Question Looking for Online Casino Games where you play against other players, not against the house

rv3838

Newbie member
Joined
Nov 22, 2023
Location
UK
Hi,

I’m new to this forum and have a beginner’s question:

I am looking for a list of online casino games where I can play against other players rather than play against the house. In order words, games where if I win I take the money from other players and not from the online casino itself. The only example that I know is classic poker, where the players play against each other and the casino just takes a small percentage of the pot for providing the online platform. Are there any other games which are player vs player?



You might be wondering why I care about this. Let’s say I somehow manage to gain an edge in a game and I become anAdvantage Player. If it’s a game where I play against the house then I assume they will kick me out soon if they see that I keep winning. If it’s a player vs player game instead then the casino won’t bother and let me keep playing because it’s the other players filling my pockets and not the casino itself.

Thanks!
 
You'll be booted either way as an advantage player would find slim pickings nowadays on computer-generated card games due to the inbuilt variance and the live tables would use huge shoes to prevent it and have regular shuffles on them. Even if that were not the case, you'd still lose out as they'd spot your play pattern even if winning from other players not them - remember the casinos have been around for ages and tend to close down every trick you know and those you don't. If winning from them you'd piss the casino off, if doing it against their other customers on any peer-v-peer platforms the same would happen. The platform needs players and behaviour that drove them away would kill the platform if allowed.
 
Look for real money skill games like dominoes for example. I played a few times myself but can't remember now what the places was called. There you get a randomly selected human opponent, and they could be either pro or useless. If you win, you pay a commission.
 
Thanks dunover for your answer. Can I just double-check. Let’s say I play classic poker on a peer-v-peer platform, for example Pokerstars. And let’s assume I’d be able to become more skillful than the average player on Pokerstars. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose, but on average I tend to win more than I lose due to my higher skill level.

Then, why would Pokerstars have an issue with that? I mean, on a peer-v-peer platform there have to be some winners and some losers, as the whole thing is a zero sum game (if we were to ignore the fees that the platform charges to the players). Isn’t it even positive for someone like Pokerstars to be able to show that there are actually some people who are making money on their platform?

Other than classic Poker in Pokerstars, wouldn’t the same line of thinking also be true for other peer-v-peer games?

Also appreciate any pointers to the most popular peer-v-peer games :)

Thanks!
 
Thanks dunover for your answer. Can I just double-check. Let’s say I play classic poker on a peer-v-peer platform, for example Pokerstars. And let’s assume I’d be able to become more skillful than the average player on Pokerstars. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose, but on average I tend to win more than I lose due to my higher skill level.

Then, why would Pokerstars have an issue with that? I mean, on a peer-v-peer platform there have to be some winners and some losers, as the whole thing is a zero sum game (if we were to ignore the fees that the platform charges to the players). Isn’t it even positive for someone like Pokerstars to be able to show that there are actually some people who are making money on their platform?

Other than classic Poker in Pokerstars, wouldn’t the same line of thinking also be true for other peer-v-peer games?

Also appreciate any pointers to the most popular peer-v-peer games :)

Thanks!
They wouldn't have an issue, as there can be no advantage play in poker (mathematically) where your return can exceed consistently 100% like BJ for example. Of course, if you're a good player they'd use you as a table lead or maybe place you with other similar players they deemed equal to you. From my dabble with online poker years ago this seemed to be the case. But you're dealing with computer card decks on pokerstars which make it harder to be skilled - I think from your perspective you'd be better off on live dealer but I'm not sure if they do peer-to-peer on LD?
 
is group of players in Discord they play poker I think they pay like £1-£2 to join winner gets all, not sure if they play one time a week or month, is another group they do like join deposit, one guy stream all the wining/lost get share , discord name and twitch is RichieFM
 
But you're dealing with computer card decks on pokerstars which make it harder to be skilled - I think from your perspective you'd be better off on live dealer but I'm not sure if they do peer-to-peer on LD?

Nope, no Live Dealer games offer this. It's not even a thing in land-based casinos.

Poker is the only game I know where you can go head-to-head. There are some Asian games like Marjong which may offer the facility.
 
Then, why would Pokerstars have an issue with that? I mean, on a peer-v-peer platform there have to be some winners and some losers, as the whole thing is a zero sum game (if we were to ignore the fees that the platform charges to the players). Isn’t it even positive for someone like Pokerstars to be able to show that there are actually some people who are making money on their platform?

In the days before the other Black Friday, you would be right - there was so much money sloshing around that casual players were putting enough money into the pool such that professional and experienced players hoovered up the money without much concern.

The problem came afterwards, when that casual money started to dry up - the top players continued to take money out of the ecosystem but it wasn't being replenished, which predictably becomes a problem for the poker operators when the casual players (the "fish") lose too quickly.

In a frequently misquoted observation, Daniel Negreanu talked about rake on a podcast in 2016 - shortly after PokerStars had made substantial negative changes to both rake and loyalty.

In a subsequent blog post, he clarified that in his early days he knew about two local casinos, one that charged low session-based fees and one that charged high rake-based fees (about 3x per hour). The end result was the professional players followed the value and went to the low-rake game, destroying the casual players that were foolish enough to play; and the high-rake game contained mostly fish who would limp every pot because they didn't know better.

While true, the obvious counter-argument was that everybody loses except the operator - in this case referencing Amaya drowning in billions of debt.

--

The other issue now-a-days is cheating, with phones and computers alike powerful enough to solve almost every game - how do you know you're playing against a real person and not a bot, or against natural skill and not a game-theory solver? Poker operators have been fighting this battle for more than 20 years... less experienced operators are going to get taken for a ride.

Monitoring software, microphones, webcams... whatever the operator thinks of, a suitably skilled nemesis is already one step ahead. It's a very big game of cat and mouse...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top