Doog,

I thought about what we discussed on the trollbox and you were absolutely correct.  I was totally wrong in my calculations and I admit I was not thinking clearly.  I greatly appreciate the patience you had with me.  

This is the bet that started the discussion: https://just-dice.com/roll/184417807

A winning bet at 98.99% odds, he took home ~0.01134 when the true odds are ~1.14618.  The 99% difference was used to pay the "1% house edge".  Of course if he had lost, he would have lost it all.

I questioned the bet after seeing the risk to reward ratio, perceived it as an unfair situation, and incorrectly thought that the math was wrong.  Instead, I was wrong.  It absolutely is a 1% house edge bet according to definition.

It's a sucker bet, you say.  I'll go out on a limb and say that if the terms of the bet are "if you win, I tax ~99% of your true odds winnings; if you lose, you lose it all", "sucker bet" is an understatement.  I find it unlikely that a player would realize this less-than-ideal situation when they see "1% house edge" advertised.

I think the better question would be "is it misleading to offer this type of bet?".

Any thoughts are welcome.