The reasoning in the new article is interesting, sincere and independent. And knowledgeable: for example,
Henri Poincaré wrote in his book "Science et methode" about
randomness for a very simplified roulette:
"Let's imagine a needle that rotates on a spire in the center of a dial divided into one hundred sectors, alternately red and black..."
Who cares about the casino edge?
For the casino itself, to:
1. Do not suffer losses when the player bets evenly on everything
possible outcomes. This is ensured by the rules and the size of the payouts.
2. Have a convenient justification for casino revenue. However, studies have shown that the difference between the receipt of
and cash payments at the cash desks from 20% to 40%. And not 2 or 5%.
(Dean Radin, Kurt von Haller...)
So we're talking about multiple players, spins, hands, tables, and large periods of time. Yes, "edge" is one of the foundations of casino income.
If a player wins by chance, it is due to dispersion. Or by applying the true METHOD. Often a long game
undesirable.
As an example of the secondary importance of advantage
casino I will indicate the case of my systematic winnings
in a scratch lottery with its RTP exceeded by only 50%.
This lottery was simply convenient and, so to speak, "vulnerable"
for the extrasensory method.
Another paradox is successful bets on the "unfavorable" Tie in Baccarat.
"Gambler's fallacy" is a mistake,
only if the bet did not win. And if it did win, then the player
no longer a blockhead, but a smart and handsome guy. And it doesn't matter that he's there
thought or talked about red and black.
If you like it, I can continue.