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...
If the players have a huge bankroll, say infinite, then yes, theoretically there will be a time when you win enough times in a row to bankrupt the hosue. That said, that's why casinos have a max bet. In this case, the max bet works for the casino.
If you read my post directly above yours, you'll understand the winning strategy for games where you have the edge. Essentially, that's what the casino is doing; playing a very small amount every single game in order to win by a large number of games. Because the casino has a much larger bankroll than I, they can have a larger max bet. That's all it is.
With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.
Yes, I had read your post and was going to reply to it, just wanted to first hear your reply to mine. I think, it is no use playing small amounts if you have time limits set or house edge incremented if you use a bot or otherwise try to increase your betting speed
With the edge reversed, then the strategy is reversed, and you can essentially use the casino's strategy against them, and become the house yourself, in a sense.
But if the house bankroll by far exceeds that of the userbase, time limits per bet are set while max bet limits canceled (so the strategy is effectively whittled down), it follows that the house may win in the end with the house edge reversed (that is being negative), right?