MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124002373 · doi:10.1080/14459795.2013.829515

House edge: hold percentage and the cost of EGM gambling

2013· article· en· W2124002373 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Woolley, Charles Livingstone, Kevin Harrigan, Angela Rintoul

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Gambling Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Problem Gambling Research Centre
KeywordsRevenueEconomicsDuopolyTyingOperator (biology)MicroeconomicsValue (mathematics)ClubMonetary economicsAdvertisingDemographic economicsBusinessFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Price in commercial gambling is effectively the house edge of the game. For electronic gaming machines (EGMs), house edge is the hold percentage. The paper tracks changes in hold percentage for club and hotel EGM gambling in Australia. We use real gambling turnover and revenue data to show that hold generally falls over time, save for the State of Victoria between 1993 and 2009. In Victoria, hold fell during the roll-out phase of the sector, before rising steadily. We examine local level data, finding that hold varied considerably by gaming operator across the period, before converging. The unique owner/operator corporate duopoly that existed in Victoria is posed as a potential explanation for aggregate price changes. We then calculate estimates of the monetary value of changes in hold percentage. We find increased hold can lead to substantial monetary redistributions of gamblers' stakes toward the house and away from gamblers. Policy options to protect gamblers from the unfairness of undetectable price rises are discussed, including the possibility of a more tightly regulated hold percentage, a tax on windfall profits derived from raising hold, and tying game identities to particular hold percentages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Gambling StudiesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207