BetFair and Zero house edge? benefits?

[tristan727]

I assume the blackjack and video poker payouts assume perfect play. Very very few people play perfectly, so the casinos still gets its vig.

Red Army did say this a couple of pages ago in fact, which I think is refeshingly frank.

Those looking for sustained entertainment though, may find the range of games quite limited currently - for instance the only VP is single hand JOB, and no slots - any additions in the future pending Red Army?

Edited to - add, having just read Slot Monster's post above - sounds like they have added another VP game - will check it out!

 

[frafi]

minimum

Hi Redarmy,

a Blackjack minimum of $ 1,- would be fine.

 

[Christoff]

Hi Redarmy,

a Blackjack minimum of $ 1,- would be fine.

or even $0.50! It would welcome low range players and increase the appeal

 

[Janek12]

I think the Zero Lounge is treacherous in a way (no offense)

I think that with the current limits, the games in the Zero Lounge cannot be played with any decent chance of profit for the player; maybe I am wrong but I completely agree with what I read at one roulette forum - IT'S NOT THE HOUSE EDGE THAT BEATS THE PLAYER, IT'S THE TRENDS (VARIANCE). And I think this is completely true for BJ, Baccarat and other games, too. Has anyone ever busted his/her bankroll because of a ca 0.5-5.0% house edge? I don't think so.
And I have not noticed that there would be any Comp Points at Betfair (which is a pity; nearly almost all casinos have a comp point programme) so there is not much point for a player in wagering lots of money in the hope that the trends will slightly sway in favour of the player.
But it is true that unless I am mistaken, Betfair has already increased bet limits since they introduced Zero Lounge; but I doubt that they will increase them significantly more; but we shall see...

 

[Rusty]

Personally I have no idea why anyone would get excited about comp points.
Typically they return around 0.001% of wagers or a $1 return on every $1000 wagered.
I would rather see them scrapped and WR reduced on bonuses.

 

[bpb]

IT'S NOT THE HOUSE EDGE THAT BEATS THE PLAYER, IT'S THE TRENDS (VARIANCE).

No, it's the house edge.

Quick proof. Bet every number on the roulette table. Now you have no variance. Did you lose money?

 

[Janek12]

No, it's the house edge.

Quick proof. Bet every number on the roulette table. Now you have no variance. Did you lose money?

And what does this prove except that when you cover all numbers and there is no zero you cannot lose?
If a person has a bad run in roulette does he or she lose 1% of a 1000 USD bankroll and then goes home unhappy with 990 USD because he or she was not in profit that evening? I don't think so...
I am not strong in math but I recommend taking a look at the YouTube videos about the MIT team beating casinos by counting cards in BJ. The guy (maybe a math teacher ) shows that if you play 100,000 hands with blackjack with 1% advantage (as a result of card counting), the standard deviation is - if I remember correctly 100,000; if you play 1000,000 hands, the standard deviation is still 100,000, which means that if you have 1% advantage you cannot lose and you HAVE TO MAKE PROFIT. And the same applies in reverse - if you have a 1% disadvantage, you HAVE TO LOSE, if you play ONE MILLION HANDS, for example. But that does not happen often to a person, I mean playing one million hands. So IMHO the house edge is important FOR THE CASINOS because due to the law of large numbers their profit is GUARANTEED; but it is not what makes the players lose - unless the player plays a million hands of BJ or million spins in roulette flat betting.
Therefore I think your comment can be easily disproved by math (which you seem to be invoking; I think I see your point but I think that house edge is not what makes INDIVIDUAL players lose, it is something that makes the players lose as A GROUP) - but I am unable to present some exact calculations; I am just a layman; but I think the example with the MIT team is illustrative enough; I might have got some of the numbers wrong but I remember the bottom line of that lecture; whoever is interested can find it on YouTube.

 

[Janek12]

Personally I have no idea why anyone would get excited about comp points.
Typically they return around 0.001% of wagers or a $1 return on every $1000 wagered.
I would rather see them scrapped and WR reduced on bonuses.

Well, with no zero in roulette there would be a reason to get excited about comp points I think . But that's why they will never introduce comp points for the Zero Lounge... IMHO.

 

[ace4suited]

they are not the first poker site to offer this deal so it is not quite as revolutionary as has been suggested. The move to do things in a way with overall lower house edge and in some cases no house edge is a great idea as it still leaves the casino opperator scope to make profit (in other games with house edge) and gives the player excellent value for money.

after that it is a balance with quality of software , quality of service generally (support etc) and gaming options that make a site really be a place where I would want to put some money.

Would be interested in feedback about both the software and the game variety (any tourneys? what games have regular numbers of players in ring action etc)

 

[aka23]

I am not strong in math but I recommend taking a look at the YouTube videos about the MIT team beating casinos by counting cards in BJ. The guy (maybe a math teacher ) shows that if you play 100,000 hands with blackjack with 1% advantage (as a result of card counting), the standard deviation is - if I remember correctly 100,000; if you play 1000,000 hands, the standard deviation is still 100,000, which means that if you have 1% advantage you cannot lose and you HAVE TO MAKE PROFIT. And the same applies in reverse - if you have a 1% disadvantage, you HAVE TO LOSE, if you play ONE MILLION HANDS, for example. But that does not happen often to a person, I mean playing one million hands. So IMHO the house edge is important FOR THE CASINOS because due to the law of large numbers their profit is GUARANTEED; but it is not what makes the players lose - unless the player plays a million hands of BJ or million spins in roulette flat betting.

The counting card numbers listed above don't make sense. With 100,000 $1 hands and a fixed player edge of 1%, the calc on my site estimates a 99.7% chance of gain and 1 SD range of return of +/- $365. With 1 million hands, the chance of gain is nearly 100% and 1 SD is +/- $1160. Note that the ratio of $1160/$365 = sqrt(1 million/100,000). However, this is a poor estimation for card counting since card counters usually do not maintain a fixed bet size, and the player edge does not remain fixed at 1%. The actual chance of gain varies greatly according to range of bet size. For accurate results, you'd really need to use a simulator.

 

[RedArmy]

Thanks for your reply on Zero Casino Games

Comrades,

thanks for the replies and suggestions! I have been away last week

ok so we need the limits lowered and raised at the same time. This is currently taking palce and within 1-2 months this should be in place. I will keep you posted.

I just think the lower the odds for a casino, the higher the odds for players

RedArmy

p.s. Casinomeister's freebie bonus is also getting 100% deposit bonus up to the first $100 - enjoy !

 

[tristan727]

Comrades,

thanks for the replies and suggestions! I have been away last week

ok so we need the limits lowered and raised at the same time. This is currently taking palce and within 1-2 months this should be in place. I will keep you posted.

I just think the lower the odds for a casino, the higher the odds for players

RedArmy

p.s. Casinomeister's freebie bonus is also getting 100% deposit bonus up to the first $100 - enjoy !

Very much hope this wasn't the end of RedArmy's involvement here, as no posts for a fortnight, not replied to my pm from a week ago, and betfair haven't ever gotten a promo to work yet correctly, and very difficult to get their c.s. to resolve anything currently,& I still haven't received one email from Betfaircasino ever - despite assurances am on mailing list...we deffo need redarmy therefore!

 

[ThodorisK]

Janek 12,

I will make you understand why it is so definite that you are bound to lose when playing egainst a house edge. Forget about standard deviation, it is not the reason. It is not because of the "law of large numbers" either, or anything difficult to understand.

Suppose a player has a 10,000$ bankroll and goes to the casino, and he is desperate to double his bankroll, and make it 20,000$. If he bets the whole 10,000$ at once, in one bet, on red or black, then he has a 18/37=48.65% probability of achieving his goal of doubling his bankroll to 20,000$. BUT IF HE TRIES TO MAKE HIS 10,000$ BANKROLL INTO 20,000$ SLOWLY, BY BETTING E.G. 50$ PER BET, THEN THE PROBABILITY OF REACHING THE 20,000$ IS NOT EVEN 1%!!!!!!!!!!! The common gambler like you, ignores this fact, and thinks that the probability is again about 48%!

Now WHY this is so? Because when you keep betting 50$, your bankroll goes up and down as you win some bets and you lose other bets. And since your bankroll of 10,000$ is very large compared to the 50$ bets, then (even if there was no zero at the roulette and you had 50% of winning each bet), it will take tooooo many spins-bets to either lose the 10,000$, or double it to 20,000$. But in the meantime, the casino will win per average 1 bet for every 37 bets you make (or you might say, 2.7bets for every 100 bets you make, and that is what a 2.7% edge mean). Therefore, before a winning run of luck could happen which would lift you to the 20,000$, the casino will have already slowly eaten your bankroll.

Keep reading what I said, and you will understand it.

 

[tristan727]

you are 100% guaranteed bound to lose, if playing with small stakes to your bankroll, when playing with zero house edge also, for the record....as it's only zero % if perfect play is achieved & maintained. Haven't found yet either, an autoplay facility which played 100% correctly.