What if there was a casino where the players have a 50/50 chance of winning?
Posted by Serious-Lobster-5450@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 93 comments
I would love for a casino where the average payout ratio is just 100% even, but people pay a $30/month membership fee to enter.
If the chances are always a 50/50, that means that with the $30 membership, if there’s a million players, there’s a million dollars made a day.
Antitheodicy@reddit
So an interesting thing you can show with probability theory is that even in a 50/50 game, if one player has infinite money to start and the other only has a fixed amount, the infinite money player still always wins in the long run. Specifically, the fixed money player will always lose all of their money eventually if they keep playing long enough, even if the odds of an individual game aren’t against them.
Obviously casinos don’t have literally infinite money, but the fact that they have so much more money than any of their patrons they’ll still tend to gain money from 50/50 games. I think a casino could do this without too much issue in terms of per-patron average profit, but the issue is demand. How many people go the casinos often enough to pay a membership fee?
faface@reddit
They will not tend to make money on 50/50 games. They will in the long run have an expected value of 0 because they have no edge. For every person that loses their bankroll another doubles it.
sevseg_decoder@reddit
It does though. The player can run out of money and not be able to ever get back even, the casino can’t.
That’s the theory that they’re pointing out. It’s another of the things working in the houses favor, the edge pays the dealer but the (effectively) infinite money from the casino pays the owners.
faface@reddit
That theory only has any substance in the truly infinite case which doesn't apply to any real possible situation. If you say "you must keep playing until the casino wins" that technically means the casino will eventually win by the definition of the game, but it does not convey any advantage. At any finite amount of time in the future you have just as much expectation of being up as you do of being down on average. After a billion trillion bets, the EV is still 0. After the biggest number anyone has ever thought of of bets, the EV is still 0. Not much of an advantage.
Educational-Year4005@reddit
Except people stop playing at negative states more often. Imagine you've got $20, go gamble, and end up with $40 or $0. A smart person would stop in both cases and the EV is 0. However, in the $40 case, they'll keep gambling. This situation repeats. Either they'll win infinite money with probability 0 or win 0 money with infinite probability. Same thing as the doubling bet strategy
faface@reddit
Lots of end states between 0 and infinity. No advantage no matter where you end up. The casino will not tend to make any money.
Educational-Year4005@reddit
IF, and this is a big IF, people always keep gambling if they can, yes, the casino will profit in the end, even if losses go to infinity in the meanwhile. This is because they have a guaranteed profit from everybody who walks in the door, but the only losses are "loans" to keep gambling.
faface@reddit
They do not have a guaranteed profit from everyone walking in the door if the game is fair. People cannot play infinite games, they have finite lifespan. When they die, the average weighted outcome of $0. The casino earns no money on average.
nhlfaded@reddit
While technically true, and with multiple people it would wash it.
In a single customer scenario though the casino would have a slight edge as players lose the 50/50 more times and can choose to be done. Eventually they would leave (whether just not understanding how probability works, or not having a large enough bankroll) before the variance resets and they would get to the long run
faface@reddit
No there's no edge there either. The players do not lose the 50/50 more often. For each sequence where the player loses their bankroll, all the final amount the player could have up to that point, multiplied by the odds of getting to that amount, when all summed net to zero. There is no finite amount amount of betting (including betting once per microsecond for a million years) where the casino gains any advantage or on average wins money from the player.
Agreeable-Ad-7110@reddit
Well, here's another way to put it. If 2 parties play a game with 50/50 odds for both of them each round of the game and they have to play till 1 loses their all their money, then if 1 player has infinite money, obviously they win. In fact, if they have 100x the money as their opponent, they have a 100/101 chance of winning. The specific % chance they win is given by just the ratio of their amount of money to the total amount of money: (Player 1 bankroll)/(player 1 bankroll + player 2 bankroll). That's essentially the point the person is making that you're responding to and it's true.
faface@reddit
It's not about whether you will infinitely far into the future "win" or not though, it's about whether you have an advantage that will tend to make you earn more money than your opponent or not when measured at a certain point in time, after weighting outcomes by their corresponding odds of occuring. The one with more money has no such advantage.
nhlfaded@reddit
I’m not saying a true mathematical advantage, but there is variance that you are not accounting for (think a coin flip landing heads 4 or more times in a row) this would cause some players to leave securing profit from them. Of course for another player the opposite could happen making the overall still 50/50
faface@reddit
Variance isn't conveying any advantage and this doesn't need to be accounted for.
nhlfaded@reddit
Except for it does on a fixed bankroll. In a very simplified sense, If someone has 10 dollars and loses two 5 dollar games they would not have the funds to get to the long run. Technically this could be true for the casino as well but they almost presumably have a higher bank roll than the player
faface@reddit
There is no "getting to the long run" necessary to look at the expected value of the situation. In your example, after 2 games there are 4 possibilities. Lose lose (player ends with 0), lose win and win lose (player ends with 10 dollars), win win (player ends with 20 dollars). Average result is 10, the amount the player started with. There is no bias toward the casino. Since there is no bias toward the casino in that scenario, there is also no bias toward the casino if any of the remaining hands continue to play. They have just as much chance to end up high as they do to end up low. The fact that some of the sequences end with the player down and unable to continue doesn't create any bias or advantage.
ScoutAndLout@reddit
Progressive betting can potentially beat a 50/50 game given no limits on betting.
50/50 game? Bet $1. You win $2, pocket it and repeat $1 bet.
You lose, double your bet to $2. You win, pocket $4 and go back to $1 bets.
You lose, double again to bet $4. You win, pocket $8 and go back to $1. etc.
Winnings = 2\^N where is N is length of sequence to get a win. ($2, $4, $8, $16)
Total Bet = (2\^N)-1 ($1, $3, $7, $15)
Every sequence you are guaranteed win $1. PROFIT!
Problem: You can flip tails N times in a row and 2\^N can exceed the casino limits...
gravediggaz6@reddit
friends don't let friends do the martingale system
Antitheodicy@reddit
I'm working off the assumption of a fixed bet, which is pretty easy to model as a Markov chain and/or truncated random walk, which if you draw it out makes the inevitability of going bust pretty intuitive.
It's been awhile since I did much discrete probability theory, but your proposed strategy still results in going bust if your total bet exceeds your current money--which is certain to happen eventually--correct? Unless by "no limits on betting" you mean you can bet with money you don't have, which is effectively equivalent to having infinite money: no matter how far you go in the "negative," there's always a nonzero probability of getting back to positive, at which point you can cash out.
Wise_Case@reddit
If my maths is correct, if you always get +50% for winning, and -50% for losing, on a 50/50 game, the more you play, the more you lose. You should end up negative
faface@reddit
That's not how gambling works. You gain or lose a specific amount, like $5. Not 5% of your money.
Upstairs_Star_9000@reddit
50/50 puts it in the best players favor. So the best players would come and win too much and you would be at a loss.
4lteredBeast@reddit
I must be missing something here - how can someone be good at something that is legitimately 50/50?
turtlebear787@reddit
I think he means if the odds are 50/50 between player and house then the best players benefit the most. In a traditional casino even if you are a good player the house has a good chance of winning too. So if you bad or average player you're more willing to play when the house has the advantage. You feel better if both of you lose to the house. But if the odds are equal then the better player at the table is gonna win more often and you're not gonna want to play.
pinniped90@reddit
Yeah, this was my first thought - I'd pay my $30 and spend the whole time at a poker table with 0% rake.
Even in this thought experiment, it probably has to be entirely games of chance. Roulette, craps, Keno, etc. And nobody cheating, no loaded dice, rigged wheel, etc. Odds set to zero house edge. The concept of a "good" player eliminated.
dimonoid123@reddit
In poker if you play perfectly and with classic rules, probability of winning is something around 51-53%. But most players do much worse since they don't count cards.
HistorianObvious685@reddit
There are professional players whose job is now to earn money in the casinos. Imagine doing the same in a casino with better odds.
4lteredBeast@reddit
Yeah sure, but what you're referring to is not something that is 50/50 like OP is describing..
These are dynamic systems that apply varying odds each roll, not a clear 50/50 split each roll.
I can't see how you can actively game a static 50/50 system?
HistorianObvious685@reddit
I do not think many casino games are remotely close to 50-50 chance of winning. I assumed that OP meant "modify chances so that the game that is not skewed against the house".
For example, in roulette there are 38 numbers and if you guess correctly you get 36x what you paid for. If we make it fair, then you should get 38x what you paid for. Note how the chances of winning are still not 50-50 but fair. In either case, I agree that for roulette there is nothing you can do to improve your chances.
However, there are many other games in casinos. Slot machines, poker, etc...again, going by what OP posted I do not think they would be 50-50 but "fair" (in the sense that a slot machine would give as much money as it gets over time). Good players earn money now, in a fairer system they would earn more.
Enzown@reddit
You make Roulette 50/50 by taking out the zeroes and not changing the payouts.
HistorianObvious685@reddit
Sure: you can have a 505-50 casino if you only allow roulette and players betting on red/black. How fun do you think such a casino would be?
Enzown@reddit
No you misunderstood. Even with betting on individual numbers, lines, sections etc the returns will over the long run equate to 50/50 across every player in every table.
HistorianObvious685@reddit
Yes. I was based on that. Then, a 50-50 slot machine would give massive gains to professional players. The same would apply to poker, blackjack, etc
ExistentAndUnique@reddit
Do people actually play slots professionally? This is a legitimate question, since it seems like slots are essentially have 0 skill involved
HistorianObvious685@reddit
Does a Pachinko professional player count? If so, yes. Otherwise, I do not know anyone whose main job is playing slot machines. Regardless, but I know people that consistently win money on them.
Once you have put in the money, there is indeed very little skill involved....BUT there is skill in choosing the right time and machine to play. Slot machines have patterns in which they will give more/less money. Being able to tell which mode the machine is on will let you earn money.
Additional-Path-691@reddit
Unless you are talking poker, how is that possible? There is mathematically no winning strategy in casino games
HistorianObvious685@reddit
I would say it is the other way around: roulette is the only game that is purely random.
In addition to poker (that you already mentioned), there are people that can "read" slot machines (know when they have been loaded and are about to give big rewards), card count for blackjack, etc.
Additional-Path-691@reddit
Any reliable source on this?
HistorianObvious685@reddit
Proof of what exactly?
-That skilled players can win more at poker? Even you made that statement
-That people can a "read" a slot machine? Just google "read slot machines"
-That people card count blackjack? Same
Normal casinos counter those players because they do not want to lose money (by limiting 1 big win per player, adding more decks, etc). A "fair" casino would not be able to do that.
Additional-Path-691@reddit
I Googled read slot machines and got only links to understanding how they work or obvious scans.
As for black jack, casinos indeed have effective countermesures to counting cards. I was asking for a prof that any of those games are indeed winnable.
HistorianObvious685@reddit
I think you are missing the point: is it possible to earn money in casinos? Obviously not in "normal" casinos or they would go bankrupt.
What is true is that they want you to think it is possible (hence why slot machines give queues of how much money they have, or allow some degree of card counting, and so on). They way casinos prevent losing too much money is with security: as soon as any player finds a way to earn too much money, they change the rules of the game. Some tricks cannot be countered, so they simply resort to banning players that earn too much.
For these reasons you will not find a peer reviewed "how to earn money in casinos". However, in this post we are talking about a different type of casino, one that could not prevent people from earning too much money.
So I ask again: what exactly do you want proof of? That casinos have countermeasures for card counting? That actual slot machines give queues of their status? That people have earned money card counting? That casinos have banned players for being so good?
Additional-Path-691@reddit
The original claim was that there are people professionnally playing and winning at the casino. Now the claim is that some hypothetical casino could have exploitable rules...
HistorianObvious685@reddit
Are you saying that there are no professional players? First hit on google:
https://pensacolavoice.net/most-famous-professional-casino-game-players/
nighthawk252@reddit
I think the poster above you is imagining something like blackjack so there are competent gamblers who can get better than 50/50 odds by being better at counting cards, and there are gamblers who are worse than 50/50 because they’re drunk and not even playing by the book correctly.
I think the only way a casino like this would work is if everything’s slots or roulette-type games with absolute zero skill expression involved.
ChildrenOfSteel@reddit
I like the idea, but don't think that % difference would make much of a difference on the players enjoyment, so it wouldn't be much of a competitive advantage against other casinos
explicitreasons@reddit
If the payout was 100%, people would still lose because they wouldn't quit when they were ahead and the casino would be able to cover losses.
Starydedo@reddit
Now that would be impossible
UnfinishedProjects@reddit
You're right. Most people at the casino lose a shit load of money, but they always come back. That's because winning isn't the main attractor, it's the anticipation of winning. I've seen people get upset when they win a jackpot and have to wait 20 minutes for a pay out because they just want to keep spinning.
Stomatita@reddit
This reminded me one time I was at the casino. I usually play small bets on b lackjack with the idea that I'm gonna lose all my money. I enjoy playing so I do small bets to be able to play a couple of hours. This one time I quadrupled my money in like 10 minutes and I was upset that now I had to quit because it wouldn't be responsible not to and now I couldn't play anymore lol
tOSdude@reddit
Now see that’s when you set half of it aside and call that your winnings, then if you lose the rest you still came out ahead.
TootsNYC@reddit
black or red on a roulette wheel is 50/50
malkavian694@reddit
It's not. depending on the number of zeros, it is 36/37 on a single zero, 36/38 on a double zero, and 36/39 on the triple zero.
TootsNYC@reddit
Thanks for the correction
KelNishi@reddit
Isn’t this just poker casinos where the house takes a rake?
Tykero@reddit
All casinos are already 50/50 chance of winning. Either you win or you dont duh this isnt rocket science!
BigBlackCrocs@reddit
It’s already 50/50. Either you win or you don’t. Lolol
fireduck@reddit
What you are talking about is basically Costco for casinos. Costco makes almost nothing on the products they sell, they are mostly at cost and they make money on membership.
So the question is, does that $30 make enough money to operate the business. I would guess it does not. People in a casino expect it to be somewhat clean, there to be dealers, that the cashier/teller stations are staffed. Then there is all the security and pit bosses watching the dealers. It adds up quick. If you have slot machines, there is still a lot of cleaning and maintenance.
Now there is probably room for a narrower house edge and that being appealing. I was partly involved in the world of gambling in cryptocurrency for a while and there was a rush towards two things.
* Provably fair games based on math that can be demonstrated (invented by me actually), not the total concept but using blockchain primates to do it in an open way
* Running the house edge down - especially with online things that are very low overhead
NasalJack@reddit
Is the crazy thing that you just copied the top comment of this thread verbatim and submitted it as your own idea?
coatatopotato@reddit
Casinos are all about dark patterns: easy to get sucked in; hard to leave. A membership fee at the gate is the opposite of that. It makes it easier to quit and harder to start playing in the first place.
L1amm@reddit
The dumbest fucking repost ever.
Skeebleng@reddit
the house never wins
Rocktopod@reddit
But they would win half the time, and then get membership fees on top of that.
Doesn't sound like a terrible idea, although they'd probably make less money than a traditional casino.
HistorianObvious685@reddit
30$ a month per member would barely cover for electricity, let alone staff, security and all other expenses. It is unviable
gosti500@reddit
Not if they have a million members!
HistorianObvious685@reddit
30 million$$ sounds like a lot....but how are you going to host them? Start thinking of rental space, machine maintenance, security, insurance, etc...
Active members would simply not be profitable. For this to work you need lots of people paying and not coming to the casino.
Skeebleng@reddit
how much are they paying out? even a $1000 pay out is more than 33 members monthly memberships. if 50 people bet $500 + membership fee of $30, the casino makes $26,500. if half (25) of those people make $1000 off their bets, the casino makes $1,500, which is not enough to cover costs let alone make a profit. definitely not a good business model
Rocktopod@reddit
In theory they would pay out the same amount as the money that comes in from bets, at least if you look at an average over time. The only profit would be the $30/month per member.
They would need to have a large cash reserve in case someone won big early on, though.
Wild-Wolverine-860@reddit
Bet red/black it's basically 50/50 All roulette is pretty decent odds of only 1 0 it's basically 1 on 37 odds to the dealer
Enough for them to get a return but decent odds noatrer what "bizzare" plays you play.
It's blackjack where you can destroy odds by playing silly.
Texas holdem there's a small dealer %
Religion_Of_Speed@reddit
The winnings would have to be smaller and the appeal of a casino is the potential of disproportionate winnings so I don't think you're gonna get a lot of people in there. I imagine it would be more akin to a rehab center for gambling addicts that offers some sort of safety net.
Vagottszemu@reddit
What about blackjack card counting? Or poker? How is it 50/50 that you win if you play poker?
cooss@reddit
if the players have a 50/50 chance of winning, then the payout rate is 50% afaik.
and again afaik, slot machines in vegas has a payout rate of 95% or something like that -> meaning, players have a 95% chance of winning.
jaspersgroove@reddit
95% payout means 5% of the money that goes into the machine never comes back out.
_Rabbert_Klein@reddit
Slots are not 95% try more like 80% they are basically the worst EV a player can get in a casino
dontlookback76@reddit
Nevada is 75% payout minimum. But that's over time. So, 20 people could lose on a slot, but if someone hits a jackpot on that machine, it's now paid out 75%+. That's the way it was explained to me when I worked in a Vegas resort. Some properties keep slots "loose," pays more, or "tighten" them up for less payout. Every property is different. I do not know how often the State Gaming Control Board audits NV casinos for that.
codetony@reddit
I think what OP means is that the house doesn't have an edge.
For example, hitting a number on roulette pays 35 to 1. However, including the 0 and 00, there are 37 numbers, which means the house can't lose over long periods of time.
What OP is suggesting is that, in the case of roulette, it either pays 37 to 1, or the two zeros are removed. This means that the house and the player are on equal footing.
general_cogsworth@reddit
I think your last sentence is inaccurate. If a slot machine has a 95% payout rate, then on avg players lose 5% of the money they put in. Sure you can still be “winning” something but youll most likely walk away with less than you originally had.
OPs 50/50 claim needs more context. In the slot scenario, I’d see it as 50% of players win more than they put in, 50% lose more. But payout rate could still be tuned to 95% aka the losses are bigger than the wins
jaspersgroove@reddit
This is why I stick to blackjack, if you play the game right it’s extremely close to 50/50 odds you vs the house.
SirTwitchALot@reddit
Blackjack has only a 2% house edge. If you want good odds learn to play blackjack.
What you're describing is really closer to those addictive freemium games though.
Number1AbeLincolnFan@reddit
Tangentialy related, but Blackjack is basically 50% if you know what you are doing. Progressive betting strategies can even push it sightly over.
Tensor3@reddit
Why not just make a pay to enter casino where playing is free but you dont win real money?
Gold-Supermarket-342@reddit
Those are called arcades, no?
Tensor3@reddit
Oh, right
dinution@reddit
Because this casino wouldn't have customers.
Tensor3@reddit
So same as OP's idea
dinution@reddit
OP's casino would have customers, until it goes bankrupt that is.
turtlebear787@reddit
But casinos are designed to take your money. They work because the chances of winning big are low. If everyone is winning no one would win as big so there would be less incentive to gamble. And casinos wouldn't make nearly enough from a subscription as they do from people gambling and losing. A 50/50 chance of winning would mean the casino would barely make a profit. The membership would have to be prohibitively expensive and they'd have to jack up drink prices. Even then the whole point is that any average joe can go in and gamble away their savings. Adding a membership would drastically reduce the amount of gamblers you have. Cool idea in theory but it's just wouldn't be a feasible business.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
EfildNoches@reddit
Great idea, but you would need this:
ScienceByte@reddit
How exactly would they get a million players to show up every day.
ScienceByte@reddit
Or at least to pay that fee. They'd be unprofitable for a while.
XROOR@reddit
If you make the odds 51/50 you could have Van Halen be the music group in residence like they did with Celine
CharmingTuber@reddit
The casino would still walk away with most people's money. "The house always wins, eventually." People with self control issues or gambling addiction would just keep playing until they lose even if the odds are 50/50.