+ Register

[Bayes]

Someone asked me about whether they think it's better to play the zero-edge games on BV (and pay the 10% tax at the end of each session) or just play the standard games and pay no tax (but have to contend with the house edge).

It's a good question and I don't claim to have the final answer. My intuition is that (as BV says) it is still better to play the zero-odds games in spite of the tax because there is no compounding effect of the house edge DURING play. The compounding effect can have a huge effect on your bottom line especially if you're playing a lot of numbers, not so much if you're only playing a few. The tax does NOT make the game equivalent to a negative expectation game, it just means that you're paying at the end of each session for the privilege of playing a FAIR game. Having said that, I really need to do some simulations on this to find out just how much the 10% tax takes from your profit as opposed to how much you would have lost (given the same outcomes) if the HA were present.

P.S. PLEASE, no comments about how RNG isn't "real" roulette etc. The issue is whether it's better to play NZ games or not, given the tax.

[wannawin]

Friend. I believe that deviations necessary to match the moves in a game without zero are becoming so very large over time. The truth is you would pump more and more money to match them. All efforts should be directed to win an advantage not just break even by pumping more money over time.

It is more efficient to have a system that works in roulette with a zero because their advantage is overcame and you can play anywhere.

Latter advantage is the most important. If you only play a game and you are kicked out of it or the establishment that has the one wheel you play has closed it really ended your world.

Every effort is better directed to beat the house edge game. Many more avenues of game available and the winning method is probably strong enough to beat zero if you so want.

My opinion. Receive affectionate greetings.