boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
December 15th, 2017 at 8:44:52 PM permalink
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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 15th, 2017 at 10:10:05 PM permalink
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.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3386
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKint
December 15th, 2017 at 10:17:55 PM permalink
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.
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 15th, 2017 at 10:39:10 PM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 15, 2017
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 5701
December 16th, 2017 at 3:48:27 AM permalink
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?
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 16th, 2017 at 4:51:10 AM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 16, 2017
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
December 16th, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM permalink
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.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 16th, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM permalink
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"
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 16, 2017
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2382
December 16th, 2017 at 4:50:22 PM permalink
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
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 16th, 2017 at 4:55:53 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: