Quote from: Coef on March 24, 2015, 10:44:50 AM

Quote from: deisik on March 24, 2015, 10:06:15 AM

It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?

I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)

When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV.
Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will.
Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management.

For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.

I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice sites)?