3 ms·

> the "fundamental purpose of legalized gambling" is for the house to always win. Is this controversial? I assumed everyone knew that the casinos have an edge

• baddox 10y ago
  It can't be controversial for anyone who is even barely informed. I mean, how do they afford to build the fancy casinos, pay the employees, etc.? There's no way it's a loss leader for the hotels or restaurants.
  • TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    The purpose of every business is to make money. That doesn't mean that I am prohibited from making deals with them where they lose money. They have to look out for their own interests; they don't get to roll back deals when they accidentally make a disadvantageous deal.
• kybernetikos 10y ago
  I suspect that if you ask most punters if the house has an edge they would say yes, but if you ask them the purpose of them being there, it's because they want a chance to win big, not because they want to give the casino money. So, sure, everyone knows the house has an edge, but saying that the purpose of legalized gambling is to enrich the casino is a very different claim.
• misja111 10y ago
  No, casino's don't have an edge on blackjack, not when the player is able to count cards. Also slot machines can be profitable under certain conditions: when they have a jackpot which has gone up above a certain limit. Both these games are exploited by some professional gamblers.
  • jib 10y ago
    Casinos have an edge on blackjack. It's not a symmetrical game. They choose to not use the edge to its fullest extent sometimes, up to a point where it can be locally profitable to play if you count cards. That doesn't change the fact that they can at any given time choose to shuffle the deck after each hand, which will return the edge. If we're being technical, shuffling actually lowers the house edge a bit if you are not counting cards, but completely restores the edge if you are trying to count cards. This happens because for each hand of blackjack it is more likely that the last card played is a high card (you are more likely to draw again on a low card), so the remaining deck is slightly lower on high cards on average if you don't shuffle compared to shuffle, and high cards are good for the player, so not shuffling is better against non-counters, but a lot worse against counters. They most definitely have an edge on slot machines. The fact that there are at times local maxima that favours the gambler doesn't impact the overall edge. This is the same as lotteries with a carry-over jackpot etc. The jackpot is paid for by other gamblers who played against really bad edges, not the casino.
• dagw 10y ago
  Obviously everybody knows that the house as an edge. The question here is if that is fundamental or an implementation detail, ie can the casino give up its edge in certain situations and still be considered legalized gambling.
  • taejo 10y ago
    Casinos certainly do give up their edge in certain cases: apparently they'll mix in slot machines that have positive EV in some cases, which can give them an advertising advantage (and the additional players looking for these machines will presumably play enough on other machines while looking that the casino comes out on top overall).