Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 30, 2015, 04:12:08 AM

Quote from: ndnhc on March 29, 2015, 05:53:41 PM

Quote from: deisik on March 29, 2015, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 28, 2015, 10:14:57 AM

Quote from: ndnhc on March 28, 2015, 10:02:09 AM

You are talking theory.. (everyone knows that part if you have been in the gambling threads for a good time)

I am talking psychology. Many want quick profits, like to take risks. My theory is they will go on playing till they lose.
Suppose I start a site with -0.1% edge, you make a profit, you will most likely play again. You lose, you think EV is positive and still play again. IT goes on till you lose and have nothing to continue bet. (assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit, as I said)

That's the key assumption you're making here, right? For example, if bankroll of player > house, then you will also agree that the house will lose, even if the player wants to keep playing, right?

But if the aggregate bankroll of all players is significantly greater than that of the house, doesn't it imply that the house may lose even if the house edge is positive (say, 0.5%)? What are the chances for this to happen, depending on the total players bankroll vs bankroll of the house?

Yep, I think what he said is wrong. I specifically mentioned max bet too. What is the significance of taking aggreegate of the player's bankroll? It is irreelant, unless the max bet is not there, which is not practically possible.
On a case-by-case basis, all players play till they lose (That is my assumption).

Then let me ask you this: What's the difference between a casino and a player?

*First, I want to point out that we're under the assumption that the casino MUST accept bets under the max bet, since if a casino can just consolidate their winnings and stop running the casino, we can't talk about what will happen in the long run. So with that established*

1. There is a max bet limiting the amount a player can bet each round.

But can't we say that the max bet is also the maximum amount the casino can bet against the player each round?

2. You say all players play until they lose. This is simply not true. There will be players who don't do that.

However, as we established, the casino MUST accept the bets, so in effect, as long as there are people willing to play against the casino, then the casino HAS to play until it loses.

You're looking at the casino as if they were some godly entity, but really, they are just a player on the other side, a player who has a pretty big bankroll, nothing else.

You answered the post which was a reply to my post, but didn't reply to what I had asked. That is, could the house lose in the end if the aggregate bankroll of all players would be greater than the bankroll of the house by a good margin?

It seems to me that your assumption (casino as a player) should work against the house in this case...