponsibility. If there was ever a time to devise a better roulette it's now in the UK. It won't help US but nonetheless it could help vast majority of gamblers in more then one way as there are additional benefits like exact information about the undeniable PRICE of gambling. I'm going to translate this into useful ideas for cross-party committee on gambling and this is my agenda.
By the way, Google these recent articles to find out what is going on here:
"Bookmakers’ shares hit after MPs demand curbs on betting machines"
"MPs recommend clampdown on fixed-odds betting machines"

Quote: MattUK

The house advantage is always unpredictable. Out of, say, 100 spins you can have 0,1,2,3,4 or even 5 zeros, losing the bet. Under my idea it would always be a fixed % of the wager. Therefore "theoretical house edge" is not "actual house edge", so to speak. With my idea it's one and the same.

It seems you don't even understand your own idea. On a typical single zero roulette wheel in American casinos, you can bet on zero for as many spins as you like and for each spin there is a 1 in 37 chance of it hitting. But they payout is only 35 to one (or 36 for 1). On your proposed game, you could still bet on zero for as many spins as you like and there is still a 1 in 37 chance of it hitting. The only difference is that the payout changes to (0.99 * 36) to 1 (or 0.99 * 37 for 1). In both games the zero could still hit "0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5" times out of 100 spins.

In both games, the amount of transparency, stability, and predictability is exactly the same

Quote: TomG

It seems you don't even understand your own idea. On a typical single zero roulette wheel in American casinos, you can bet on zero for as many spins as you like and for each spin there is a 1 in 37 chance of it hitting. But they payout is only 35 to one (or 36 for 1). On your proposed game, you could still bet on zero for as many spins as you like and there is still a 1 in 37 chance of it hitting. The only difference is that the payout changes to (0.99 * 36) to 1 (or 0.99 * 37 for 1). In both games the zero could still hit "0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5" times out of 100 spins.

No Tom. It's you who don't understand my idea. In my proposal there is no zero.

Quote: MattUK

No Tom. It's you who don't understand my idea. In my proposal there is no zero.

The counter argument to your idea still works without a zero with some cut-and-paste and light editing:

On a typical single zero roulette wheel in American casinos, you can bet on the number 12 for as many spins as you like and for each spin there is a 1 in 37 chance of it hitting. But they payout is only 35 to one (or 36 for 1). That equals a transparent, measurable, stable, and predictable house advantage of 1 - 36/37. Or ~2.7%.

On your proposed game, you could still bet on 12 for as many spins as you like but there is now only a 1 in 36 chance of it hitting. But the payout changes to (0.99 * 36) to 1. That equals a transparent, measurable, stable, and predictable house advantage of 1 - 35.64/36. Or 1%

In both games the 12 could still hit "0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5" times out of 100 spins.

In both games, the amount of transparency, measurability, stability, and predictability is exactly the same.

Quote: TomG

In both games the 12 could still hit "0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5" times out of 100 spins.
In both games, the amount of transparency, measurability, stability, and predictability is exactly the same.

Tom, it's not very useful way of discussion. You have taken similarities - number 12 - and wave them as if would be a proof of anything. The difference is in zero which is the hidden and unpredictable cost of playing. What I say is: we don't need it. It's an anomaly. It's 37th pocket on a perfect 360 degrees wheel, 9 pockets per quarter. I say: let's remove this no longer necessary anomaly and instead charge upfront. The game will be even more visually appealing. How about that? And you havn't yet joined the discussion about it. You merely argue that it doesn't add the extra value of predictability. Of course it does. After 100 spins, 2$ per bet, you don't know what will be the true cost of playing the European Roulette. Most likely 6$, maybe 4$ with 2$ or 8$ still sensible. In my game it will be 1$ exactly. And it's not even about the odds. It would fix the unknown even with the same 2.70%. It makes the most transparent game even more transparent. And the best part Tom - it's just the beginning.

Casinos profit more by players not knowing the edge or even knowing it exists. That's why, agree it would be nice for players, but the casinos all agree business is easier the way it is.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Casinos profit more by players not knowing the edge or even knowing it exists. That's why, agree it would be nice for players, but the casinos all agree business is easier the way it is.

Very true buddy! The less educated punters the better for bookies! If they don't even know what the house edge is - even better! Not all of them behave this way, but it looks like ideal clientele for some in this business. It's unsustainable and about to explode. The tide is already turning. "No dice no ball" rule in California has given almost laughtable masquarade satisfying no one, because it's a primitive answer to the problem. I believe that converting house edge into price is the right approach.
Actually it would work perfectly with simple convertion from European Roulette, that is 1 cent deducted from every 74 wagered. This is the true cost of playing. Here are some milestones:

1 cent deducted from every 38 cents --> American Roulette (RTP 94.74%)
1 cent deducted from every 74 cents --> European Roulette (RTP 97.30%)
1 cent deducted from every 100 cents --> best slots (RTP 98%)
1 cent deducted from every 148 cents --> even money on French Roulette (RTP 98.65%)
1 cent deducted from every 150 cents --> better than best in Las Vegas with clear rule (RTP 98.67%)
1 cent deducted from every 200 cents --> top simple game of chance (RTP 99.00%)
1 cent deducted from every 214 cents --> Amsterdam baccarat (RTP 99.07%)
1 cent deducted from every 370 cents --> Jacks or Better simple strategy (RTP 99.46%)
1 cent deducted from every 500 cents --> best games of skill (RTP 99.60%)

Can you see the revolution?

Quote: MattUK

I agree with you that for reasons 1 & 2 my idea would not be beneficial for super-savy gamblers like users of this forum. It certainly wouldn't have effect on me because I play Microgaming Blackjack Classic @ 99.9%. However it doesn't mean that the very idea is flawed or cannot be implemented. Especially in 1 cent for every 2$ wagered variant, equal to 99% RTP. That would make it best game of luck without built-in pitfalls aka sucker bets. It could help vast majority of gamblers in more ways then just boosting RTP. The reality is that billions of pounds are staked on roulette in the UK alone and the gambling industry cannot have worse press for sucking life out of impoverished communities and teaching young people irresponsibility. If there was ever a time to devise a better roulette it's now in the UK. It won't help US but nonetheless it could help vast majority of gamblers in more then one way as there are additional benefits like exact information about the undeniable PRICE of gambling. I'm going to translate this into useful ideas for cross-party committee on gambling and this is my agenda.
By the way, Google these recent articles to find out what is going on here:
"Bookmakers’ shares hit after MPs demand curbs on betting machines"
"MPs recommend clampdown on fixed-odds betting machines"

1.) I would say the idea is flawed because they use the mechanisms of the game itself to work in a House Edge. Would you propose a 100% returning slot machine, except the player pays a 1% fee upfront on each spin? Other than a reduced House Edge, what would be the difference between that and any other slot machine?

The fact is the casinos are not going to make every game 1%, because that simply wouldn't be profitable enough. Honestly, I don't even know that a casino would have 99%+ games but for people playing badly. I mean, if you had a Craps Table upon which the only possible bets were Lines, Comes and Odds, I don't think you could pay to staff such a table. It just wouldn't be profitable.

2.) U.K.? Are you talking about online or not? You keep changing it.

I'll tell you this, if you're talking about people who go to those small U.K. shops and play the electronic Roulette, you're not going to help any of them by reducing the house edge. They're just going to lose it all, anyway, the only difference is it will take longer.

I'm not going to read those articles because I already wrote an article about this for our parent site, myself. So, I've read a bunch of articles about this already.

3.) Even if they implemented your 1%, they'd just require a greater minimum bet to make up the difference. Look at 3:2 Blackjack on the Vegas Strip and some places elsewhere.

4.) Anyone who doesn't know the House Edge of Roulette is an idiot. It takes ten seconds to discover that.

Quote: MattUK

The difference is in zero which is the hidden and unpredictable cost of playing.

Hidden? How's it hidden? They made it a different color!

Also, with all due respect, I cannot help but question whether or not you understand the meaning of, 'Unpredictable.'

Quote:

What I say is: we don't need it. It's an anomaly. It's 37th pocket on a perfect 360 degrees wheel, 9 pockets per quarter. I say: let's remove this no longer necessary anomaly and instead charge upfront. The game will be even more visually appealing. How about that? And you havn't yet joined the discussion about it. You merely argue that it doesn't add the extra value of predictability. Of course it does. After 100 spins, 2$ per bet, you don't know what will be the true cost of playing the European Roulette. Most likely 6$, maybe 4$ with 2$ or 8$ still sensible. In my game it will be 1$ exactly. And it's not even about the odds. It would fix the unknown even with the same 2.70%. It makes the most transparent game even more transparent. And the best part Tom - it's just the beginning.

If I got rid of the zero on a Roulette wheel, as a casino, I'll tell you what I would do:

1.) Adjust all pays downwards from current by one unit for everything except Even Money bets, Row bets and other bets like 1st 12. In all instances, that will increase the House Edge.

2.) Charge a fee of 5% of the amount bet on every other bet on the table, such as Even Money bets, first 12, stuff like that.

Point is, if we take away the zero, I'm going to make the game mathematically worse for the player, not better.

Admin, you pay far too much attention on numbers. Especially my proposed variant "1 cent deducted from every 2$" which equals to 1% house edge. That would best 1 deck baccarat (1.01%) and make it the best game of chance if you don't count craps. True, that would be something, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. It enables better odds, but doesn't lower them automatically. This idea can work with the standard payouts (see my previous post). Which on the other hand would be great as it would reveal the real cost of gambling. We simply do it wrong, at least with roulette - we pretend that it's free while it's not and at the same time that the deal is fair while it's skewed. My idea would put both of these lies to a long overdue end - you have to pay to play and you would know exactly how much and the deal would finally be fair. It's all about honesty. After all, if you don't want to be honest with your customers you are doing it wrong or, more likely, you are doing something wrong. So it's not about saving people wasting all their money on electronic roulette from their own fate. On the contrary - this could work as a warning and deterrent, especially combined with other means like setting daily limit on price paid (whether someone has a lucky day or not is a different story). Please note that as currently gabmling is dishonestly portraid as free of charge there is no such a thing. You have to pay for a bagel but if you want to win big it's apparently free of charge. That is the mother of all lies. On a plus side this enables things like happy hour. For example - standard 1 cent deducted from every 74 (European Roulette) and from 1$ during happy hour.
Yes, this would work online or on electronic machine. Unfeasible with physical roulette table.

PS: It's hidden because punters are lead to believe that they play for free. They are not charged for it. Another problem is that that charge (losing the bet on zero) itself depends on luck. On a lucky day you may not get 0 for 50 or even more spins, but you can also have 2 out of 10 or something like that.

Quote: Mission146

Point is, if we take away the zero, I'm going to make the game mathematically worse for the player, not better.

Thank God that you're not a casino owner, you cheater! :-))

I have no problem with this game being independently tested. Actually, it should be. The multiplier should never be less than 74 to prevent this kind of cheating. This way, it's a European Roulette with unlimited enhancements. Therefore its official RTP would be "at least 97.30%". Casino manager should be able to change the multiplier to adapt to the changing business environment. The only condition is that it must be known to the customer. It's a win-win situation. Win on social responsibility front and win on better odds.

5dimes has a bonus roulette with RTP ranging from 99.00 to 99.24%. But they had done this by playing with each of the payouts. My way is much better. Honest, single and stable charge. No zero. Standard payouts. Fair odds. Perfect competitiveness. Happy hours. Equally divided wheel. It's genius. It wins hands down even without enhanced multiplier. Something's telling me it would be innovation of the year.

Quote: MattUK

The difference is in zero which is the hidden and unpredictable cost of playing.

At first I thought the theory behind this idea was just wrong. Now you're showing that it is stupid, too. On a roulette wheel, the zero is absolutely not hidden. It is there in plain sight for all to see. The predictability of which numbers will hit is nearly the same even if it is removed. Now the probability of any number hitting, as well as the payouts and house edge are completely known and predictable -- exactly like the wheel you think would be better.

Quote: MattUK

We simply do it wrong, at least with roulette - we pretend that it's free

Maybe stupid people pretend that. Maybe you pretend that. But anyone with half a brain doesn't

Quote: MattUK

Please note that as currently gabmling is dishonestly portraid as free of charge there is no such a thing

Completely wrong. Every casino is completely honest with how many numbers they have on their roulette wheel and every casino is completely honest with what the payouts are. Anyone with half a brain or access to the internet can find out exactly what the charge is. And the charge isn't based on how many times zero hits in 100 spins. It's based on the probability of it hitting. Very few customers are so stupid that they can't understand that.

Quote: TomG

At first I thought the theory behind this idea was just wrong. Now you're showing that it is stupid, too.
Maybe stupid people pretend that. Maybe you pretend that. But anyone with half a brain doesn't
Very few customers are so stupid that they can't understand that.

Thank you for your input Tom. That will be all. :-)

How will Roulette system players, wheel clockers, physics experts and others currently killing Roulette fare under your proposal?

I don't blame you uk, your thoughts are based on the idea casinos make too much. It's true, but they pay too much to be able to do that. The whole idea of a special building where gambling can take place is totally out of date. There is no reason to price small businesses out. If someone wants to have 50 slots in a strip mall location and call it a casino, they should be able to do it. Gamblers will get the best price, because they'll be too small to say our way or the highway to customers.

Quote: Boz

How will Roulette system players, wheel clockers, physics experts and others currently killing Roulette fare under your proposal?

Roulette system players are fools. I don't care what they think.
This idea is probably unfeasible for brick and mortar casinos. Too much hassle with the charge. Software however can handle this with ease.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I don't blame you uk

Thank you for not blaming me. In return I can assure you that I don't blame you too. :-))
I always thought that double zero American Roulette is the best proof that in gambling there is no such as a thing as customer lobby.
But this, of course, has nothing to do with the proposal. It's a side talk. ;-)

Quote: MattUK

Admin, you pay far too much attention on numbers.

At its heart, gambling is nothing more than a math problem in ALL instances. It's impossible to ever pay ENOUGH attention to numbers, unless one has perfect information. It's very possible to have perfect information on Roulette, assuming a balanced wheel or adequate RNG, there's really no simpler game to understand.

Quote:

Especially my proposed variant "1 cent deducted from every 2$" which equals to 1% house edge. That would best 1 deck baccarat (1.01%) and make it the best game of chance if you don't count craps.

It would still be worse than Blackjack, (sometimes) Spanish, (sometimes) Pontoon, (sometimes) Video Poker, (sometimes)...one or two other Table Games from an Element-of-Risk standpoint. I would say 1% is okay for a base HE on a Table Game, it's not great.

Quote:

True, that would be something, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. It enables better odds, but doesn't lower them automatically. This idea can work with the standard payouts (see my previous post). Which on the other hand would be great as it would reveal the real cost of gambling. We simply do it wrong, at least with roulette - we pretend that it's free while it's not and at the same time that the deal is fair while it's skewed.

Roulette could not be more obvious. There are red numbers and there are black numbers, you may bet on either, if a zero comes you always lose. If you bet equally on red and black, then you always get all your money back, unless a zero comes up...then you lose both bets. It is, literally, as obvious as a House Edge mechanism could possibly be.

Quote:

My idea would put both of these lies to a long overdue end - you have to pay to play and you would know exactly how much and the deal would finally be fair. It's all about honesty. After all, if you don't want to be honest with your customers you are doing it wrong or, more likely, you are doing something wrong. So it's not about saving people wasting all their money on electronic roulette from their own fate.

Yeah, and if I'm a casino, I'll be, 'Honest,' with them for 5%, not 1%. Implement the change, the games would get worse as opposed to better. That's a promise.

You can't have an idiot wheel with a 99% RTP. It wouldn't make enough money. Blackjack makes enough money because most players play somewhat poorly. If you had a Blackjack that was played like PGP, where the dealer could unfailingly hand you a near-Optimal strategy, (and people availed themselves of that) then you wouldn't have 3:2 anywhere. Everything would be 6:5, if not even money. Blackjack makes the better part of its money on the side bets, anyway, but before that, the game hung its hat on poor player play. If people were actually all getting the Optimal House Edge, then the House Edge would have to go up.

Roulette and Keno are both brainless, that's why they have to have a high house edge. Especially Roulette, because there are generally no side bets.

Quote:

On the contrary - this could work as a warning and deterrent, especially combined with other means like setting daily limit on price paid (whether someone has a lucky day or not is a different story). Please note that as currently gabmling is dishonestly portraid as free of charge there is no such a thing.

Nobody believes it is free of charge. If they do believe it is free of charge, then I would encourage them to revisit third grade.

Quote:

You have to pay for a bagel but if you want to win big it's apparently free of charge. That is the mother of all lies. On a plus side this enables things like happy hour. For example - standard 1 cent deducted from every 74 (European Roulette) and from 1$ during happy hour.
Yes, this would work online or on electronic machine. Unfeasible with physical roulette table.

I'll just take 5% of all monies bet, instead.

Quote:

PS: It's hidden because punters are lead to believe that they play for free. They are not charged for it. Another problem is that that charge (losing the bet on zero) itself depends on luck. On a lucky day you may not get 0 for 50 or even more spins, but you can also have 2 out of 10 or something like that.

Tell you what, how about we have zero edge games, but you have to pay $100 to be admitted to the establishment. Would that be fair?

Quote: MattUK

5dimes has a bonus roulette with RTP ranging from 99.00 to 99.24%. But they had done this by playing with each of the payouts. My way is much better. Honest, single and stable charge. No zero. Standard payouts. Fair odds. Perfect competitiveness. Happy hours. Equally divided wheel. It's genius. It wins hands down even without enhanced multiplier. Something's telling me it would be innovation of the year.

Well, since nobody is going to buy it, I guess you'll just have to open your own casino and see what happens.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I don't blame you uk, your thoughts are based on the idea casinos make too much. It's true, but they pay too much to be able to do that. The whole idea of a special building where gambling can take place is totally out of date. There is no reason to price small businesses out. If someone wants to have 50 slots in a strip mall location and call it a casino, they should be able to do it. Gamblers will get the best price, because they'll be too small to say our way or the highway to customers.

Yeah, that's totally what happens in the parlor states. No offense, but not correct. They offer games that compare very closely to what is available in the casino on the same game types. I mean, Caveman is a little better in some of those places than in the casinos, but that's the only game I've ever specifically identified that is almost uniformly better.

Quote: Mission146

It would still be worse than Blackjack, (sometimes) Spanish, (sometimes) Pontoon, (sometimes) Video Poker, (sometimes)... one or two other Table Games from an Element-of-Risk standpoint. I would say 1% is okay for a base HE on a Table Game, it's not great.

You see, that's the problem. I talk about revolutionary convertion of house edge into price and you talk about superiority of skills games over brainless hiting the button. I can't agree more, but it will not make this business disappear. Huston, I am actually trying to reform it! How do you like this idea?

Quote: Mission146

Roulette could not be more obvious.

Yes it can! I just did it! Especially at moderate rate "1 cent for 1$". Don't you agree?

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, and if I'm a casino, I'll be, 'Honest,' with them for 5%, not 1%. Implement the change, the games would get worse as opposed to better. That's a promise.

5% equals to the rate 1 for every 40 and for you poor Americans even that is a step forward. :-) :-) :-)
But seriously now. I replied to you before that the lowest multiplier should be 74 which corresponds to European Roulette so the worst you could get is standard. Plus the multiplier and its equivalent in RTP should be visible all the time. Plus settings are already configurable by the casino manager. For example Realtime Gaming does that almost by default, so it's nothing new.

Quote: Mission146

Roulette and Keno are both brainless, that's why they have to have a high house edge. Especially Roulette, because there are generally no side bets.

I would go even further - all but a few top slots with puzzle to solve are brainless. But they are legal, they are everywhere and they turn over billions. And that's why greater competitiveness is essential. Which is what my idea enable. Games of chance are as good as the highest RTP on the market. Under my proposal every casino could compete up to the second decimal point. Thank you for making the case.

Quote: Mission146

Nobody believes it is free of charge. If they do believe it is free of charge, then I would encourage them to revisit third grade.

Yet no one is charged a single cent for playing. It's schizofrenic. Let's fix it where we can.

Quote: Mission146

I'll just take 5% of all monies bet, instead.

Slightly better than American Roulette, but still greedy. It should start from European Roulette (74) and leave the manager free hand to set it as high as he wants.

Quote: Mission146

Tell you what, how about we have zero edge games, but you have to pay $100 to be admitted to the establishment. Would that be fair?

Great question! Yes, that would be fair and a step in the right direction. Even better question is "should I enter". My answer - yes, whenever you're going to spend more than $100 on my roulette. Assuming a moderate rate 1 cent for every 1$ that's $10.000 in bets. Not that it's the best what you can do with your money, of course.

Quote: Mission146

Well, since nobody is going to buy it, I guess you'll just have to open your own casino and see what happens.

Finally I've got your judgement! Why do you think it's a bad idea?

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, that's totally what happens in the parlor states. No offense, but not correct. They offer games that compare very closely to what is available in the casino on the same game types. I mean, Caveman is a little better in some of those places than in the casinos, but that's the only game I've ever specifically identified that is almost uniformly better.

Parlors within a few miles of Mountaineer and also in the middle of nowhere I've seen in WV, all slots 7.99% hold, when Mountaineer has a casino wide average 10-11% last I heard. These have 1 nickel minimums. Still that way when the parlors are no longer full all day and night because smoking is banned by the county board of health.

I also had never been in the internet parlors we used to have in Ohio, aka sweepstakes cafe, heard many people raved about them, they thought they had much better odds than casinos. Around the same time Hollywood opened, miraculously, the judges shut them all down. Heard lots of people made money with them when they were open, taking advantage of play bonuses and the places didn't do W2Gs.

Educated gamblers? They all know its not in their favor but hope springs eternal. Its like the Insurance Bet: everyone knows its bad but no one can explain why.

Pay to Play.... great idea but casinos still won't give you a fair bet. They want a house edge on the bet and a fee to play.

Brick and Mortar casinos offer more than gambling.
Online sites offer gambling and the only females in low cut gowns are purely digital.

Those internet café type "casinos" make a fortune and have happy customers who usually are puffing away in peace.

Quote: FleaStiff

Pay to Play.... great idea but casinos still won't give you a fair bet. They want a house edge on the bet and a fee to play.

Thanks FleaStiff. You only highlight the sheer lack of balance. However if the charge would be equivalent to a reasonable house edge that could be accepted. Especially 1 cent for 1$ is intriguing. IGT has Double Bonus Spin Roulette @ 98.06% and Triple Bonus Spin Roulette @ 98.11% so this is perfectly doable.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Parlors within a few miles of Mountaineer and also in the middle of nowhere I've seen in WV, all slots 7.99% hold, when Mountaineer has a casino wide average 10-11% last I heard. These have 1 nickel minimums. Still that way when the parlors are no longer full all day and night because smoking is banned by the county board of health.

I also had never been in the internet parlors we used to have in Ohio, aka sweepstakes cafe, heard many people raved about them, they thought they had much better odds than casinos. Around the same time Hollywood opened, miraculously, the judges shut them all down. Heard lots of people made money with them when they were open, taking advantage of play bonuses and the places didn't do W2Gs.

That's true, but the parlors are pretty heavily restricted as to what games they can even offer.

Besides that, you have to look at the total package of what you are getting against that house edge. The parlors aren't going to have 10x point multiplier days upon which you get 2% of all of your coin-in back. The parlors, obviously, don't have any mail offers or drawings of any kind. They don't have any slot tournaments.

That's why it's difficult to just look at the returns on the reels and compare them like it is apples for apples, because it's not. If you look at the total value (assuming someone is not an AP and just plays slots/keno) as long as that person is playing in the casino while something is actually going on, they've probably got it roughly the same once you consider mail.

The parlors also have free cola and chips, but the casinos will give players free buffets, hotel rooms and other food credits.

Ultimately, I would say that you have to have a fairly uniform hold in the region of 8% to have any hope of even being considered competitive. It doesn't make the parlors a better deal, though, when you look at the whole package.

The closest Internet cafe in Ohio to me was about forty miles from where I used to live. I did mean to check it out, but never got around to it.

They already do this with live poker.

They skim a little off each hand and don't care who wins.

Russ

Quote: Mission146

Well, since nobody is going to buy it, I guess you'll just have to open your own casino and see what happens.

Let’s assume casinos offer a version of roulette with no zeroes that charged 1% (rounded up). Given the choice, I would play that game over any other version of roulette. I would not play that modified roulette game over craps or blackjack. Partly because of the better house edge, partly because I find roulette fairly boring.

MattUK, can you be precise about how this would work for a craps variant?

Not to speak for him, but Craps would be easy. You can bet on whatever number you like for the fee, at any time, but it pays true odds. No more Lines/Come bets. Field triples on both 2 & 12, but you pay the fee.

I’m not suggesting the implementation isn’t easy, I’m saying that the casinos wouldn’t do it.

Quote: MB

MattUK, can you be precise about how this would work for a craps variant?

Craps is a game of chance with a lot of sucker bets to confuse. Essentially it's a hybrid between flat house edge game (like European Roulette) and blackjack. Even French Roulette is a hybrid game because it has 7 bets and only 1 correct (even money). It is not true that the French Roulette has the RTP of 98.65%. It is a range between 97.30% and 98.65% depends on the composition of bets. The difference between Craps and French Roulette is that craps has up to a whopping 1% higher RTP for a top bet (or a sequence to be precise) because it's more complicated and confusing. I do not propose to apply this idea to games with sucker bets. It would complicate it even further. On the contrary, I think it works great to enable better RTP where there is a single flat house edge. This can be achieved by (slightly) increasing the multiplier over your competitors (for example - they deduct 1 cent from every 1$ so you deduct 1 cent from every 1.05$) or by boosting the odds during happy hours. For example - standard 1 cent from every 1$ (98% RTP) and 1 cent from every 2$ (99% RTP) during happy hour, 1 hour per day (or one evening per week). The level of optimal craps game is at 1 cent from 5$ wegered. If you think it's better than craps 24/7 you are not alone. The third way is to give better odds (hence: multiplier) to VIP customers.

Quote: Mission146

You can bet on whatever number you like for the fee, at any time, but it pays true odds.

What you're talking about Admin are not craps but another variant of my idea that I'm going to present to some people. I already have the name of the game and an idea how this could be presented on a video game.
The cruicial question however is this - why the casinos wouldn't be interested if that's how the slots work anyway? After all, it's all about the numbers as you said?

Quote: MattUK

What you're talking about Admin are not craps but another variant of my idea that I'm going to present to some people. I already have athe name of the game and how this could work on a video game.
The cruicial question however is this - why the casinos wouldn't be interested if that's how the slots work anyway? After all, it's all about the numbers as you said?

Yeah, bigger numbers than the ones you propose.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, bigger numbers than the ones you propose.

You know it's not true. I haven't proposed specific fee but the idea to change what is currently upside down. And even if I mentioned 1% HE equivalent it's because that's where disruptive online casino could be. This is what is required - and enough - to make any other game of chance obsolete, including 1 deck baccarat. You FINALLY understand it so what are your thoughts?
PS: To put that into perspective, pass / don't pass bet is a fee for making bet on (true) odds. In some way I propose to simplify this pre-digital fee into a single fee deducted automatically. That's how it works when you use a credit card. They don't give you a dice to throw. Maybe that's a better answer to MB's question.