What TABLE games have NO house advantage?

[MrJ]

Yes, there is a reason behind asking this. lol Assuming, there are NO games (or bet) that the house has NO advantage, why play any of them? (Wait, let me guess, AP) Why are we on these boards? If player 'A' should not be able to win, then doesn't that mean that player 'B' should ALSO not be able to win? Regardless of the game they are playing. The HA is still present whether its keno or perfect strategy play for blackjack. All comments are welcome. Ken

[GARNabby]

Someone already posted this link, link:://:.noluckneeded.com/index.php , about "no-deposit" bonuses.

Last week while my dad was visiting us, we played one called Crazy Vegas... won, if you can call luck winning, the max withdrawable amount of 200 credits.

But what's a credit?  Will read the fine print when more time.  I think that it requires a minimum of 50 credits deposited before a withdrawal of any prize-amount.
______________________________________________________________

Reminds me a bit of poker, in which if there is no ante, then the correct strategy is to never bet without the best holding (of any at the time); but with another's ante, it's always a positive-expectancy game.

[iggiv]

chess

[Bayes]

You're right Ken, the rational thing to do is not play ANY game which has a built-in negative expectation, even it's only 0.00001%. But if you have to choose, pick the game with the smallest HA, because you will last longer, maybe even a  lifetime with profit.

[GARNabby]

... pick the game with the smallest HA, because you will last longer, maybe even a  lifetime with profit.

Or by that logic, a life-time of loss but with a small positive expectation over a finite playing career.

The biggest problem with the near-even games being the back-and-forth, "You hit me, I hit you, LoL."  ("Sticks and stones will break my bones,) and names will drive me crazy."

[MrJ]

I have an agenda behind asking this. Its in regards to another board, not here. It cracks me up. Granted, 5.26% is high, I dont argue that. The SAME people that say I cant win are the SAME people who also play a TABLE game where the house has its advantage. lol I dont care if its only .000000001%, you are STILL not suppose to win in the long term, technically. They CAN win but its impossible for me? Ken

[1652485]

The Betfair zero lounge has zero edge games.   I'm not sure you could say the house has no advantage though, because the casino still sets the rules.   In this case, their roulette is quite restrictive.   Betvoyager also has zero edge games but they charge 10% on withdrawals of winnings on those games.

[albalaha]

In many land based casinos I have seen mini-baccarat, with no commission on banker. That means no house edge. Betvoyager deducts 10% on no house edge game's winnings, it means higher house edge.

[1652485]

In many land-based casinos I have seen mini-baccarat, with no commission on banker.  That means no house edge.  Betvoyager deducts 10% on no house edge game's winnings, it means higher house edge.

Technically, Betvoyager still has no house edge.   The expected win over the long run is zero and the expected loss is zero.   If you were never able to pull out wins due to zero expected wins, then you would never be charged the 10%.   With typical table games you have an expected loss for every bet (based on house edge. )

Math wasn't my strongest subject and please correct me if I'm wrong.   Another way to look at it might be from the point of view of the casino.   With a zero edge game at Betvoyager, or zero expected win / loss in the long run, one person has to win a dollar and another person has to lose a dollar.   The casino makes the 10% from the winner and nothing from the loser.   This comes out to an RTP of 95%.   I don't know what the average RTP is for a typical online casino, but I'm guessing it's actually a bit higher than 95% as slots generally have a high RTP and onlne table players should be smart enough to stay away from games with an insane edge.   Most online casinos also have a bonus. 

In this light, perhaps Betvoyager is actually making more money on zero edge games.   However, if that were true I would think that more casinos would do the same thing.   Also, Betfair has serious limitations on it's zero lounge.   There must be something I'm missing here.

[Bayes]

The casino makes the 10% from the winner and nothing from the loser.  

I disagree. The casino makes from the loser whatever the loser has lost.  

There's an example of how you're still better off playing the no-zero games on BV (even with their 10% cut),  in this thread:

link:://rouletteforum.cc/albalaha%27s-exclusive/the-best-online-casino-to-play-roulette-with-live-dealer-and-on-rng/

[1652485]

I disagree.  The casino makes from the loser whatever the loser has lost.   :)

There's an example of how you're still better off playing the no-zero games on BV (even with their 10% cut),  in this thread:

hxxp: rouletteforum. cc/albalaha%27s-exclusive/the-best-online-casino-to-play-roulette-with-live-dealer-and-on-rng/

I'm sticking to my guns.   But this is largely a difference of accounting rather than a difference of beliefs.   A cash method of accounting is working with the cash as it actually comes in the door.   An accrual method of accounting works with the cash as it's due (outstanding invoices for example. )  That's a simplification, but both methods accomplish the same basic goal in different ways.

A casino could look at a dollar gained as a dollar earned, but that wouldn't tell an entirely accurate story.   If anyone can hit long term results, it's the casino.   On a zero house edge casino, the expected win over that long term should be zero.   The income for the casino is the house edge multiplied by the total wagered by any given player.

A professional poker player has to do much the same.   A dollar won is a dollar earned, but it's the long term outlook which makes or breaks the business.   The poker player may make money or lose money in a given month, but it's the long term win rate which is giving the more accurate story.   Up and down swings are normal and may last months.   You can't base your long term outlook on each swing unless it starts to seriously impact your long term winning rate.

On another note, my math was wrong on that last post anyways.   BV only takes the 10% out of winnings, so if one guy wins a dollar and the other loses, but long term each of them come out to zero wins, zero losses and never withdraw, then the casino makes nothing.   Regular games make their house edge regardless of withdrawals.   So the RTP for BV largely depends on player behavior.

[albalaha]

Casino edge is a pessimists excuse. No one can guarantee confirm win on no zero roulette even and winners win on american wheel also. How casino edge works against you depends upon your bet selection and progression and aboveall your luck. If casino edge is such a monster no one should come out of casino winning after playing for long.

[Bayes]

On a zero house edge casino, the expected win over that long term should be zero.   The income for the casino is the house edge multiplied by the total wagered by any given player.

Yes, but the maths also says that the player with the biggest bankroll will always win, so the casino still wins because of its huge bankroll in relation to the player, who is knocked out by the bad runs. I think most people will agree that this is the major factor which leads to losses, rather than the grinding effect of the HA.

[GARNabby]

The Betfair zero lounge has zero edge games.   I'm not sure you could say the house has no advantage though, because the casino still sets the rules.   In this case, their roulette is quite restrictive.   Betvoyager also has zero edge games but they charge 10% on withdrawals of winnings on those games.

Doesn't Betfair charge 2-5% on winnings, depending on the total amount bet?

I ran through some quick calculations in my head a while back, when checking out some of those sites, and readily concluded that the standard HE's (in terms of monetary losses) would still be at least twice as good.

[GARNabby]

I think most people will agree that this is the major factor which leads to losses, rather than the grinding effect of the HA.

Perhaps at the final table of a no-limit poker tournament; but the casino's BR is so far beyond all but a few bettors... that it's more a matter of how little the bettor brings in comparison to the min's; and how hard it is to hang onto any profits regardless of losing the relatively-larger BR (especially given the properly ever-increasing bets with the corresponding increase in the BR).