Gambling for the House

[ryanisadouche]

If there was no 1%, the credits would just constantly be moved from account to account. It's set up this way so the majority of people lose, and as tass said, credits become more valuable.

To clarify, 50/50 odds say you should win half and lose half

So if you win 10 1k bets, then lose 10 1k bets, have you broken even? No, you've lost money cause of the 1% rake. Thus the majority loses and credits become more valuable.

[sente3]

Originally Posted by devonin

In order for someone to easily get 100,000 credits, someone else had to be willing to lose 100,000 credits that they -did- earn. No new credits enter the world from gambling, they just shuffle around. As a result, every credit there is was -earned- and how is someone betting 100k on a coin toss somehow less worthy than someone giving away 100k of their credits as a gift?

Hmm true. The credits were gotten, and if someone wants to screw their own earnings up and hand them over to someone else by gambling, that's their loss. I didn't think of it that way.