I like that we can place bets on who's going to win, but I think we need to do something to encourage this activity. For this reason, I think "the house" should exist. Let me explain.

I've been playing around with a few ideas, but I'm sure someone on the forum will have a better one. I don't think players should all necessarily be betting against "the house" in the traditional casino sense... I just think system should make a conservative wager in response to a player placing a bet. i.e. if SarsAI were in the lobby making small wagers as an individual.

This would theoretically encourage more gambling, because more money would be in the pot. If lots of players bet, "the house" would make a conservative, mathematically derived bet in response to each bet. In this way, if there are a lot of bets placed, "the house" will also place a number of bets... likely across many competitors. With the system making bets, players will vie for the pot more often. And if you're the only one betting, at least you have someone to bet against.

I haven't figured out the math to do this, but odds considered, I'm guessing the house would be close to breaking even... despite the fact that there would be a lot more gold in the average pot. Since "the house" would be diversifying its investment in response to player bets, it would likely have a share in the winnings most of the time.

Any thoughts on the programming logic or math that could make this work? I'm about to pass out and can't think straight.

not really realistic, casino betting against the house only works when the house is playing the game and the house has an edge over the player. If the computer bets on players its pretty easy to take advantage of that. If i knew the computer would bet a lot on me it would be very easy to throw the final game to take the computers gold. The only working systems i can see are taking a cut (currently being done) or having the computer bet a set amount on dogs (that money would be added to the economy).

_________________
ȁ̎̉̈̂̎͋̈́̍n͂͑̿ͥͣ́̓ġͤ͑ͯe͌̓̊ͩ͗̅l̽̓ͬͬͥ̊͗aͣ̔̃ͧ̓̾̾t͊̑̆hͤ͆̓̉̌ͣ̚e̋ͩ͒̈́ĭ̌̒̎ͧ̓̋ͪs̋ͤͧ̅̇̋̎ͫ̂̾ͨ̽̄ͫͯt͒͐̌ͭ̂̃ͪ̽ͣ͗̒ͣ

Would it really be that exploitable? To "throw" a game you'd have to bet a good chunk on the player that made it to the final round, and either be the one playing against them, or promise their opponent some amount of gold to throw the game... hmm... am I missing something?

Having AI auto-bet a small amount on dogs is an interesting suggestion though.

I think it would be fairly easy to rig something to your advantage. For example: You make a 2 man tourney with your friend and then purposely have one person win/lose. 'zero sum' does a great job preventing shenanigans. Even if you limit it to EC's I think it's not a good idea. It does kinda suck that there is no reason to place a big bet due to the payout structure, but in the end this game isn't about gambling anyways.

It's about who can construct the best MF/Ele deck (har har).

I was envisioning this being limited to ECs. And I'm fine with people thinking this was a crappy idea... but I do wish someone out there would come up with something that would encourage gambling activity. Currently, there's really no good financial motivation for anyone to bet on anything... ever.

The only way gambling works right now is if one person make a bad financial decision and everyone else rushes in to profit off of it. But the risk vs reward of making an initial bet is rarely worth the odds or return on investment. That's why I had envisioned some AI participation... in order to lure people in with the promise of winning gold from the "house".

I think we just need someone to come up with a better implementation of this fundamental idea. I still contend that some sort of 'house' participation would be the best way to encourage more player gambling.