[Terr_]

I think the problem isn't banning per-se, because I can "ban" companies as well.

The problem has something to do with the asymmetry of information or bargaining-power. Unlike card games, the house has quite an advantage in data-mining.

[phire]

I'm pretty sure they actually use their data-mining advantage to make their betting offers as attractive to regular users as possible, and therefore maximise profit.

It's so easy to just ban any user who gets "too lucky" (simply ban the top ~0.1% of your userbase every week) why waste resources on offering actually fair bets? And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes with the requirement for bets to be as attractive to "regular users" as possible.

[Phemist]

> And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes

Don't forget the possibility of promotions, which is a major thing for marketing and distinguishing yourself from the pack.

A world of fair bets would be a world where you would need to market your superior odds (e.g. what pinnacle does).. which is directly at odds with fleecing your under-educated customer base.

[biztos]

How does the house not have a data-mining advantage in card games?

They would know whether you make bad choices on Tuesdays, how people of your nationality and consumer preferences react to seeing an Ace, they can deal the better card to the person they’d like to have win, or the opposite, they know what effect the equivalent of a hot waitress bringing you free drinks will be on you specifically as well as on people statistically similar to you and at what moment in time…

Do you just not play against the house when you play cards? And do you 100% trust the house to deal randomly? Does the house not care at all who wins at cards?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, I don’t gamble, but it seems like they have lots of actionable data if they want to use it. Even if they only use it to get you to play more (or less).