Actually what theory suggests is - 2.7% over the long term and not from a small sample, it was a simple example so don't try to dodge my point because it's perfectly clear.
BA, that was exactly the point I was trying to make, but perhaps I didn't express it very well. You have to look at the long term, but in your example you take a small sample and apply the 2.7% house edge to it (which is only valid as a long term average), and compare it favourably with BV's 10% cut which isn't an average and valid only
in the long term, but applies to every session. That's what I meant when I said it was misleading.
Sure you can get an apparent "advantage" of 33% or even 100% in some sessions, but on average? No. And that's why the no-zero option is the best choice in the long run for the average player, even with the 10% cut. The simulations I've done confirm that the effective house edge is indeed about 0.1%. If you have a consistent advantage it would depend on what that advantage actually is. If it's high enough, then maybe your best bet is
the standard game.
The only case which you are correct is for those gamblers who wager too much to gain too little, like Martingalers for example, their profit is tiny in comparison with what they have wagered, that's why casinos like BV is actively trying to lure this kind of gamblers.
Don't all casinos welcome those kinds of players?, why single out BV? And actually, the reverse is true. In the standard game the house edge whittles away at your profits, that's why it's recommended to bet "boldly" in negative expectation games. Get in and get out quickly. But with no house edge you can afford to take it slow. If you have the advantage (or at least, no disadvantage), the opposite strategy is advised: bet conservatively (your only enemy is variance).
BTW, are you Greek?