Pages:
Author

Topic: Coinroll.it - Dice rolling game | Instant bets | Off-the-chain | 1% House edge - page 34. (Read 81559 times)

sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
I think coinroll is going down thanks to me...



Script found here made some slight modifications

Working great, running around 12 hours or something now? But it dropped out tonight dont know why (maybe connection error)  (max iteration i've seen is the safe limit of 35 i use, but i can handle it up to the max bet of 1.10 bitcoins, 41 iterations)
sr. member
Activity: 293
Merit: 250
This is what happens when you have a weird combination of software and hardware issues during the night.

Betting has been enabled again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

If you were affected by this downtime PM me your user ID and you'll receive a 0.02 BTC credit.
hero member
Activity: 745
Merit: 501
It will be back, don't worry. No sure what Scrat is doing exactly tho.
legendary
Activity: 2856
Merit: 1520
Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206
"Betting temporarily disabled - please try again later"

Seems site has issues??
member
Activity: 113
Merit: 10
LOL I wish mine was only -.6127 loss LOL
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 501
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
Stop using Windows 8 and you will win.

I agree, but that's chromeOS...arguably a lot shittier  Tongue
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Swiss Money all around me!
Stop using Windows 8 and you will win.
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
Wow amazing how the 11+ losses are appearing a lot lately. I guess it's my luck. 

I'm responsible for more than 10% of the total bets at coinroll.it.  Did the martingdale strategy for quite some time and from my experience you need money for more than 14 losses in a row.

Pic related:
https://i.imgur.com/XpnrI6B.png
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
I feel like i wanna make a different script this time around

instead of going for 1,2,4,8+++ for every losses at 2x modifier, why not go for 1 only, but increasing number of modifier 2x,3x,4x,5x.....999x...

could have been awesome, because sometimes i got hit with < 500  Shocked

the odds events is

Quote
selectGame(event, 60000)
hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
I'm sorry, I was being lazy.  I mean the expected number of rolls.  ie. the sum of the product of the number of rolls and the probability of it taking that many rolls.
I have to think about that for a while. How does that "expected number of rolls" relate to the probability of a certain sequence, ie. "what is the probability of getting a sequence of at least 11 losses when tossing a fair coin 4094 times?"

I have a hunch it would be 50%, and it comes back to the bell-shaped distribution curve, but hunches in this area are often wrong.

In statistics and Quantum Mechanics (which also uses statistics heavily) common sense is useless. The human brain simply fails at understanding probabilities and large numbers.
That's very true. However with hard practise you can understand some of it up to very limited numbers (I'm attempting now the range 1 to 6 Cheesy). The counter-intuitiveness is fascinating. I would like to craft a game designed around this 2-heads-in-a-row thing when I can understand it. Most people think it's only 4 tosses you need. Without using mathematics too much and through the practical example, I'd say it's 5, but even that is too low.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
Interesting indeed. "On average" is understandable for the layman, but I find it vague. I gather it means exactly 50% odds (to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance per loss). If you can say that way. I'd suppose graphically it comes from the bell-shaped distribution curve, exactly half of which is dissected at the 2046 plays.

I'm sorry, I was being lazy.  I mean the expected number of rolls.  ie. the sum of the product of the number of rolls and the probability of it taking that many rolls.

Also, I find it unbelievable that getting exactly 2 heads in a row for a fair coin flip takes on average 6 flips! "On average" again is supposed to mean 50% probability. Need to twist my head around that for a while.

How's this for weird?  A plot of probability against number of rolls.  There's a 0.25 probability that it will take 2 rolls to get 2 heads, etc:



The probability of it taking n rolls is:

  fib(n-2) / 2^n

where fib() is the Fibonacci sequence!

fib(0) = fib(1) = 1
fib(2) = 2
fib(3) = 3
fib(4) = 5
fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)

And you thought Mr. Fibonacci was just for the wackos doing technical analysis of the Bitcoin price?  Smiley

Edit: weird because of the step in the graph.  The probabilities that it will take 3 or 4 tosses to get 2 heads in a row are the same:

Code:
2:  1/4
3:  1/8 (THH)
4:  2/16 (TTHH and HTHH)
5:  3/32 (HTTHH, HTTHH, TTTHH)
6:  5/64
7:  8/128
8: 13/256
sr. member
Activity: 293
Merit: 250
Also, I find it unbelievable that getting exactly 2 heads in a row for a fair coin flip takes on average 6 flips! "On average" again is supposed to mean 50% probability. Need to twist my head around that for a while.

In statistics and Quantum Mechanics (which also uses statistics heavily) common sense is useless. The human brain simply fails at understanding probabilities and large numbers.
hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
It's an interesting read, but the conclusion is that it takes on average 2046 plays to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance per loss.
Interesting indeed. "On average" is understandable for the layman, but I find it vague. I gather it means exactly 50% odds (to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance per loss). If you can say that way. I'd suppose graphically it comes from the bell-shaped distribution curve, exactly half of which is dissected at the 2046 plays.

That has bothered me for a long time. I actually figured it would be something like that, but honestly thought it could be just slightly more than 2048, like in one of your early replies in the Satoshidice thread you quoted.

I find those calculations thrilling, even have a little book that contains examples of counter-intuitive everyday probabilities. But I tend to always forget how to calculate them. For instance I can't instantly come up with a solution on how to calculate answer to the question "What are the odds of 6 times 11 losses in a row for 2000 rolls?". It is well solvable with the formulas in your other thread, and a bit of time to sit down.

Also, I find it unbelievable that getting exactly 2 heads in a row for a fair coin flip takes on average 6 flips! "On average" again is supposed to mean 50% probability. Need to twist my head around that for a while.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250

Hey, no problem.  Anything for you guy.  Primedice.com also has good game.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
Certainly worse than expected luck. What are the odds of 6 times 11 losses in a row for 2000 rolls? For one such streak it is 1/2048... and that means one out of "2048 series of 11 rolls" (22000+ rolls in average for one such streak)?

No, it doesn't work like that.  You don't multiply 2048 by 11.

Because imagine if the last 5 of one set of 11 lost, and then the first 6 of the next set of 11 also lost.  You would count that as 11 losses in a row, but it wouldn't be any of your 2048 sets of 11.

I think the expected number of rolls to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance of a single loss is 2048.  But then something comes to mind where organofcorti corrected me on that, so I'm no longer sure.  I'll see if I can dig up his post.

Edit: here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1042019

It's interesting, because the discussion starts when he makes exactly the same mistake you made, and I follow up with exactly the mistake I just made.  Eventually we reach a conclusion I think.

Edit2: It's an interesting read, but the conclusion is that it takes on average 4094 plays to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance per loss.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
Certainly worse than expected luck. What are the odds of 6 times 11 losses in a row for 2000 rolls? For one such streak it is 1/2048... and that means one out of "2048 series of 11 rolls" (22000+ rolls in average for one such streak)?

No, it doesn't work like that.  You don't multiply 2048 by 11.

Because imagine if the last 5 of one set of 11 lost, and then the first 6 of the next set of 11 also lost.  You would count that as 11 losses in a row, but it wouldn't be any of your 2048 sets of 11.

I think the expected number of rolls to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance of a single loss is 2048.  But then something comes to mind where organofconti corrected me on that, so I'm no longer sure.  I'll see if I can dig up his post.

Edit: here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1042019

It's interesting, because the discussion starts when he makes exactly the same mistake you made, and I follow up with exactly the mistake I just made.  Eventually we reach a conclusion I think.

Edit2: It's an interesting read, but the conclusion is that it takes on average 2046 plays to get a sequence of 11 losses at 50% chance per loss.
member
Activity: 113
Merit: 10
50% and only rolled couple thousand times, but since yesterday I've gone more than 5 times over 11 losses in a row. One time I think it was 14-15 times. Oh Well.  Roll Eyes
Certainly worse than expected luck. What are the odds of 6 times 11 losses in a row for 2000 rolls? For one such streak it is 1/2048... and that means one out of "2048 series of 11 rolls" (22000+ rolls in average for one such streak)?

I don't know, but I lost a lot of money that's for sure.  Cry
hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
50% and only rolled couple thousand times, but since yesterday I've gone more than 5 times over 11 losses in a row. One time I think it was 14-15 times. Oh Well.  Roll Eyes
Certainly worse than expected luck. What are the odds of 6 times 11 losses in a row for 2000 rolls? For one such streak it is 1/2048... and that means one out of "2048 series of 11 rolls" (22000+ rolls in average for one such streak)?
Pages:
Jump to: