TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2382
December 16th, 2017 at 5:12:49 PM permalink
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.
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 16th, 2017 at 6:05:49 PM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 16, 2017
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
December 16th, 2017 at 9:18:36 PM permalink
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.
I am a robot.
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 16th, 2017 at 9:31:05 PM permalink
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?
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 17, 2017
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
December 17th, 2017 at 9:55:11 AM permalink
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.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
December 17th, 2017 at 10:03:40 AM permalink
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.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 17th, 2017 at 11:25:54 AM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 17, 2017
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 17th, 2017 at 11:49:07 AM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MattUK on Dec 17, 2017
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2382
December 17th, 2017 at 11:50:46 AM permalink
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.
MattUK
MattUK
Joined: Jul 25, 2017
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 138
December 17th, 2017 at 12:02:48 PM permalink
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. :-)

  • Jump to: