Editorial policy
Editorial Standards and House-Edge Calculation Methodology
These editorial standards explain how Dice Rules & Odds researches game rules, identifies variants, calculates probabilities, evaluates sources, maintains changing resources, discloses conflicts and corrects errors.
Dice Rules & Odds is an independent, math-first educational reference. It is not a casino directory, gambling operator or wagering service. At launch, its editorial content is operator-free and does not contain casino rankings, bonuses or referral-first recommendations.
This policy applies to game rules, paytables, probability and house-edge calculations, historical claims, legal-resource guidance, game-integrity material and responsible-gambling resources. Transparent methods reduce avoidable errors, but they do not make this publication or any cited source permanently current or infallible.
- Policy owner
- Dice Rules & Odds editorial team
- Research method
- Source-linked desk research and reproducible calculations
- External review
- Not claimed unless an identified review actually occurred and is recorded on the relevant article
For the broader mission and current editorial roles, visit About Dice Rules & Odds. Readers primarily interested in mathematics may jump to the calculation methodology; readers who found a problem may go directly to the corrections policy.
Core editorial principles
Content must be useful to a beginner without withholding the assumptions needed to check it.
- Accuracy: Claims must reflect the cited evidence and avoid greater precision or certainty than that evidence supports.
- Ruleset specificity: A rule, payout or percentage must identify the wager and version to which it applies. A game’s lowest-edge wager is not presented as the edge for every wager or the game as a whole.
- Reproducibility: Probability and expected-value claims show outcome counts, payout assumptions and formulas wherever practical.
- Source transparency: Relevant articles identify source titles, organizations, source types, URLs and verification dates.
- Uncertainty labeling: Conflicting rules, disputed history and incomplete evidence are labeled rather than resolved through unsupported assumptions.
- Editorial independence: Commercial considerations do not alter mathematical results, factual conclusions or the weight given to evidence.
- Accessibility: Headings, tables, formulas, diagrams, links and forms are prepared for keyboard access, reflow and assistive technology.
- Reader safety: Money-related material avoids urgency, guaranteed-win claims and advice to chase losses.
Neutral language instead of promotional rankings
Games are compared by characteristics such as dice count, round structure, complexity, rule variability and the role of skill or bluffing. We do not describe a game or wager as the universally “best,” “safest,” “hottest” or “most profitable.” A frequent win is not necessarily a favorable wager, and a lower theoretical edge does not remove financial risk.
Claims we do not publish
- Guaranteed systems, due-number claims or suggestions that previous independent rolls change the probability of the next fair roll under unchanged conditions.
- Advice to recover losses by increasing wagers or continuing to play.
- Fabricated ratings, reviews, interviews, testing, credentials or availability claims.
- A universal house edge for a social or historical game that lacks a defined house-funded paytable.
- Casino-style urgency, bonus-led recommendations or promotional scores.
Source hierarchy and evidence standards
Authority depends on the claim being evaluated. A statute may be the strongest source for a legal framework but not for the frequency of a dice total. An official game rulebook may document a venue’s paytable but cannot establish nationwide availability.
| Source tier | Examples | Appropriate use | Important limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary authority | Statutes, regulators, tribal authorities, official game rules, technical standards and official support organizations | Legal frameworks, regulatory roles, operational rules, technical requirements and current support contacts | An authority may cover only one jurisdiction, venue, class of gaming or technical scope. |
| Direct historical evidence | Museum records, contemporaneous rules texts, archival material and academic research | Historical equipment, terminology, documented rules and the context of a named period or source tradition | An object record may establish equipment or symbols without documenting a complete ruleset or payout schedule. |
| Reproducible mathematics | Exact enumeration, probability formulas and displayed expected-value calculations | Outcome counts, probabilities and house-edge calculations under stated assumptions | The result is valid only for the specified rules, payouts, exceptions and denominator. |
| Specialist secondary reference | Established mathematical or game-analysis references | Secondary checks and identification of variant issues | A secondary reference does not replace a named ruleset or reproducible calculation. |
| General summary | News reports, industry maps and general reference material | Orientation, terminology and leads to primary material | Summaries may omit exceptions or become outdated. |
| Low evidentiary weight | Anonymous, promotional or unsourced claims | Possible research leads only | These claims are insufficient without independent evidence. |
Table conclusion: The preferred source is the most direct, current and claim-specific authority available. Multiple sources may be needed because no single source proves rules, mathematical value, legality and availability at once.
Required source record
- Source title and responsible organization or author
- Source type, such as regulator rulebook, statute, museum record or technical standard
- URL or stable citation
- Date accessed or verified
- The exact claim supported
- Relevant jurisdiction, version, venue, date range or limitation
Regulator-hosted Sic Bo rules can document wagers and payouts for a named jurisdiction or venue. The National Indian Gaming Commission and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are primary sources for parts of the federal and tribal gaming framework. GLI-19 is relevant to technical requirements for interactive gaming systems. Museum records can document Crown and Anchor objects and symbols, but they do not establish one universal paytable.
When sources conflict, the article identifies the difference instead of silently combining them. Publication may be delayed when a discrepancy affects a central rule or calculation and cannot be responsibly resolved.
How rulesets, paytables and variants are identified
Every guide must identify whether it describes a jurisdictional or venue rulebook, a documented social variant, a named historical text or a clearly labeled modern reconstruction. Warnings about a variant appear beside the affected claim.
Ruleset-identification checklist
- Name the game, wager and relevant version.
- Identify the jurisdiction, venue rulebook, social tradition or historical source when available.
- State whether quoted payouts are net winnings or total returns.
- List exceptions such as triples, pushes, commissions or rerolls.
- Record the source URL, source type and date checked.
- Keep different paytables separate rather than blending them into an undocumented average.
- Use “Varies by rules” or “Not applicable” when no universal figure exists.
Examples of claim framing
- Acceptable
- “Under this named Sic Bo paytable, Small pays 1:1 and all triples lose.”
- Not acceptable
- “Sic Bo always has this payout and house edge.”
- Acceptable
- “This section describes a documented non-banking Cee-Lo variant.”
- Not acceptable
- “These are the official universal Cee-Lo rules.”
- Acceptable
- “This Liar’s Dice example is a non-monetary social game, so no casino house edge applies.”
- Not acceptable
- “Liar’s Dice has a universal house edge.”
Sic Bo paytables can differ among jurisdictions and venues. Cee-Lo has materially different banking and non-banking traditions. Published Hazard descriptions vary. Liar’s Dice can be played without money and has no inherent casino house edge without a house-funded paytable or fee.
Crown and Anchor and Chuck-a-Luck have the same selected-symbol or selected-face match distribution only when they use equivalent six-faced dice or symbols and equivalent payout schedules. A changed payout requires a new expected-value calculation.
House-edge and probability calculation methodology
- Ordered outcome
- A result that distinguishes the value shown by each die. Two fair six-sided dice have 6 × 6 = 36 ordered outcomes; three have 6 × 6 × 6 = 216.
- Hit rate
- How frequently a wager produces a winning result. A high hit rate does not necessarily produce favorable expected value.
- Expected value
- The probability-weighted average net result of all possible outcomes.
- Paytable
- The documented schedule of payouts for winning outcomes. A house-edge calculation is not valid without a defined paytable.
- House edge
- The expected player loss as a percentage of the specified initial amount wagered under stated rules. It is not the probability of losing one round.
| Field | What must be recorded |
|---|---|
| Wager | The exact wager or decision being analyzed |
| Ruleset | The named version, jurisdiction, venue rulebook or documented convention |
| Payout basis | Whether the figure represents net winnings or total return |
| Paytable | Every payout needed for the calculation |
| Outcomes | Winning, losing and pushing counts, plus relevant exceptions |
| Denominator | The complete ordered-outcome count or other clearly defined basis |
| Probability | Outcome count divided by the applicable denominator |
| Expected value | The probability-weighted net result of all outcomes |
| House edge | Negative player expected value expressed as a percentage of the specified initial wager |
| Evidence | Source URL, source type, calculation method, assumptions and verification date |
| Review status | The arithmetic, formula or editorial checks actually completed |
Table conclusion: A percentage without its wager, rules, payout basis, outcome counts and denominator is incomplete and should not be published as a house-edge claim.
General formula
Player expected value per unit wagered = the sum, over every possible outcome, of probability of the outcome × net result for the player.
House edge = −1 × player expected value, expressed as a percentage of the specified initial wager.
Exact enumeration is preferred when the complete outcome set is practical. A simulation may illustrate long-run variation, but it does not replace exact counting for straightforward one-, two- or three-dice calculations.
Where workflow records support it, numerical work receives an independent arithmetic or formula check before publication. If that check did not occur, the article must accurately state the review completed.
For full instruction, see Dice Probabilities, Expected Value and House Edge and How to Read Dice-Game Paytables.
What a publishable wager calculation must show
A different range, a push on triples or another payout requires a new calculation. This example demonstrates the required method and is not a recommendation or ranking.
Special cases and misleading calculation shortcuts
Do
- Separate a supplemental wager’s standalone mathematics from the expected cost of the total amount at risk.
- Recalculate when commissions, pushes, triple exceptions, payout schedules or maximum-odds rules change.
- State the denominator and whether the result is measured per resolved initial wager or on another basis.
- Use “Not applicable” where no house-funded paytable or fee exists.
Do not
- Describe an entire game as having the edge of its lowest-edge wager.
- Call craps a zero-edge game because one attached odds wager pays at true mathematical odds.
- Reuse a percentage after changing a payout or exception.
- Assign a universal house edge to informal or historical play without a defined paytable.
Attached craps wagers
A true-odds craps wager can have a standalone house edge of 0% because it is paid at true mathematical odds. It nevertheless requires an underlying Pass, Come, Don’t Pass or Don’t Come contract wager that may have an expected cost. The attached odds result and the combined amount at risk must therefore be described separately.
The Craps guide’s Pass Line and attached-odds analysis contains the appropriate place for any ruleset-specific percentage, formula, denominator, source and verification record.
Variant figures
Crapless Craps percentages apply only to the exact analyzed rules, including which come-out totals become points and how the wager pays. They must not be transferred to a different version without recalculation.
Likewise, changing the three-match payout in Chuck-a-Luck materially changes expected value. Mathematical equivalence between Chuck-a-Luck and Crown and Anchor applies only when outcome structures and payout schedules are equivalent.
Historical research and reconstruction standards
Historical guides prioritize museums, academic work, contemporaneous rules texts and clearly attributable source traditions. A reconstruction names the selected source and distinguishes direct documentation from editorial interpretation.
- Documented
- The cited source directly states or depicts the claim.
- Inferred
- The interpretation follows from evidence but is not stated directly by the source.
- Disputed
- Credible accounts conflict or the evidence is insufficient to establish one conclusion.
- Reconstructed
- A playable sequence has been assembled from a named source or source tradition and is not presented as the only historical version.
- Name the historical text, object record or source tradition used.
- Identify its date and source type where available.
- Separate what the source documents from editorial interpretation.
- Label folklore and weakly supported origin stories as uncertain.
- Do not project modern casino procedures or paytables backward onto older games.
- Do not infer a complete ruleset from an object record documenting only equipment or symbols.
Hazard is historically linked to modern craps, but this does not establish one continuous, universal ruleset. Museum records document Crown and Anchor sets using three dice and traditional symbols, but those records do not by themselves establish a universal payout schedule.
See the Hazard guide’s source-named reconstruction for an application of this method.
Maintaining legal and responsible-gambling resources
U.S. gambling legality cannot be reduced to one nationwide yes-or-no answer. Rules can vary by state, activity, delivery format, venue and tribal jurisdiction. Legal-resource pages provide a verification method and official links rather than individualized legal advice or unsupported permanent “legal” and “illegal” labels.
| Content type | Routine approach | Priority triggers |
|---|---|---|
| National and state support contacts | Verify monthly | Changed phone, text or chat details; broken links; jurisdiction-specific requirements |
| Legal and regulator resources | Check regularly and display a genuine “Last verified” date | New legislation, regulator notices, redirects or license-system changes |
| Current game rules and paytables | Scheduled review plus source monitoring where practical | New rulebook version, payout amendment or venue-specific exception |
| Mathematical calculations | Review when rules, payouts or formulas change | Reported arithmetic error or changed denominator, commission, push or exception |
| Historical material | Scheduled source review | New primary evidence, corrected attribution or credible scholarly disagreement |
| Accessibility | Template and content checks during publication and maintenance | Reported barrier, component change or updated testing result |
Table conclusion: Fast-changing support and legal resources are checked more frequently than stable mathematical explanations, but any material error can trigger an immediate review.
NCPG contact details and relevant state resources must be verified monthly before they are described as current. Older access points and jurisdiction-required services may remain in use, so national information must be distinguished from local requirements.
Broken or redirected official links are reviewed to determine whether the destination moved, the underlying program changed or the source is no longer authoritative. Corrections affecting access to gambling support are prioritized over routine review work.
Use the official-regulator verification workflow for legal questions or visit Responsible Gambling Help and Support Resources for current support pathways.
Standards for technical and game-integrity claims
Technical claims must identify the standard, test scope or verification method involved. Evidence about outcome generation does not automatically establish paytable value, licensing, legal availability or likely player results.
| Evidence type | What it can support | What it cannot support by itself |
|---|---|---|
| RNG technical or statistical testing | Claims within the documented test scope about implementation or statistical behavior | Favorable expected value, player profit, universal legality or guaranteed wins |
| Provably fair verification | Whether a supported cryptographic process allows an outcome to be checked | Favorable payouts, licensing, legality or guaranteed profit |
| Paytable analysis | Expected value under specified rules and payouts | Whether outcomes are generated correctly or the activity is lawful |
| License or regulator record | Regulatory status within the record’s jurisdiction and scope | That a wager has favorable mathematics or that a player will win |
| Accessibility testing | Results for tested pages, components, methods and assistive technologies | Universal accessibility under every configuration or after later changes |
Table conclusion: Separate evidence is needed for randomness, payout value, licensing, legality and player outcomes.
Gaming laboratory standards include technical and statistical requirements for random number generators, but successful testing does not imply favorable expected value or guarantee a win. WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation and the project’s accessibility target, but conformance claims must reflect actual evaluation.
Read Fair Dice, RNGs and Game Integrity Explained for the detailed distinctions.
Authorship, review status and article records
Real identities, roles and qualifications are used only when authorized and factually supported. Omission is preferable to an invented biography, credential, interview, test or review record.
| Role or status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Author | Prepared the article or a substantial identified portion of it. |
| Editor | Reviewed structure, clarity, sourcing and adherence to editorial policy. |
| Calculation check | Reproduced or independently checked the stated arithmetic or formula. |
| Legal review | Reviewed legal material within an identified scope. This label is not used unless such a review occurred. |
| Routine maintenance | Checked links, dates or source versions without necessarily re-reviewing the full article. |
| Desk research | Content prepared from cited documentary sources rather than claimed interviews or hands-on testing. |
Table conclusion: A review label represents a specific completed task. It is not a general badge of authority.
Expected article metadata
- Author or responsible editorial role
- Genuine last-modified date
- Review status reflecting checks actually completed
- Ruleset or historical version
- Calculation and interpretation assumptions
- Principal sources checked and verification dates
- Meaningful correction history
Unsupported authorship, credentials, testing and review claims must not appear in visible content or structured data. Learn about current roles on the About page.
Editorial independence, conflicts and affiliate disclosures
Dice Rules & Odds launches without operator referrals, casino rankings, bonus listings or paid-placement modules. This describes the current model; it is not a promise that business practices can never change. If monetization changes, this policy and affected content must be updated.
- No paid ranking may be presented as an independent editorial conclusion.
- No bonus, commission or referral opportunity may determine a mathematical or factual result.
- No fabricated score, testimonial or hands-on review may be used.
- Potential conflicts must be recorded during commissioning and review.
- A material commercial connection must be disclosed clearly near the relevant recommendation or link.
- Paid or compensated outbound links must use the appropriate sponsored qualification where applicable.
- A technical link attribute does not replace a visible reader-facing disclosure.
Concerns about an undisclosed relationship or misleading commercial claim can be submitted through the correction and source form.
Publication and review workflow
- Scope the article: define its reader question, approved page and claims requiring evidence.
- Collect sources: identify direct authorities, secondary checks and known gaps.
- Name the ruleset: record the jurisdiction, rulebook, social variant or historical source.
- Draft in plain language: explain the subject for beginners while preserving necessary assumptions.
- Verify calculations: enumerate outcomes, apply the paytable and record formulas and denominators.
- Review copy and claims: check that wording does not exceed the evidence or blur variants.
- Review accessibility: check headings, tables, links, form labels, alternatives and reflow.
- Run publication controls: confirm source URLs, types, dates, assumptions, internal links and safety notices.
- Publish with metadata: display the actual editorial role, review status and methodology ledger.
- Maintain and correct: monitor time-sensitive resources, scheduled reviews and reader reports.
Workflow text equivalent: Every article moves from scope and evidence gathering through ruleset identification, drafting, verification, accessibility checks, publication controls and later maintenance. If a stage was not completed, the record must not imply that it was.
Pre-publication checklist
- Primary intent and approved page confirmed
- Ruleset, jurisdiction or historical source named
- Source URL, source type and genuine verification date recorded
- Paytable and calculation assumptions recorded where relevant
- Numerical claims reproducible from displayed information
- Variant warnings placed beside affected claims
- Legal and availability claims directed to current authorities
- Tables have captions and correctly scoped headers
- Diagrams have complete text equivalents
- Internal links use approved canonical filenames
- Responsible-gambling information appears where required
- Review labels match work actually completed
Canonical-page control
The public site inventory is fixed at exactly 20 canonical HTML pages. Separate glossary, FAQ, tag, archive, state, filter, attachment, author and search-result pages are not permitted. Definitions, methodology, correction records and FAQs remain within approved pages.
The build should fail if the canonical HTML count differs from 20 or if redirects, internal links, canonical annotations and sitemap entries disagree.
Corrections and update policy
Readers may report errors involving mathematics, game rules, paytables, history, legal or regulator links, support contacts, accessibility, sourcing, disclosures or broken links.
- Intake: record the affected page, issue type, description and supporting evidence.
- Acknowledgment: when contact information is supplied, confirm receipt or request necessary clarification where the workflow supports it.
- Source review: compare the report with direct authorities and the article’s existing evidence.
- Reproduction: for a numerical issue, repeat the outcome count, formula and arithmetic under the stated rules.
- Decision: determine whether to correct, clarify, update, retain or remove the claim.
- Amendment: correct the affected article and its methodology record.
- Correction note: record a meaningful change affecting interpretation, safety, rules, mathematics, sourcing or disclosure.
Correction workflow text equivalent: A report is located and classified, checked against evidence, reproduced where mathematical, decided, amended when necessary and documented on the affected article.
Reports affecting support access, safety, legal-resource verification or materially incorrect calculations receive priority over routine copy edits. No response time is promised unless an operational service level has been established.
Example correction-note format
Corrected [recorded date]: The article previously omitted the triple-loss exception from the analyzed Sic Bo Small rules. The ruleset description and expected-value explanation were amended.
Meaningful corrections are recorded on the affected article rather than on a separate canonical page. Submitting a report does not guarantee acceptance; the evidence will be assessed against this source policy.
Report an error or submit a source
An actionable report identifies the affected page, explains the issue and, where possible, provides a source or reproducible calculation. Do not include wagering history, financial information, account credentials, health details or other sensitive personal information.
Required fields must be completed. An email address is optional and should be supplied only if you want a response or clarification may be necessary. Its handling is subject to the Privacy Policy.