He's the only one that can promise it as he is the only one speaking for the majority shareholder, who is the only one with the power to print more shares.
Shareholder dilution is the best way to take away value from shareholders. Similar to printing money.
This isn't about dilution. There are 100 million shares, of which 13 million are currently available. When this went up from 10 million to 13 million there was no dilution. Each share still gets one 100 millionth of the monthly profits as a dividend.
Could it be that actual profit is considerably higher than expected profit because gamblers on average stop more when they have been exceptionally unlucky?
I don't know, and it hurts my head to think about.
Everything I know about probability tells me that there's no way of changing the expected profit by changing your betting strategy. "Quitting while you're behind" is a betting strategy, and so shouldn't affect the house edge.
If it did then we could beat the house by all "quitting while we're ahead", right?
As far as the bottom line is concerned, there's no difference between on
e big player and another. It doesn't matter if each individual player stops when they are down a lot; it's just a stream of bets, each of which is paid out 1.9% less than the 'fair' amount. That has to lead to a 1.9% profit overall I think in the long run.