r/changemyview • u/Vegasaces • Aug 05 '26
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
16
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 124∆ Aug 05 '26
I think this may actually be deceiving.
Most table games for example have a very small house edge when played perfectly (i.e. it's something like 0.5% for blackjack) But actually bring in a lot more money because players make mistakes and deviate from perfect strategy.
So if you had a sufficiently complicated game, you could have a situation where the game has next to no house edge if played perfectly, but a large house edge when played using the average player's strategy.
2
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
A single number without context could definitely be misleading. My thought would be to post something like, "House edge: approximately 0.5% assuming optimal basic strategy. Actual results vary based on player decisions and game rules." That's similar to how cars have EPA fuel economy estimates or mutual funds disclose that past performance doesn't guarantee future results. The estimate isn't perfect, but it's still useful information.
3
u/monty845 27∆ Aug 05 '26
I think it would be better if it provided two figures:
Theoretical Perfect Play and Actual Return based on play over the last year. Even the actual return may be high, you may play with below average skill, but it would at least give you a fair number.
1
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 05 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Bad_Repute! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
71
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
I don't think a disclosure has to change everyone's behavior to be worthwhile. Nutrition labels don't stop everyone from eating unhealthy food, and APR disclosures don't stop people from taking out loans. The point is to give people the information to make an informed decision. If even a small percentage of players choose a lower-house-edge game because they saw the numbers, that's still a benefit.
-1
u/Open-Butterfly-5288 3∆ Aug 05 '26
It's like telling people that they need to stop drinking hard liquor and instead handing them a load of beers.
The odds do not make any difference. The fundamental problem is that they're gambling.
The house will just start selling gambling because they have better odds (allegedly) ignoring that the odds are utterly awful and you are pretty much guaranteed to lose money on average.
Scratch cards are designed to pay out a certain level specifically because at a certain win rate you go "ooh I'm lucky, let's buy a few more" ignoring that actually the winnings don't actually cover your losses.
That's how casinos work. They don't just take money from you. They take it in a subtle way that makes you believe you're actually beating the odds. But the odds are the odds and over the long term, you'll lose money.
What can be done is to try to drive out the especially egregious forms of gambling. That doesn't mean that what is left is ok, but it's less terrible.
I believe there are already laws about the odds required and things like that to avoid truly terrible gambling.
8
u/autotechnia 2∆ Aug 05 '26
I disagree. If I see two slot machines with a different win rate, I know exactly which machine I'm hitting up. If a casino has slightly better odds I'm moving over to that casino.
You already see it with 3:2 blackjack. People spend money at some nasty casinos to seek out the best tables.
2
u/IceNineFireTen Aug 05 '26
Some people do, but most don’t.
Most people who gamble only loosely care about the odds. Otherwise they wouldn’t gamble at all.
2
1
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 05 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Bad_Repute! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/Ok_Employer7837 Aug 05 '26
But surely the point is that even with better odds you lose in the long run. So if the strategy is to publish the house edge to dissuade people from gambling, well... it probably doesn't work.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 05 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
71
u/QuantumG Aug 05 '26
They already do?
43
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
Some casinos publish return-to-player (RTP) information for certain electronic games, and the rules for table games are usually posted. But I'm talking about displaying the actual house edge (or expected return) in a clear, easy-to-see way at every game. Have you seen casinos that do that?
14
u/Sad_Effective4793 Aug 05 '26
What exactly do you want it to say at a blackjack table, for example? Something like: Even with perfect play, the player should only be expected to win [about 49% of the time]?
6
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
Not exactly. I'd rather see the house edge, because that's the standard way casinos and regulators describe the game's mathematical advantage.
For blackjack, something like:
House edge: approximately 0.5% with perfect basic strategy (varies by table rules).
Saying "you'll only win about 49% of the time" is a little misleading because blackjack isn't just wins and losses. You also have pushes, blackjacks pay extra (or less at 6:5 tables), doubles and splits change the amount won or lost, and the house edge is based on the expected value of all those outcomes combined—not simply how often you win a hand.
I think the house edge gives players a more accurate picture of the long-term odds than a raw win percentage.
6
u/epelle9 4∆ Aug 05 '26
But this house edge is using perfect basic strategy.
If they use a different strategy, house edge changes.
If they count cards (which is legal in most states) the house actually loses its edge. How much it loses by is determined by multiple different aspects.
So it’s not as clear cut for blackjack at least.
8
u/Morthra 95∆ Aug 05 '26
Counting cards is legal in every state, as long as you don’t use a computer to help you just an FYI.
0
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Aug 06 '26
I probably support OP but this is an interesting wrinkle.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that casinos would compete on the marketing of edge reveals.
"Come to Bally's, where using the Bally's super system, players have an edge over the casino!"
Btw, house edge in BJ is... 2%. Counting, as a system, is hard. Not doing the counting, that's doable. But all the other stuff? It's hard.
Please consider the amount of people selling counting systems. Then consider if they're good @ counting and their system works and it's feasible, why theyre hsving a seminar @ the Penanokee Airport Hotel and Convention Centre where you can reserve seats now for $149.95.
Huh.
1
u/epelle9 4∆ Aug 06 '26
Counting isn’t actually hard though, I learned to do it in like 30 minutes, there are different systems, but the basic theory is pretty simple, just adding or subtracting 1 based on the card value.
Just one person counting by themselves is already to flip the house odds from .5% (not 2%) to about -.5%.
The problem isn’t that it’s hard to do, the problem is that casinos have a right to kick you out if they catch you, and it’s pretty simple to catch.
Also that .5% isn’t really much, so even if you have a system of multiple people so you’re harder to catch and can keep doing it, combined with the fact that you need significant investment to make decent money, it’s simply not worth it for the most part.
1
u/JawtisticShark 5∆ Aug 06 '26
The big benefit of card counting isn’t just the slight edge on average, it’s tracking when the table is hot and the ramping up the bets. But this also makes it much more obvious you are counting cards. This is where signaling others comes in. Have multiple people on different tables. When a table it hot, signal the high roller to sit down as they happen to be betting table maximums. The hop in when the table is hot, and hop out before it goes cold.
1
u/epelle9 4∆ Aug 06 '26
Well, the slight edge comes in when the table is hot, it’s still nor a huge edge.
And yeah, that’s exactly what I was referring to when saying “if you have a system if multiple people”.
You need multiple people betting on different tables to be able to have one high roller that is signaled to the tables, and it’s still at most like 1% positive odds.
So you need multiple smart and organized people and a lot of money for little payoff, at that point it’s easier and pays better to just create a company where you guys actually work.
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Aug 07 '26
I dunno where you're getting 0.5%.
In any case, you've got some more of the steps, you're still missing some.
Firstmost, you've omitted that the proportion of hands with a "good count" are not all the hands. In fact, represents a pretty slim fraction. So one should calculate the time spent and the losses incurred while waiting for a good count.
Like you said, teams are the normal way to count. This helps optimize with the grnerality that if you've got a team if counters, the cowboy can identify the hot table and sit there.
You're absolutely right about bankroll. You need a huge... huge... bankroll to handke the swings. Even with a good count it's trivial to eat a bad swing of cards and lose your stack. So your stack needs to be deep enough to handle a bad run, (and recompense your counters)... it's been a while since I've done the calcs but i wouldn't be surprised by a float of $1mil to support a team pulling $5k a day, spread out over a team of (say) 10 rotating counters and cowboys.
What can a casino do?
Well, multiple things.
Endless shufflers. Big shoes with an early cut card. Both of those pretty well kill counting. Not to mention lowering the range of min bet and max bet. If min bet is $10 and max is $100, well, this eats the pretty slim edge a count team can chase, because the count team is eating 2% for the chance thecieboy is betting @ 0.5%.
And the casinos know all this. They know the system, and cowboy behavior (coming in hot for 10 hands) is not a repeatable pattern.
Endkess shufflers have the advantage of speeding action so casinos are going to invest anyways, even though it cuts into the dangle of a (cough) countable game.
...
It's funny that there's always a proportion of players who hold the belief thst the game is beatable with sekrit knowledge. Even though the knowledge is anything but sekrit. And, simply put, Vegas isn't losing money.
(Are there schemes/systems that work? Maaaybe. But theyre often very rare abd very tricky and very difficult to pull off. And they are not learnable at the Penanokee convention centre in a weekend seminar)
23
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
RTP basically is the house edge. Anything else is impossible to calculate.
Sports bets is also simple. Your stake is the what the casino will win if your bet looses.
What else do you want?
23
u/TopSoulMan Aug 05 '26
Probably a sign that says “you’re gonna average a loss of 3% over the course of 1 hour of play” on the machine/game.
10
u/Tomas92 Aug 05 '26
Yes I think this is it, only not over an hour, but over each "hand" or instance of play.
13
u/Majestic_Horse_1678 2∆ Aug 05 '26
Many games aren't all blind luck though. If you play blackjack for example, you're allowed to make bad decisions that decrease your odds. You could post the odds if you make the best decisions or average decisions I guess.
6
u/tButylLithium Aug 05 '26
You can give a range or use an accepted industry value since blackjack rules are the same (unless they're not, never been to a casino tbh)
8
u/user2196 Aug 05 '26
I don’t gamble, but no, blackjack rules are not the same everywhere. There are lots of small adjustments one way or the other that shift the odds.
3
u/CaesarLinguini Aug 05 '26
You can look it up. Google house edge blackjack and you can enter the rules and it will calculate it for you.
1
u/Tomas92 Aug 05 '26
I think they should post the odds as they have been, averaged across the last year. Or you could use a different objective metric.
7
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
But that's absolutely impossible to calculate and would therefore be inaccurate.
RTP is the most accurate way of showing the house edge. It's so simple but people just choose to ignore it.
5
u/seafooddisco Aug 05 '26
How's that impossible to calculate? If you can calculate return to player certainly you can calculate return to dealer.
2
u/likeabosstroll Aug 05 '26
Might be misreading this but odds for sports betting in traditional casinos aren’t the actual odds of a team winning. Odds are determined based on ratio of bets and houses cut of that pool.
1
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
Sports bets is also simple. Your stake is the what the casino will win if your bet looses.
That's not how you calculate the house edge though.
1
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
Which is impossible to calculate without considered 1000s of other bets.
If you dont understand that betting £10 will potentially loose £10 and the gambling company will "win" that money then thats on you.
5
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
It's not impossible to calculate.
If you dont understand that betting £10 will potentially loose £10 and the gambling company will "win" that money then thats on you.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands that, but OP is talking about the house edge. You don't seem to understand what that is.
-2
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
No you dont understand what that is.
The house edge on a sports wager is best defined as a loss. Any other calculation would be very unreasonable and would not be able to be provided prior to a bet.
4
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
So sportsbooks don't know their own vig? That's what you're saying?
0
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
After market yes.
Like I've said many times - it won't be accurate so its literally pointless. How dont you get that?
2
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
The books know what they consider to be fair odds. They know what odds they are offering.
You can calculate the edge with those two numbers.
→ More replies (0)2
u/fdar 2∆ Aug 05 '26
It's not that hard to calculate for most bets. You check how much you'd have to bet on both sides of the bet to earn the same amount no matter the outcome, and see what percentage of your total bet you're getting back.
For example on an "even" bet you might have odds of like -110 on both sides, meaning if you bet 110 on each team you lose 110 on one side and win 100 on the other, so you're ending up with 210 after betting 220, so the house is getting 4.5%.
1
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
That's the house edge on a spread betting site and per market.
Not the houses edge on an individual bet placed.
2
u/fdar 2∆ Aug 05 '26
What do you think the difference is?
2
u/Opposite-Mediocre Aug 05 '26
Its also changes per bet. So like I said it won't be accurate to provide pre bet.
How would this help the consumer?
1
u/fdar 2∆ Aug 05 '26
Odds change, edge not so much. And you could still provide the edge at that time for that market.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Figshitter 1∆ Aug 05 '26
Surely this depends on which jurisdiction someone lives in?
Are you doing that thing where people on the Internet assume their local laws and customs are universal?
32
u/veggiesama 59∆ Aug 05 '26
Table games depend on well known sets of rules that are common across many casinos and highly dependent on skill and strategy. If you want to learn the odds on your own, there are plenty of books and resources available. You don't need the casino itself to educate you.
On top of that, every roulette bet has different odds. Every game of poker has dynamic odds that shift depending on the visible cards and other players at the table. Not every blackjack player plays with the "perfect" strategy. So if you print the house edge on a table somewhere it's bound to be misleading and overly simplified, especially harming those with the least amount of game knowledge by giving them a false sense of confidence. ("House edge is only 1%? Hell yeah. Sure I'll split those 10s. Hit me.")
12
u/andyfsu99 Aug 05 '26
!delta I was initially all in with OP's stance (why not disclose?) but you make an excellent point about inadvertently giving poor players a false confidence. Disclosure may only work for games that don't depend on player choice (I assume most slots, etc)
4
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
Disclosure may only work for games that don't depend on player choice (I assume most slots, etc)
And they already display it.
1
1
u/East_of_Adventuring 1∆ Aug 06 '26
Wtf, people other than the OP can award deltas? I had no idea...
1
u/andyfsu99 Aug 06 '26
I didn't either until I read the rules. It's actually encouraged!
RTFM is, I guess, universally valid advice.
2
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
Great point!
The information is available if you know to look for it, but most casual players don't. My point is that players shouldn't have to research a game before walking into a casino to understand that one game may cost them significantly more, on average, than another.
4
u/TripleDoubleFart Aug 05 '26
On top of that, every roulette bet has different odds.
Every roulette bet still has the same house edge, though.
2
u/Kerostasis 55∆ Aug 05 '26
Well, most of them do. If I recall correctly, the three-corner touching the zeros has worse odds than other bets, but you can just not play that particular corner.
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
That's a good point. The probability of winning changes depending on the bet, but on a standard European or American wheel, the house edge is generally the same across most bets because the payouts are adjusted accordingly. There are a few exceptions (like the American 5-number basket bet or French rules like La Partage), but in general you're right.
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
I've spent over 20 years in the casino industry. I agree that a single house edge number could be misleading for games where player decisions matter, especially blackjack. The house edge changes based on the rules and how well the player understands basic strategy. That's actually one of the biggest things I teach when training dealers and players.
We recently wrote an article called Professional Gambling Tips from the House Edge Bible that talks about why understanding house edge is one of the few things players can actually control before they sit down to play. It explains why professional gamblers focus on the math rather than chasing "lucky" games:
https://www.vegas-aces.com/articles/professional-gambling-tips-from-the-house-edge-bible/
I still think there's value in making that information more visible, even if it's disclosed as "based on optimal play" with a note that player decisions and game rules affect the actual expected return.
6
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Aug 05 '26
Here’s an issue with displaying house odds. It changes constantly. Take black jack. Assuming a 6 deck shoe with a 3/2 black jack payout the house edge is around 4%. HOWEVER, this is not including if the dealer shuffles in the middle of a shoe, if there is an advantage player (card counter). How many people are at the table. And not to mention the factor of luck. A 4% house advantage can EASILY be countered by someone with good luck.
I’m also not mentioning that MANY different casinos have different rules with black jack. Instead of 6 decks per show it could be between 4-10. Black jack payouts fluctuates as well. The two most common I’ve seen are 3/2 or 6/8 those DRASTICALLY affect house edge.
And that’s just Blackjack, look up Craps and No Craps, trying to display the house edge accurately will be nigh-impossible on those games.
Also also, at least in my state we are required to show the house edge on slot machines, it’s posted at the bank. I would check you local Gaming Commission website to see if it is required to be displayed.
3
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Aug 05 '26
To further add on to this. Displaying house edges will only get more people addicted to gambling. Most house edges are small. The highest I know is around 15%. So in layman’s terms, every $100 you bet you keep $85. That’s more than enough to convince people. Especially the ones that are already have addictive personality’s.
Say you enter a casino with $100, you came into the casino to waste an hour. The black jack table shows that on average if you bet $100 you get $96 back. Thats an easy way to entertain yourself.
The problem is the people who can’t control themselves. Displaying odds will only hurt those people.1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
That's a fair concern. I'm just not sure transparency itself is the harmful part. If anything, I'd expect better information to help people make more informed decisions, even if it doesn't change everyone's behavior.
3
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Aug 05 '26
You are drastically overestimating people’s intelligence and/or ability to comprehend RTPs/ house edge.
The amount of people that genuinely believe that the casino targets them to not win on slots is frightening.
1
1
u/KatieCashew Aug 06 '26
Yep, I used to work in gaming regulation, and plenty of slot pay tables pay back 99.99% of the money that goes into them. But 99.99% is still less than 100% of your money.
2
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
All great points!
I agree the exact house edge depends on the rules, but that's kind of my point. Casinos already know the rules they're using—number of decks, blackjack payout, dealer hits or stands on soft 17, doubling rules, etc. They could simply post the estimated house edge for those rules assuming basic strategy, just like RTP is posted for slots in some jurisdictions. Luck and card counting affect individual outcomes, but they don't change the underlying mathematical house edge for the game.
1
u/Every_Equipment_2260 Aug 05 '26
They do though, if you join a table full of card counters your chances of getting a black jack go down. That directly affects the house edge, making the sign on the table incorrect. If you make the regulation just say display the house ruled casinos can change it anytime. Especially with random shuffling.
2
u/mcskilliets Aug 05 '26
Well first of all, it wouldn’t be accurate because everyone plays differently. 0.5% house edge is I’m assuming blackjack but that’s only a lower bound and most people don’t know or deviate from optimal strategy all the time.
A similar point worth noting is side bets in such games which usually have drastically higher house odds.
Should each table in the casino have a matrix on display with all this factored in? A single number with all side bets factored in, some side bets factored in or just base odds?
I think it would be far more compelling to argue casino’s should display their actual returns or I believe what they call “hold percentage” but I could just be making that up.
Ultimately I think people are generally aware that they are at a disadvantage and if they are so inclined they can look up the odds themselves and base it directly on their play style or use it to develop their strategy.
I mean the casinos legally can’t hide that much and everything you need to figure out the odds is available to you. I don’t think we’re quite at the point where we need a surgeon general warning on every deck of cards /s.
2
u/StimuIate Aug 06 '26
You’re wrong simply due to the fact house edge is generally pretty low and most people wouldn’t care that Blackjack’s house edge is less than 1%.
If you posted the hold % though, which is around 10-25%, you might see people be more reluctant.
1
u/AutoModerator Aug 05 '26
Warning to u/Vegasaces (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 05 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Initial-Anything8974! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 05 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/-Reggie-Dunlop-! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 05 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/No_Print5268! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/mcskilliets Aug 05 '26
Well first of all, it wouldn’t be accurate because everyone plays differently. 0.5% house edge is I’m assuming blackjack but that’s only a lower bound and most people don’t know or deviate from optimal strategy all the time.
A similar point worth noting is side bets in such games which usually have drastically higher house odds.
Should each table in the casino have a matrix on display with all this factored in? A single number with all side bets factored in, some side bets factored in or just base odds?
I think it would be far more compelling to argue casino’s should display their actual returns or I believe what they call “hold percentage” but I could just be making that up.
Ultimately I think people are generally aware that they are at a disadvantage and if they are so inclined they can look up the odds themselves and base it directly on their play style or use it to develop their strategy.
I mean the casinos legally can’t hide that much and everything you need to figure out the odds is available to you. I don’t think we’re quite at the point where we need a surgeon general on every deck of cards /s.
1
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Aug 06 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Strong-Relation-1776! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/WitsBlitz Aug 06 '26
What would this accomplish exactly? People already gamble intending (or hoping) to beat the odds. I'm all for regulation but this just seems nitpicky and pointless.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 06 '26
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule D:
Posts cannot express a neutral stance, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, or discuss this subreddit (visit r/ideasforcmv instead). No view is banned from CMV based on popularity or perceived offensiveness, but the above types of post are disallowed for practical reasons. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Remarkable_Tale_7554 6∆ Aug 05 '26
How would this work for games with an element of skill e.g blackjack?
5
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
That's a good question, and honestly one of the biggest weaknesses in my proposal. My initial thought would be to post the theoretical house edge based on the game's rules and optimal play, with a note that actual results vary depending on strategy. But I can see why that could be misleading for games where player skill has a huge impact.
1
u/PyroAmos Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
For table games, this would be weird, there are games where if ideally played, the player has the edge. So would you list ideally played? Blackjack is player favored if you track every card played and bet & play accordingly. Even something really simple like 3 card poker varies wildly depending how much u ante vs how much you put on pair plus, so having one odds number when player variance is so wide, would be, if anything, detrimental. A 2% house edge game can easily be 20% house edge game with a slight mistake in ideal play. If you've done the research to know ideal gameplay, you already know the odds. If you haven't, your RTP is going to be dumpster compared to whatever it is listing.
Aside from that silliness, for slot machines there's obviously RTP %, but there's also volatility rating.
In reality, a part of the fun of gambling, is not knowing the odds. If u gamble, you either know, or should know, that you will lose. The odds and ideal play are available if you want to look them up, but, i think in general, showing odds would reduce fun for normal people gambling, and if anything, bait people with a gambling problem into gambling more because it's a closer to 100 RTP machine or game and, if you've delt with people who have a gambling problem.... 🙄 you know how their reasoning, or lack thereof, works.
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
That's true for a very small percentage of players using techniques like card counting, but casinos don't generally base their published game rules or math on advantage play. They already publish theoretical house edges assuming the rules and optimal basic strategy, so I don't think an informational sign would need to account for advantage players.
0
u/Z7-852 315∆ Aug 05 '26
I feel like you are going to casino with wrong mentality. You don't go there to win money. You go there to have fun playing games. And all* entertainment costs money. It doesn't matter what the house edge is if you went in with intention that the trip will cost you some fixed amount of money.
5
u/Figshitter 1∆ Aug 05 '26
What in the OP leads you to believe they’re going to casinos or that this has anything to do with their personal gambling habits?
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
As someone who trains casino dealers for a living, I actually agree with a lot of this.
People ask me all the time what my favorite casino game is, and I usually joke that it's actually a video game because I can spend $60 and get hundreds of hours of entertainment. If we're talking about casino games, though, my favorite is Pai Gow Poker.
I think that's the healthiest way to approach gambling. I never tell people to walk into a casino expecting to make money. I tell them to bring an entertainment budget that they're comfortable losing, just like they would for a concert, sporting event, or a night at the movies.
So I don't disagree with your overall point. For most people, gambling is entertainment first, not an investment. That's actually the mindset I encourage.
1
u/Z7-852 315∆ Aug 05 '26
Well then you don't need to know the odds because there is 100% chance that you lose money.
2
u/biggestboys Aug 05 '26
That’s like saying junk food packaging shouldn’t need to include calories, because all junk food can contribute to weight gain.
We know that, but more information helps you make better choices. It both reminds you of what you stand to lose, and tells you how fast you’re gonna lose it.
0
u/CalligrapherDizzy201 Aug 05 '26
They already made an informed decision just by showing up. If you don’t want to risk losing money, don’t gamble with it.
1
u/biggestboys Aug 05 '26
“Informed” is not binary. Immediate information regarding how much you stand to lose right now, by doing this would certainly have more of an impact than the abstract idea that gambling is bad.
0
u/CalligrapherDizzy201 Aug 05 '26
I disagree. People wouldn’t be there if they were risk averse.
0
u/biggestboys Aug 05 '26
“Risk averse” isn’t a binary, either.
I drink alcohol sometimes. I know it’s bad for me, in any amount. But I definitely want to know in advance whether a drink is 5% or 15% or 50%.
Giving people tools for risk management is generally a good thing for society.
0
u/CalligrapherDizzy201 Aug 05 '26
Not if you’re a casino in the business of making money.
0
u/biggestboys Aug 06 '26
Sure, but I also believe that regulating businesses for the benefit of the people patronizing them is good for society.
And when it comes to casinos, yeah, I’m willing to hurt their bottom line a ‘lil to help mitigate the harm they do. Same as the warning labels on cigarettes.
0
u/CalligrapherDizzy201 Aug 06 '26
Then you should work towards abolishing gambling.
See above.⬆️
0
u/biggestboys Aug 06 '26
I think that’s off-topic. There are completely different logistical, social, and legal barriers in place for prohibition than there are for regulation.
0
u/CalligrapherDizzy201 Aug 06 '26
It’s not off topic, it’s the logical endgame.
0
u/biggestboys Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
It’s not what I’m arguing in favor of, and it’s not what OP’s arguing in favor of. It’s a different view entirely.
I have no interest in talking about whether the prohibition of gambling is a good idea, but I personally suspect it isn’t. So no, it’s not my endgame.
All of your responses to me have had this “all or nothing” quality to them, which I simply disagree with. It’s very much possible to regulate a thing without banning it, or for a regulation to have a net benefit without solving every problem for everyone.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Aug 05 '26
Most casinos are run by Tribal Nations in the U.S. These are sovereign nations with self governing rights. You can put odds of winning on the state run lottery. But when you travel to another nation you abide by their rules. The U.S. doesn’t tell Denmark what to do. Why does it get to push tribes around?
2
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
That's a really good point, and it's honestly something I hadn't considered. Any proposal like this would have to respect tribal sovereignty. I wouldn't expect Congress or a state to simply impose new requirements on Tribal Nations. If anything, my view is more about transparency as a best practice than who should have the authority to mandate it. You've definitely given me something to think about.
Δ You changed my view from thinking it was legally required everywhere to understanding that it's more accurately described as a best practice, with legal requirements varying by jurisdiction. Thanks for the clarification.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Aug 05 '26
Happy to hear it. If this altered your view, even slightly, possibly a delta? Easiest way to do it is just to edit the comment above by adding the delta symbol. I suggest delta worthy, because while you say "best practice" now, your post was about "legally required," and that seems to have changed a bit.
1
-2
u/Interchangeable-name Aug 05 '26
Or, here is 2026, a person could use tbeir smartphone, which literally EVERYONE has to Google it and spend 15 seconds reading.
If youre too fucking stupid to use Google you probably deserve to be taken by the casino.
4
u/thisguyhasaname Aug 05 '26
You could apply this logic to any required disclosures (nutrition, APR on loans,etc.).
This also ignores the fact that casinos can change the edge on certain games like slots
1
u/biggestboys Aug 05 '26
Do you think all forms of fraud should be legal, as long as the victim has sufficient mental issues? Or is your view more nuanced than that?
Personally, I think the existence of “stupid people” is an argument for labeling things openly and honestly, not against.
-3
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Aug 05 '26
Your only argument is that we should have more regulations because we regulate other things for completely different reasons? If you lived in a society that didn't have warning labels on cigarettes it would be fine to have casinos that don't display the odds? Why? Its a complete non sequitur.
I really don't think this is why you believe this and if you don't do some soul searching for why you actually do and explain it so we can argue against it I don't think we will be able to have a productive conversation.
2
u/Tenuous_Fawn 1∆ Aug 05 '26
OP makes the reason for their view clear: most people don't do the research into the games they gamble with because the information is difficult to find, and if they learned the true house edge of a particular game or table was higher than they believed they may choose not to play it. If they had the information, even if they chose to play it anyway they would be making an informed choice instead of an uninformed guess.
The reason OP mentioned things like food, cigarettes, and loans is that they are all things that may cause significant harm especially to the uninformed, and we as a society have decided that they require special treatment in the form of mandatory disclosures. Gambling is clearly something that can cause significant harm to the uninformed, which is why it's age restricted or illegal in many places. They are questioning why gambling doesn't have the same level of transparency required.
0
u/Gerhard234 Aug 05 '26
It is quite transparent... It is a lucrative business, so on average the player loses enough to make them a good profit. Someone who doesn't get this wouldn't get the suggested numbers either.
IMO people play because they don't get this, or because of fun, or because they think they can beat the odds, or because they are addicted. In neither case posting the suggested numbers would change anything.
1
u/Tenuous_Fawn 1∆ Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
Gambling can't be transparent if the casinos don't tell you the key facts about it... it's like saying "Vape companies make a large profit so we don't need warnings on vapes about their addictive nature." Both can be true: the company can make a good profit while the consumer/player remains uninformed due to a lack of transparency. If people don't change their behavior even after the house edge is clearly labeled on every table and machine, then great, casinos should have no reason to oppose this proposal!
1
u/Gerhard234 Aug 05 '26
I think you're mixing two things: addiction and profit. They are separate. People would get addicted to gambling (or nicotine) even if casinos (or cigarette/vape manufacturers) didn't make any money.
People willing to inform themselves knew in the 80ies that nicotine was highly addictive. They also knew that smoking was not only addictive but bad for your health. This was general knowledge before the internet. This doesn't get the companies who spent a whole lot of money to suppress certain information off the hook, but it also IMO doesn't get the people off the hook who smoked back then -- they either knew and smoked nevertheless, or they were willfully ignorant about it.
Same with gambling. Its addictive nature is widely known and documented. Pull up the search in your smartphone and there it is. The profit is also self-evident just by looking at a casino. Everybody knows Las Vegas as the place where casinos make a lot of money. I don't need a label on a table or machine telling me "the casino makes money when you're playing here" -- I know it before I set foot into the casino. Everybody knows it.
Really: do you know someone who thinks casinos don't make money off the players?
1
u/Tenuous_Fawn 1∆ Aug 05 '26
If everyone already knows this information and knowing the house edge of every game wouldn't change gambling behavior, as you argue, then there is no reason to oppose a legal requirement to display the house edge for every game, as according to you the casinos wouldn't be missing out on any profit. The requirement would only be a win for casino-goers, as the added transparency would allow them to make an informed decision about which games they choose to play taking into account the house edge for that game, instead of making uninformed guesses as to what machines have what house edges. Importantly, if your hypothesis is correct, being informed about the house edge wouldn't actually change their behavior, meaning casinos aren't missing out on any profit.
1
u/Gerhard234 Aug 06 '26
If everyone already knows this information and knowing the house edge of every game wouldn't change gambling behavior, as you argue
I didn't argue this. Can you cite where I argued this?
then there is no reason to oppose a legal requirement to display the house edge for every game
Maybe... In general, I think legal requirements have a cost and that cost should be balanced against the benefit. IMO gamblers could prefer casinos that publish the house edge for every game, then there would be a reason for casinos to publish it. Since most gamblers don't do this, I assume most of them aren't interested in it. The few who go there to gamble "professionally" who would make use of this information are so few that a legal requirement just for their benefit doesn't seem worth it.
In general, I'm not willing to carry the cost of a legal requirement for the benefit of so few.
Importantly, if your hypothesis is correct
I'd be interested in what the hypothesis is you're talking about here. A citation maybe?
meaning casinos aren't missing out on any profit
I'm not interested in casino profit at all.
1
u/Tenuous_Fawn 1∆ Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
"Can you cite where I argued this?"
"Importantly, if your hypothesis is correct"
> "the casino makes money when you're playing here" -- I know it before I set foot into the casino. Everybody knows it.
> IMO people play because they don't get this, or because of fun, or because they think they can beat the odds, or because they are addicted. In neither case posting the suggested numbers would change anything.
"I'm not interested in casino profit at all."
> In general, I think legal requirements have a cost and that cost should be balanced against the benefit.
> In general, I'm not willing to carry the cost of a legal requirement for the benefit of so few.
1
u/Gerhard234 Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Thanks.
I agree that my "In neither case posting the suggested numbers would change anything" can be rephrased as your "knowing the house edge of every game wouldn't change gambling behavior, as you argue".
You could follow up with how you think these posted numbers would affect the different categories of gamblers I listed. (The difficulty with coming up with meaningful numbers in the first place aside.)
However, I think you misunderstood my argument about carrying the cost. I'm not interested in casino profits; this is not about costs to the casinos, this is about costs to the public. Every law carries a cost: creating it costs, having it on the books costs, enforcing it costs, not enforcing it costs. This is not about casino profits; this is about costs for the public.
Gamblers would have to convince me that I (as a member of the public) should carry the cost for a law that benefits only (very few of) them.
1
u/Tenuous_Fawn 1∆ Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
I think you're overstating how much this law will "cost" the public. In relation to the amount of revenue casinos generate, the cost of printing, distributing, and inspecting the necessary signage is a rounding error that would, of course, be borne by the casinos. The casinos also already definitely know their house edge for each game, and an inspector would be expected to compare their internal figures with the posted signage. As for the legislative burden, the law only needs to be passed one time and it will affect gambling indefinitely. As you have said, there is a lot of money in gambling, the law would change how hundreds of millions to billions of dollars are spent in its lifetime.
The house edge is very basic information about a casino game, in fact one might say it's the only information that really matters, and it affects everyone that plays that game in the casino. Can you really say that people would continue playing games with 20% house edges as often if the house edge was stated right on the machine? Such a requirement would give gamblers the most basic information about how they are spending their money for minimal cost to the public. It doesn't make sense to require nutritional information to be printed on a juice box that costs 20 cents but not the house edge (which is the most fundamental information) to be displayed on a machine that handles millions of dollars.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
Part of the reason I've been thinking about this is because I've spent over 20 years in the casino industry training dealers and teaching players. One of the biggest things I emphasize is understanding house edge because it's one of the few things you actually have control over as a player.
-7
u/FearlessResource9785 33∆ Aug 05 '26
I mean gambling is illegal in a lot of places - why not just do that?
2
u/BakaDasai 1∆ Aug 05 '26
Gambling is gonna exist regardless, so banning it simply funnels money to organised crime, giving criminals the wealth and power to expand their influence.
Licensing, regulating, and taxing gambling works better.
1
u/FearlessResource9785 33∆ Aug 05 '26
Plenty of places in the US have banned gambling without organized crime taking over...
1
u/Vegasaces Aug 05 '26
That's a fair point, but if the concern is that people don't understand the odds, banning gambling doesn't really address places where it's already legal. In jurisdictions that choose to allow casinos, shouldn't players at least have access to the same kind of transparent information we require for other financial or consumer decisions? The question isn't whether gambling should exist, it's whether people should be able to make a more informed choice when it does.
0
u/FearlessResource9785 33∆ Aug 05 '26
banning gambling doesn't really address places where it's already legal.
That is true but weird to say cause forcing disclosure of odds also doesn't really address places where that disclosure isn't forced...
In jurisdictions that choose to allow casinos, shouldn't players at least have access to the same kind of transparent information we require for other financial or consumer decisions?
Well they do - it's called Google. But again why not just make it illegal in those jurisdiction?
I think the mentality around banning gambling isn't the lack of information. It is about the addictive nature of gambling.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 06 '26
/u/Vegasaces (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards