July 25th, 2017 at 4:50:27 PM
permalink

Dear Wizard, I admire your dedication and thank you for fabulous website.

Question - what is the relation between number of bets on BetVoyager's No Zero Roulette and RTP / House Edge? It's easy to see that after the first bet it's 95% and the supremum is 100% for infinite bets. What is in between and for a particular number of spins, like 1000?

Question - what is the relation between number of bets on BetVoyager's No Zero Roulette and RTP / House Edge? It's easy to see that after the first bet it's 95% and the supremum is 100% for infinite bets. What is in between and for a particular number of spins, like 1000?

July 25th, 2017 at 6:32:07 PM
permalink

I don't understand the question.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

July 25th, 2017 at 8:18:20 PM
permalink

It must be me than, sorry. Here is your comment on Gamesys "Equal Odds" games:

As a general rule, I strongly recommend recreational players play the true "zero house edge" games, especially over long gambling sessions. In roulette, for example, making even money bets, the odds are better in the "zero house edge" version with as little as two bets compared to the standard single-zero version. The 10% commission may sound like a lot, but it is much worse to play a house edge game and let the casino advantage grind you down every bet. (...) Try to clump your gambling into as few sessions as possible. For example, it is better to have one two-hour session than two one-hour sessions.

You basically wrote that the Return To Player ratio has a limit of a function and that for two bets it is >36/37. Could you please explain how to calculate the odds for a given number of bets? I guess that it approaches 100% RTP (no house edge) from the bottom for a very long session? Also, does it matter what is the payout?

Feel free to re-write my question should you post in online. Many thanks!

As a general rule, I strongly recommend recreational players play the true "zero house edge" games, especially over long gambling sessions. In roulette, for example, making even money bets, the odds are better in the "zero house edge" version with as little as two bets compared to the standard single-zero version. The 10% commission may sound like a lot, but it is much worse to play a house edge game and let the casino advantage grind you down every bet. (...) Try to clump your gambling into as few sessions as possible. For example, it is better to have one two-hour session than two one-hour sessions.

You basically wrote that the Return To Player ratio has a limit of a function and that for two bets it is >36/37. Could you please explain how to calculate the odds for a given number of bets? I guess that it approaches 100% RTP (no house edge) from the bottom for a very long session? Also, does it matter what is the payout?

Feel free to re-write my question should you post in online. Many thanks!

Last edited by: MattUK on Jul 25, 2017

July 26th, 2017 at 2:49:52 AM
permalink

Hello Matt - I don't understand the question but can see some things.

There is mention of playing "zero house edge" games. I can see two scenarios where this might happen.

(i) This is a promotion or part of a new game where other bets are available. I have seen this in the UK, so casinos sometimes do offer zero-HE games.

(ii) While playing the games is fair, there is an end-of-game commission paid on any profits you make.

It is obviously better to make zero-edge bets than the other ones - but I assume you know that!

There is then reference to the Return to Player tending towards 100%. Again I can only see a few scenarios where this might happen.

(i) Some side bets (or other games) have payouts defined for a finite number of decks. In a simple case (the Prime bet) the payout for your three cards being the same colour is 3 to 1 (and 4 to 1 if the dealer also has the same colour). Since this is a poker game it always uses a single deck. However in theory with multiple decks the odds swing in the players favour.

(ii) Suppose there was a fair game (say no zero roulette) but they charged you $1 to make any sized bet. Then as your bet got larger the effect of the $1 would become less significant.

The House Edge is a calculated value that, all other things being equal, remains fixed (there are some games with increasing Jackpots, or number of other players, or cards already gone where it doesn't). Actual results will vary enormously but will tend towards the expected value as you play more and more games.

There is also an interesting question which is whether it's better to play single-zero roulette (with Return to Player being 36/37) or pay a commission on your net win. My gut feeling is you should only cash out when you've completed your betting for the trip (although I can imagine an online rule that you cash out every 24 hours).

There is mention of playing "zero house edge" games. I can see two scenarios where this might happen.

(i) This is a promotion or part of a new game where other bets are available. I have seen this in the UK, so casinos sometimes do offer zero-HE games.

(ii) While playing the games is fair, there is an end-of-game commission paid on any profits you make.

It is obviously better to make zero-edge bets than the other ones - but I assume you know that!

There is then reference to the Return to Player tending towards 100%. Again I can only see a few scenarios where this might happen.

(i) Some side bets (or other games) have payouts defined for a finite number of decks. In a simple case (the Prime bet) the payout for your three cards being the same colour is 3 to 1 (and 4 to 1 if the dealer also has the same colour). Since this is a poker game it always uses a single deck. However in theory with multiple decks the odds swing in the players favour.

(ii) Suppose there was a fair game (say no zero roulette) but they charged you $1 to make any sized bet. Then as your bet got larger the effect of the $1 would become less significant.

The House Edge is a calculated value that, all other things being equal, remains fixed (there are some games with increasing Jackpots, or number of other players, or cards already gone where it doesn't). Actual results will vary enormously but will tend towards the expected value as you play more and more games.

There is also an interesting question which is whether it's better to play single-zero roulette (with Return to Player being 36/37) or pay a commission on your net win. My gut feeling is you should only cash out when you've completed your betting for the trip (although I can imagine an online rule that you cash out every 24 hours).

July 26th, 2017 at 3:20:53 AM
permalink

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/gamesys/

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

July 26th, 2017 at 7:12:28 AM
permalink

Quote:charliepatrick

There is mention of playing "zero house edge" games. I can see two scenarios where this might happen.

(i) This is a promotion or part of a new game where other bets are available. I have seen this in the UK, so casinos sometimes do offer zero-HE games.

(ii) While playing the games is fair, there is an end-of-game commission paid on any profits you make.

It is obviously better to make zero-edge bets than the other ones - but I assume you know that!

I'm asking Wizard about "net" odds after 10% commission on winnings on Gamesys games.

July 26th, 2017 at 7:58:21 AM
permalink

10% of 50% < 5.26% of 100%

"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett

July 26th, 2017 at 9:45:55 AM
permalink

Quote:rdw4potus10% of 50% < 5.26% of 100%

If I guess correctly you seem to be stating that the house edge is 5%. That contradicts what Wizard already wrote about 2 bets on roulette. You are on the wrong side of history and, most likely, math. :-)