Was there ever a time they where equal?
It could be equal in just two rolls!
Topic: del (Read 3829 times)
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.
I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out: 10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.
Maximum consecutive is 29
[IMG.]http://i62.tinypic.com/35k34nc.png[/img]
Of course. That is expected. But still the difference is ~1250. Try making it 0-10.
In dice by evening out I mean tending towards an equal number of 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 to 99.9999
The number of rolls have to be increased, maybe 200 billion? But i`m not going to simulate that.
Was there ever a time they where equal?
Either increase the number of rolls, or try rolling it many times. Its all about odds here.
Was there ever a time they where equal?
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.
I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out: 10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.
Maximum consecutive is 29
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.
I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out: 10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.
Maximum consecutive is 29
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.
I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out: 10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.
Maximum consecutive is 29
[IMG.]http://i62.tinypic.com/35k34nc.png[/img]
Of course. That is expected. But still the difference is ~1250. Try making it 0-10.
In dice by evening out I mean tending towards an equal number of 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 to 99.9999
This is just a guess between 35 - 15. But if I was to bet chance 35 and below and win in about 12 bets
Edited - I just saw the pastebin, I wish you didn't do that. now my answer means nothing.
Never said I can predict the next roll, just be educated in what bets do and when.
Basically when I simulate a betting idea, checking maximum loses before a win happens. I do this with many server seed and client seed pairs. Once I believe I got the maximum loses possible I add 10% to that number and then back in to the biggest bet I can make without going bust.
Edited - I just saw the pastebin, I wish you didn't do that. now my answer means nothing.
Never said I can predict the next roll, just be educated in what bets do and when.
Basically when I simulate a betting idea, checking maximum loses before a win happens. I do this with many server seed and client seed pairs. Once I believe I got the maximum loses possible I add 10% to that number and then back in to the biggest bet I can make without going bust.
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.
I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out: 10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.
Maximum consecutive is 29
Had edited the post. Here are 10000 rolls to support your analysis.
Let us check.
Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc
What is the 10001st nonce roll?
PrimeDice
http://pastebin.com/VAEyF5B1
I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
Let us check.
Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc
What is the 10001st nonce roll?
PrimeDice
http://pastebin.com/VAEyF5B1
Which dice site?
Let us check.
Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc
What is the 89th nonce roll?
Edit: PrimeDice. I can give thousands, just doesn't want it too long, lol.
I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
Let us check.
Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc
What is the 89th nonce roll?
Quote
Nonce: 88 - roll: 98.89
Nonce: 87 - roll: 56.1
Nonce: 86 - roll: 35.51
Nonce: 85 - roll: 52.52
Nonce: 84 - roll: 54.18
Nonce: 83 - roll: 6
Nonce: 82 - roll: 68.76
Nonce: 81 - roll: 16.11
Nonce: 80 - roll: 66.23
Nonce: 79 - roll: 0.46
Nonce: 78 - roll: 36.88
Nonce: 77 - roll: 59.19
Nonce: 76 - roll: 79.42
Nonce: 75 - roll: 40.23
Nonce: 74 - roll: 63.26
Nonce: 73 - roll: 63.24
Nonce: 72 - roll: 21.22
Nonce: 71 - roll: 4.21
Nonce: 70 - roll: 48.35
Nonce: 69 - roll: 59.79
Nonce: 68 - roll: 60.91
Nonce: 67 - roll: 41.93
Nonce: 66 - roll: 23.16
Nonce: 65 - roll: 30.72
Nonce: 64 - roll: 85.32
Nonce: 63 - roll: 80.74
Nonce: 62 - roll: 26.08
Nonce: 61 - roll: 98.65
Nonce: 60 - roll: 80.26
Nonce: 59 - roll: 90.74
Nonce: 58 - roll: 95.12
Nonce: 57 - roll: 18.41
Nonce: 56 - roll: 19.54
Nonce: 55 - roll: 92.7
Nonce: 54 - roll: 31.53
Nonce: 53 - roll: 20.12
Nonce: 52 - roll: 82.97
Nonce: 51 - roll: 92.78
Nonce: 50 - roll: 24.69
Nonce: 49 - roll: 91.51
Nonce: 48 - roll: 42.3
Nonce: 47 - roll: 18.55
Nonce: 46 - roll: 48.49
Nonce: 45 - roll: 42.94
Nonce: 44 - roll: 22.84
Nonce: 43 - roll: 76.58
Nonce: 42 - roll: 93.79
Nonce: 41 - roll: 91.96
Nonce: 40 - roll: 75.94
Nonce: 39 - roll: 74.44
Nonce: 38 - roll: 54.75
Nonce: 37 - roll: 6.88
Nonce: 36 - roll: 92.08
Nonce: 35 - roll: 83.98
Nonce: 34 - roll: 44.43
Nonce: 33 - roll: 9.52
Nonce: 32 - roll: 84.54
Nonce: 31 - roll: 5.33
Nonce: 30 - roll: 88
Nonce: 29 - roll: 86.96
Nonce: 28 - roll: 87.83
Nonce: 27 - roll: 53.67
Nonce: 26 - roll: 81.23
Nonce: 25 - roll: 63.29
Nonce: 24 - roll: 44.41
Nonce: 23 - roll: 29.08
Nonce: 22 - roll: 79.29
Nonce: 21 - roll: 81
Nonce: 20 - roll: 66.28
Nonce: 19 - roll: 78.82
Nonce: 18 - roll: 45.61
Nonce: 17 - roll: 6.91
Nonce: 16 - roll: 97.79
Nonce: 15 - roll: 94.84
Nonce: 14 - roll: 37.74
Nonce: 13 - roll: 45.23
Nonce: 12 - roll: 72.75
Nonce: 11 - roll: 17.79
Nonce: 10 - roll: 28.56
Nonce: 9 - roll: 2.33
Nonce: 8 - roll: 13.51
Nonce: 7 - roll: 70.9
Nonce: 6 - roll: 53.81
Nonce: 5 - roll: 72.72
Nonce: 4 - roll: 36.48
Nonce: 3 - roll: 9.2
Nonce: 2 - roll: 63.17
Nonce: 1 - roll: 96.17
Nonce: 0 - roll: 42.1
Nonce: 87 - roll: 56.1
Nonce: 86 - roll: 35.51
Nonce: 85 - roll: 52.52
Nonce: 84 - roll: 54.18
Nonce: 83 - roll: 6
Nonce: 82 - roll: 68.76
Nonce: 81 - roll: 16.11
Nonce: 80 - roll: 66.23
Nonce: 79 - roll: 0.46
Nonce: 78 - roll: 36.88
Nonce: 77 - roll: 59.19
Nonce: 76 - roll: 79.42
Nonce: 75 - roll: 40.23
Nonce: 74 - roll: 63.26
Nonce: 73 - roll: 63.24
Nonce: 72 - roll: 21.22
Nonce: 71 - roll: 4.21
Nonce: 70 - roll: 48.35
Nonce: 69 - roll: 59.79
Nonce: 68 - roll: 60.91
Nonce: 67 - roll: 41.93
Nonce: 66 - roll: 23.16
Nonce: 65 - roll: 30.72
Nonce: 64 - roll: 85.32
Nonce: 63 - roll: 80.74
Nonce: 62 - roll: 26.08
Nonce: 61 - roll: 98.65
Nonce: 60 - roll: 80.26
Nonce: 59 - roll: 90.74
Nonce: 58 - roll: 95.12
Nonce: 57 - roll: 18.41
Nonce: 56 - roll: 19.54
Nonce: 55 - roll: 92.7
Nonce: 54 - roll: 31.53
Nonce: 53 - roll: 20.12
Nonce: 52 - roll: 82.97
Nonce: 51 - roll: 92.78
Nonce: 50 - roll: 24.69
Nonce: 49 - roll: 91.51
Nonce: 48 - roll: 42.3
Nonce: 47 - roll: 18.55
Nonce: 46 - roll: 48.49
Nonce: 45 - roll: 42.94
Nonce: 44 - roll: 22.84
Nonce: 43 - roll: 76.58
Nonce: 42 - roll: 93.79
Nonce: 41 - roll: 91.96
Nonce: 40 - roll: 75.94
Nonce: 39 - roll: 74.44
Nonce: 38 - roll: 54.75
Nonce: 37 - roll: 6.88
Nonce: 36 - roll: 92.08
Nonce: 35 - roll: 83.98
Nonce: 34 - roll: 44.43
Nonce: 33 - roll: 9.52
Nonce: 32 - roll: 84.54
Nonce: 31 - roll: 5.33
Nonce: 30 - roll: 88
Nonce: 29 - roll: 86.96
Nonce: 28 - roll: 87.83
Nonce: 27 - roll: 53.67
Nonce: 26 - roll: 81.23
Nonce: 25 - roll: 63.29
Nonce: 24 - roll: 44.41
Nonce: 23 - roll: 29.08
Nonce: 22 - roll: 79.29
Nonce: 21 - roll: 81
Nonce: 20 - roll: 66.28
Nonce: 19 - roll: 78.82
Nonce: 18 - roll: 45.61
Nonce: 17 - roll: 6.91
Nonce: 16 - roll: 97.79
Nonce: 15 - roll: 94.84
Nonce: 14 - roll: 37.74
Nonce: 13 - roll: 45.23
Nonce: 12 - roll: 72.75
Nonce: 11 - roll: 17.79
Nonce: 10 - roll: 28.56
Nonce: 9 - roll: 2.33
Nonce: 8 - roll: 13.51
Nonce: 7 - roll: 70.9
Nonce: 6 - roll: 53.81
Nonce: 5 - roll: 72.72
Nonce: 4 - roll: 36.48
Nonce: 3 - roll: 9.2
Nonce: 2 - roll: 63.17
Nonce: 1 - roll: 96.17
Nonce: 0 - roll: 42.1
Edit: PrimeDice. I can give thousands, just doesn't want it too long, lol.
I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
Which is called gambler's fallacy.
The funny thing is you are the first guy I have seen who have that fallacy for select (may be only for pseudo random) cases but does not have it for the rest.
LOL, your evening out strategy doesn't work. Pseudo random is kind of pre-determined random (in this case) numbers generated using a certain method. It is not predictable and does not even out (esp. in finite rolls).
That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.
Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of. I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.
Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Which is called gambler's fallacy.
The funny thing is you are the first guy I have seen who have that fallacy for select (may be only for pseudo random) cases but does not have it for the rest.
LOL, your evening out strategy doesn't work. Pseudo random is kind of pre-determined random (in this case) numbers generated using a certain method. It is not predictable and does not even out (esp. in finite rolls).
That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.
Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of. I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Which is called gambler's fallacy.
The funny thing is you are the first guy I have seen who have that fallacy for select (may be only for pseudo random) cases but does not have it for the rest.
LOL, your evening out strategy doesn't work. Pseudo random is kind of pre-determined random (in this case) numbers generated using a certain method. It is not predictable and does not even out (esp. in finite rolls).
That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.
Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of. I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.
To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.
Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.
tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
Stats are a crazy thing. Looking at things in a short run, getting 10 heads in 10 flips is .5^10. Not good odds.
However after 10 flips, the odds of flipping the next coin is still 50/50. In your example after the 10 ones are head, the next 100 rolls are still supposed to be closer to 50 heads 50 tails than anything else.
That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.
Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of. I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
Stats are a crazy thing. Looking at things in a short run, getting 10 heads in 10 flips is .5^10. Not good odds.
However after 10 flips, the odds of flipping the next coin is still 50/50. In your example after the 10 ones are head, the next 100 rolls are still supposed to be closer to 50 heads 50 tails than anything else.
That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
Stats are a crazy thing. Looking at things in a short run, getting 10 heads in 10 flips is .5^10. Not good odds.
However after 10 flips, the odds of flipping the next coin is still 50/50. In your example after the 10 ones are head, the next 100 rolls are still supposed to be closer to 50 heads 50 tails than anything else.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
You are comparing something that is truly random(flipping of a coin) to a algorithm. Have you run a simulation with the algorithm from a dice site?
I also notice that in your example that your approaching 50% as more flips happen, which is what I'm saying.
It looked like you were saying that it approaches 50/50 because the other option is more likely. that isn't true, it approaches 50/50 because over more trials, it will approach the true odds by just acting normally.
I have not analyzed dice sites because -ev bets need to be fun for me to make them, and dice looks anything but fun so it's not worth my time. If I was going to trust one of these sites with my money, i would look into figuring out exactly how they work, but I'm going to trust from afar that they are independent, because the code would have been cracked by now if it could be.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
You are comparing something that is truly random(flipping of a coin) to a algorithm. Have you run a simulation with the algorithm from a dice site?
I also notice that in your example that your approaching 50% as more flips happen, which is what I'm saying.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
This is 1000 percent wrong.
Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.
If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.
If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50, 60% heads.
And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.
If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.
Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.
Each bet is not independent of each other. Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet. Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets, since the bet with nonce=10 would never exist without the previous 9 nonces.
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
thank you for that and Chapeau!
there will be many user who will disagree with you but a few will understand the point you made
More than half the time I don't get you Einstein.
a compliment, not sarcasmWhat is the point he made?
Quote
Each bet is not independent of each other.
Incorrect.Quote
Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet.
Correct. Many dice sites have nonce-based provably fair systems. So you are saying nonce-based provably fair bets are dependent and others generated with just a server and client seed or txid and something else, aren't?
Quote
Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets
Generation is, result isn't.Quote
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
Correct.Edit: You know pseudo random doesn't mean it is in any way predictable or follow a pattern, right? Provably fair system doesn't work if bets aren't predetermined.
The result is independent.
If I give you 10 rolls, can you predict the next? No. That is referred to as independence here, of the result.
If I give you 10 rolls, can you predict the next? No. That is referred to as independence here, of the result.
The 11th roll is dependent on the server seed, client seed, and nonce and the previous rolls.
Example:
roll 1: 0.65
roll 2: 0.23
roll 3: 0.99
roll 4: 0.55
roll 5: 0.09
roll 6: 0.13
roll 7: 0.33
roll 8: 0.67
roll 9: 0.04
roll 10: 0.97
I would be willing to bet that the next roll will be higher then 1. But without the knowledge of the previous 10 bets I wouldn't.
At the same time I would like to see a server seed, client seed, nonce produce rolls anywhere close to what I listed.
1. Above post by Shogen explains significant stuff you are supposed to know. If you don't understand, hash some number using SHA256, SHA512, find a pattern, bankrupt a couple of dice sites and come back.
2.
Quote
I would be willing to bet that the next roll will be higher then 1. But without the knowledge of the previous 10 bets I wouldn't.
Gambler's fallacy.3. If say all the rolls are dependent on each other as you said how come you are betting that the next roll will be higher and not lower than 1? That is a weird of thinking, lol.
Quote
At the same time I would like to see a server seed, client seed, nonce produce rolls anywhere close to what I listed.
Getting 10 rolls less than 1 has around (0.01)^10 probability.Getting the next roll below 1 after that has 1% chance, above 1 has 99% chance as usual.
If you disagree read : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
Quote
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gambling where such mistakes are common among players.
The 11th roll is dependent on the server seed, client seed, and nonce and the previous rolls.
An important property of hash function is avalanche. With that, two almost identical inputs would create completely different hash output (the optimum is that each output bit has 50% chance to change) , and that's why a small change in nonce is enough to create a new random number independent of the previous numbers.
For example, knowing sha512(12sPa15STZ4:j8mEOhZKHYWMcCmwvIJkdOc4ZRxMsLgrfPec4vpIMMMOiyEz08:0) is ad0d3d199ba3d6a8d577d32d596c3188be5ab134e1f9d1d7234807f26d65d9d5cd1f5a6e68ed23b 76d51f025be13dd7baedcb2e3029c207b767da215a945f371 will not help you predict sha512(12sPa15STZ4:j8mEOhZKHYWMcCmwvIJkdOc4ZRxMsLgrfPec4vpIMMMOiyEz08:1)
Each bet is not independent of each other. Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet. Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets, since the bet with nonce=10 would never exist without the previous 9 nonces.
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
The result is independent.
If I give you 10 rolls, can you predict the next? No. That is referred to as independence here, of the result.
The 11th roll is dependent on the server seed, client seed, and nonce and the previous rolls.
Example:
roll 1: 0.65
roll 2: 0.23
roll 3: 0.99
roll 4: 0.55
roll 5: 0.09
roll 6: 0.13
roll 7: 0.33
roll 8: 0.67
roll 9: 0.04
roll 10: 0.97
I would be willing to bet that the next roll will be higher then 1. But without the knowledge of the previous 10 bets I wouldn't.
At the same time I would like to see a server seed, client seed, nonce produce rolls anywhere close to what I listed.
Each bet is not independent of each other. Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet. Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets, since the bet with nonce=10 would never exist without the previous 9 nonces.
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
thank you for that and Chapeau!
there will be many user who will disagree with you but a few will understand the point you made
Each bet is not independent of each other. Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet. Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets, since the bet with nonce=10 would never exist without the previous 9 nonces.
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
The result is independent.
If I give you 10 rolls, can you predict the next? No. That is referred to as independence here, of the result.
The only way to win at dice is to play 3 strategies at the same time.
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
Each bet is independent. After 500 rolls without <1, the chance to have <1 does not change but is still the same at exactly 1%, so the "switch" part doesn't quite work. Also, even if a very low base bet at 1 satoshi, you will quickly run out of fund to continue doubling your bet when you hit a long losing streak.
In short, your strategy would not work in the long run. Indeed, no strategy would work in the long run for the luck based dice game with negative EV.
Each bet is not independent of each other. Each bet is determined by a algorithm where a nonce is incremented each bet. Which means each bet is dependent on all previous bets, since the bet with nonce=10 would never exist without the previous 9 nonces.
The algorithms that determine the outcome are pseudo random and not truly random.
The only way to win at dice is to play 3 strategies at the same time.
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
Each bet is independent. After 500 rolls without <1, the chance to have <1 does not change but is still the same at exactly 1%, so the "switch" part doesn't quite work. Also, even if a very low base bet at 1 satoshi, you will quickly run out of fund to continue doubling your bet when you hit a long losing streak.
In short, your strategy would not work in the long run. Indeed, no strategy would work in the long run for the luck based dice game with negative EV.
The only way to win at dice is to play 3 strategies at the same time.
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
Example:
start at 1 satoshi at 10x payout doubling the bet after 5 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi after a win.
FOR BETTING LOW
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of less then 1 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being under 1, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
FOR BETTING HIGH
At the same time keeping track of any rolls\results of greater then 99 and how many bets you have placed. Once you reach 500 rolls without a roll/result being over 99, start betting at 99x payout and double the bet after 48 losses in a row. Reset the bet back to 1 satoshi and 10x payout.
repeat
It is more or less as the advice: 'stop when you are winning', or, in others words, stop when the variance is working in your favor
Yes, never double down on losses, that is not a good plan. When lose stop, when win then start preparing to stop before losing
I didn't say no one could be a billionaire, I didn't say that you couldn't flip 1 million heads in a row. I said that if you flipped 10 heads in a row, the odds the next one being heads is 50/50. In your nonsense you said that tails was more likely on the 11th roll. That is flat out wrong. If you don't want people to call you on your bullshit don't post bullshit.
There is no way to PREDICT trends among independent events. You can look back and find them, but you cannot predict them because each roll is independent and has nothing to do with previous rolls/flips.
Ok, but what if your personal luck variable, and the casino's luck variable are independent.
We know the casino has negative expectancy, but we dont know if the person has. And if we add that together, if you have a higher perosnal expectancy than the casinos negative expectancy (his personal luck), then you can come out a winner in the end.
Many people did that, they played roulette, baccarat, dice or whatever and they ended up net winners.
There is no other way to find out, but only if you gamble and see for yourself.
It is definitely possible to win at -ev games, you need to be lucky. I have no problem with you saying that.
The problem comes when you say factually incorrect things like the 11th roll has a better chance of being tails after the first 10 are heads, or that looking for a trend and using that to help make your next pick is a viable strategy when things are independent.
I didn't say no one could be a billionaire, I didn't say that you couldn't flip 1 million heads in a row. I said that if you flipped 10 heads in a row, the odds the next one being heads is 50/50. In your nonsense you said that tails was more likely on the 11th roll. That is flat out wrong. If you don't want people to call you on your bullshit don't post bullshit.
There is no way to PREDICT trends among independent events. You can look back and find them, but you cannot predict them because each roll is independent and has nothing to do with previous rolls/flips.
Ok, but what if your personal luck variable, and the casino's luck variable are independent.
We know the casino has negative expectancy, but we dont know if the person has. And if we add that together, if you have a higher perosnal expectancy than the casinos negative expectancy (his personal luck), then you can come out a winner in the end.
Many people did that, they played roulette, baccarat, dice or whatever and they ended up net winners.
There is no other way to find out, but only if you gamble and see for yourself.
THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.
The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.
If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.
You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)
You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)
Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.
I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)
I understand what you are saying guys but you fail to see the perspective.
Let's look at "life". All life expectancy is negative because everybody will die eventually.
So by your logic nobody can be a billionaire in his lifetime because his life has a negative expectancy, but that is obviously not the case.
So you can have local positive expectancy, while the overall one is negative.
I tend to see probability as a collective of local ones, so the total negative expectancy of a gambling game, is composed of local positive expectancies + local negative expectancies, where the local negative dominates, but that doesnt mean that the positive cannot happen.
Take the inverse for example, if you win 1000 times in a row in a 50% probability dice game:
- did you played agains overall negative expectancy: Yes because the payout ratio was < 1x
- did you had a local positive expectancy: Yes, because you won 1000 in a row. Otherwise you could not have the trend. It was lucky, but it was still a trend.
So if you can jump on a local positive expectancy train, you can win locally, but if you "force" your luck, you will eventually lose.
I didn't say no one could be a billionaire, I didn't say that you couldn't flip 1 million heads in a row. I said that if you flipped 10 heads in a row, the odds the next one being heads is 50/50. In your nonsense you said that tails was more likely on the 11th roll. That is flat out wrong. If you don't want people to call you on your bullshit don't post bullshit.
There is no way to PREDICT trends among independent events. You can look back and find them, but you cannot predict them because each roll is independent and has nothing to do with previous rolls/flips.
THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.
The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.
If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.
You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)
You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)
Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.
I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)
I understand what you are saying guys but you fail to see the perspective.
Let's look at "life". All life expectancy is negative because everybody will die eventually.
So by your logic nobody can be a billionaire in his lifetime because his life has a negative expectancy, but that is obviously not the case.
So you can have local positive expectancy, while the overall one is negative.
I tend to see probability as a collective of local ones, so the total negative expectancy of a gambling game, is composed of local positive expectancies + local negative expectancies, where the local negative dominates, but that doesnt mean that the positive cannot happen.
Take the inverse for example, if you win 1000 times in a row in a 50% probability dice game:
- did you played agains overall negative expectancy: Yes because the payout ratio was < 1x
- did you had a local positive expectancy: Yes, because you won 1000 in a row. Otherwise you could not have the trend. It was lucky, but it was still a trend.
So if you can jump on a local positive expectancy train, you can win locally, but if you "force" your luck, you will eventually lose.
Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?
You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)
You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)
Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.
I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)
So your betting strategy is basically the definition of gamblers fallacy? How would you expect us not to mention it? There is no way you studied stats and came up with this, I studied stats for 1 year and I can tell you this is pretty much what you learn on day 1, "Are the events independent on one another or not"
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
If you'd care to read my posts before replying it would be better.
I didnt deny that the rolls are independent of another, but overall they are confined to a cluster that is dictated by the local probabilities.
After 10 heads the tails has a higher probability of occuring (locally). Yes this is true.
However if the overall cluster is reshuffled, to give room to 11,12,13... heads in a row, then obviously that will happen eventually too.
So we must look for a exploitation in the cluster until it is intact , but that is impossible to predict because that is random too, it can reshuffle anytime.
So yes you need to be lucky too, I dont give any edge here, i`m just trying to exploit a pattern until it exists, after its gone we can lose too, so it is gamble.
I can't believe your charging for the demo
This is a sales thread after all....
You're a cheeky monkey
This is a sales thread after all....
You're a cheeky monkey
That was not my intention at all, i just didnt found a free file hosting service.
Here i found one, so now you can download it for free and see for yourself.
THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.
The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.
If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.
Quote
after 20 consecutive losses I increase the bet to 8% of my balance so that is 0.04BTC
As you know you can lose 2-3 times after that increasing, which is 0.08-0.12BTC and to get that amount back will take lots of time and what is more important lots of risk too. Most likely you'll lose everything trying to recover. Of course you can win with that strategy if you are lucky, but you can also win betting 0.5 BTC just one time on 0.98x payout.
You only increase it to 8% of the balance for 1 bet, after that resume it to the minimum bet size, regardless if you won or lost.
We are "hunting" the consecutive switches.
Of coure, Low risk, low rewards
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this
Yeah that is so true, but sometimes people with a great luck can hit jackpot and win big and of course this is exception, mostly people will earn like that way but you need some good balance for you to sustain your loss or you will never hit it back again
Yes but this strategy is for low risk people who would like to win smaller but safer.
If you want to win big, then use SatoshiDice for example, bet 1 BTC and set the win rate to 0.2%, your multiplier will be 490.
So with a 0.2% probability you could win 490 BTC with 1 BTC betted
Of coure, Low risk, low rewards
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this
Yeah that is so true, but sometimes people with a great luck can hit jackpot and win big and of course this is exception, mostly people will earn like that way but you need some good balance for you to sustain your loss or you will never hit it back again
And what if there are not enough same rolls? Let's say I decide to change the bet after 5 same rolls (5x or 5y), start betting and end up with a pattern like 1x 3y 4x 1y 1x and so on. I could end up gambling whole day and never really getting to use the strategy but losing all my money if I choose wrong.
That is why choose the appropriate trigger for your number of bets. Also you bet only 100 satoshi on normal bets, so you lose what 100,000 satoshi max?
Still better than losing tons of money.
If you bet 100 bets , then the trigger should be 7-8 consecutives because higher than that is not likely to happen, and so on. Use my simulator to check how many consecutives happen in different bet numbers.
And what if there are not enough same rolls? Let's say I decide to change the bet after 5 same rolls (5x or 5y), start betting and end up with a pattern like 1x 3y 4x 1y 1x and so on. I could end up gambling whole day and never really getting to use the strategy but losing all my money if I choose wrong.
Is it really a 'strategy'? It seems more like an automated gambling where you bet thousands of times and expect to win more than 50% of bets.
As you said: "because it might involve betting 5000 times in a row". There is not really any sophisticated strategy involved in dice, only raw math...
As you said: "because it might involve betting 5000 times in a row". There is not really any sophisticated strategy involved in dice, only raw math...
Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?
You are talking about a distribution with trillions of trillions of trillions...... of rolls tending towards infinity. The concept you are talking of doesn't apply here. The sample size even if you make a trillion rolls is too small and not representative
I do appreciate the effort. Anyway, you will learn some new stuff.
I do appreciate the effort. Anyway, you will learn some new stuff.
Ok but we wont have trillions of bets, so we can already separate lucky people from unlucky in a few thousand ones.
I dont view luck as you do. I think luck can built a pattern, after all many many quadrillions of tiny atoms moving randomly make up our nice planet, and we do have a trend on here.
So i think trends can rise out of randomness that are temporary too.
So your betting strategy is basically the definition of gamblers fallacy? How would you expect us not to mention it? There is no way you studied stats and came up with this, I studied stats for 1 year and I can tell you this is pretty much what you learn on day 1, "Are the events independent on one another or not"
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
If you'd care to read my posts before replying it would be better.
I didnt deny that the rolls are independent of another, but overall they are confined to a cluster that is dictated by the local probabilities.
After 10 heads the tails has a higher probability of occuring (locally). Yes this is true.
However if the overall cluster is reshuffled, to give room to 11,12,13... heads in a row, then obviously that will happen eventually too.
So we must look for a exploitation in the cluster until it is intact , but that is impossible to predict because that is random too, it can reshuffle anytime.
So yes you need to be lucky too, I dont give any edge here, i`m just trying to exploit a pattern until it exists, after its gone we can lose too, so it is gamble.
I can't believe your charging for the demo
This is a sales thread after all....
You're a cheeky monkey
This is a sales thread after all....
You're a cheeky monkey
That was not my intention at all, i just didnt found a free file hosting service.
Here i found one, so now you can download it for free and see for yourself.
I don't think people understand the gambler's fallacy.
Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.
However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.
But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.
If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.
Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.
However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.
But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.
If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.
This is correct, Even though the odds of the flip never change the provability of getting tails that 101 times is lower than say rolling once. But the odds is still 50/50 no matter how many time you flip the coin. I would love to see the betters face though after receiving 100 roles of heads when he has been betting on tails the entire time.
I don't think people understand the gambler's fallacy.
Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.
However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.
But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.
If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.
Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.
However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.
But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.
If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.
Nope, you just don't get it. What you are talking about is precisely termed as gambler's fallacy. (above post makes it pretty more than clear)
Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?
No I was explaining that the official explanation of the fallacy is short sided, its more to it just than the independent outcomes. Because the cluster is randomized too, so weather the odds are set to any amount, the distribution tends to follow the variance.
Or in other words , except a few black swans, the distribution is also contained to a local variance and it can be exploited to control risk better.
Example: if you flip a coin 100 times, the odds of being tails 10 times is 0.09765625% and yet the 11th roll is less likely to be tails, but not impossible.So eventually the heads have to come, so we can say that the local probability can vary wehereas the overally probability remains constant. Now this is no way a guarantee, because somehow the 12 consecutive tails have to come too, but then the local probabilities just reshuffle, randomly.
This is a common mathematical phenomena. I think its called local probability distribution:
http://pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/flairs06.pdf
Which is also called gambler's fallacy.
Hey its random anyway, but you have to understand that based on odds, somebody can come out a net winner even after 100,000 rolls. It all depends on the local distribution , how it gets shuffled.
And those who are losers, at least lose less than they normally would with other strategies.
Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?
LOL, you did. xD
No I was explaining that the official explanation of the fallacy is short sided, its more to it just than the independent outcomes. Because the cluster is randomized too, so weather the odds are set to any amount, the distribution tends to follow the variance.
Or in other words , except a few black swans, the distribution is also contained to a local variance and it can be exploited to control risk better.
Example: if you flip a coin 100 times, the odds of being tails 10 times is 0.09765625% and yet the 11th roll is less likely to be tails, but not impossible.So eventually the heads have to come, so we can say that the local probability can vary wehereas the overally probability remains constant. Now this is no way a guarantee, because somehow the 12 consecutive tails have to come too, but then the local probabilities just reshuffle, randomly.
This is a common mathematical phenomena. I think its called local probability distribution:
http://pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/flairs06.pdf
Which is also called gambler's fallacy.
But apply it in this case. With this strategy too the risk is 1.9% more than the reward.
Hey its random anyway, but you have to understand that based on odds, somebody can come out a net winner even after 100,000 rolls. It all depends on the local distribution , how it gets shuffled.
And those who are losers, at least lose less than they normally would with other strategies.
You are talking about a distribution with trillions of trillions of trillions...... of rolls tending towards infinity. The concept you are talking of doesn't apply here. The sample size even if you make a trillion rolls is too small and not representative
I do appreciate the effort. Anyway, you will learn some new stuff.
Even though if you roll 20 heads in a row, it is more likely that the 21st will be tails. Of course next time it might be 21 heads in a row, but its all random.
It's not just the individual outcome that is random, but the cluster too, so even though if you have 20 heads in a row, it is morel likely that the 21st will be tails, it is not true always.
By betting tails after the 20th, you might win once, but you might lose another time. But it gives a bigger certainty anyway than just naked betting randomly.
It's not just the individual outcome that is random, but the cluster too, so even though if you have 20 heads in a row, it is morel likely that the 21st will be tails, it is not true always.
By betting tails after the 20th, you might win once, but you might lose another time. But it gives a bigger certainty anyway than just naked betting randomly.
Quote from: The gambler's fallacy
[...] is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future [...]
So your betting strategy is basically the definition of gamblers fallacy? How would you expect us not to mention it? There is no way you studied stats and came up with this, I studied stats for 1 year and I can tell you this is pretty much what you learn on day 1, "Are the events independent on one another or not"
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.
I think your strategic is bad and that you don't have any idea of what your are doing. In the long run it is impossible to make profit, because in 100 rolls you lose 51 and win 49, so you are losing money already, after 1000 more loss and in 10000 you will have lost everything you have.
I don't believe in any strategy regarding dice site an lucky person can with any strategy i am always go with 49.50% win with 2x payout and i like to play with that mostly i use for a session not to play for long term and take withdraw after done if i lose never try to recover and come with new deposit for next session other day so that i will advice keep believe in your self never try others strategy for winning on dice site.
Thanks for sharing anyways.
These are nothing new though.... it's the same as the old double bet strategy on Roulette.
Good luck with your gambling
These are nothing new though.... it's the same as the old double bet strategy on Roulette.
Good luck with your gambling
But the roulette system is not 50%, its something like 48%, which is not good for this strategy.
I specifically said that this one works best in 50% games to maximize the odds for us.
I am testing a modified version now, and it might be ready soon
This method takes too long to win a little bit of satoshi and every bet is independent of the previous.
In theory, you can lose 30 times in a row and you cannot blame that the gambling site is rigged.
In theory, you can lose 30 times in a row and you cannot blame that the gambling site is rigged.
I never said that this method will guarantee you anything. Gambling is a game of luck, we all know that.
It's all based on luck and probabilities, and the probability of losing 30 times in a row is ultra unlikely, I would not expect that to happen even in 50 million bets, so we can say that its unlikely.
I choose then 20 because I was looking at 200,000 bets, but if that is also too much for you then you can lower that.
If you bet manually, say 200 times then you will likely stay below 10 consecutive heads/tails , and if you bet on 20, you might never reach that.
You should configure the strategy to what you use.
Yeah, coz of variance it could show anywhere from a massive profit to a massive loss.
With 500,000 rolls the maximum loss I simulated was about 36%, and I won more times usually. In real life gambling I never even experienced a 10% loss ever since I use this strategy.
I depends on luck too, I dont deny that.
LOL, you did. xD
No I was explaining that the official explanation of the fallacy is short sided, its more to it just than the independent outcomes. Because the cluster is randomized too, so weather the odds are set to any amount, the distribution tends to follow the variance.
Or in other words , except a few black swans, the distribution is also contained to a local variance and it can be exploited to control risk better.
Example: if you flip a coin 100 times, the odds of being tails 10 times is 0.09765625% and yet the 11th roll is less likely to be tails, but not impossible.So eventually the heads have to come, so we can say that the local probability can vary wehereas the overally probability remains constant. Now this is no way a guarantee, because somehow the 12 consecutive tails have to come too, but then the local probabilities just reshuffle, randomly.
This is a common mathematical phenomena. I think its called local probability distribution:
http://pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/flairs06.pdf
But apply it in this case. With this strategy too the risk is 1.9% more than the reward.
Hey its random anyway, but you have to understand that based on odds, somebody can come out a net winner even after 100,000 rolls. It all depends on the local distribution , how it gets shuffled.
And those who are losers, at least lose less than they normally would with other strategies.
Individually the bets are random and independent, but collectively they tend to built up a pattern.
Guess what? They don't. It is human tendency to connect things that aren't.
Every single thing is distinct and it is impossible to accurately predict the next roll. There is no trend. No such rule that all rolls would be equally distributed either though you might assume they are.
Edit: To give clarity just check how SatoshiDice's provably fair system works. IIRC, they are just adding two random numbers and that is it.
Well, tbh I have a stupid strategy too. But I am sure it is still negative EV.
But the good thing with my strategy is if the odds are say 1% to roll a >50 and 99% to roll <50 or the other way round, I make a profit. Cashes out on all consecutive same-sided bets but if it keep switching hi and lo, lose lose lose..
Surprisingly I found a few who were following the same thing here. (thought it was just my own one, lol)
Yeah, coz of variance it could show anywhere from a massive profit to a massive loss.
Rule 2 in the book is never chase your losses.
Yes because with any type of recovery strategy, the risk increases faster than the reward and you will end up losing more.
You have to let the losses go in order to stop losing more!
But the good thing with my strategy is if the odds are say 1% to roll a >50 and 99% to roll <50 or the other way round, I make a profit. Cashes out on all consecutive same-sided bets but if it keep switching hi and lo, lose lose lose..
Surprisingly I found a few who were following the same thing here. (thought it was just my own one, lol)
I put out my strategy simulator I made, you can try it out if you want, I rolled out simulations on easily 200,000- 2,000,000 bets and it does hold up to those wins.
Yeah, coz of variance it could show anywhere from a massive profit to a massive loss.
I am interesting to know so how would you get recover when you lost amount at any losing streak,
Rule 2 in the book is never chase your losses.
Yes because with any type of recovery strategy, the risk increases faster than the reward and you will end up losing more.
You have to let the losses go in order to stop losing more!
True.
But apply it in this case. With this strategy too the risk is 1.9% more than the reward.
Every bet is independent.
That is true, but it is you who dont understand the gambler's fallacy, it is very misinterpreted.
Individually the bets are random and independent, but collectively they tend to built up a pattern.
Even though if you roll 20 heads in a row, it is more likely that the 21st will be tails. Of course next time it might be 21 heads in a row, but its all random.
It's not just the individual outcome that is random, but the cluster too, so even though if you have 20 heads in a row, it is morel likely that the 21st will be tails, it is not true always.
By betting tails after the 20th, you might win once, but you might lose another time. But it gives a bigger certainty anyway than just naked betting randomly.
you use your strategy to the simulator? Don't use to real gambling site? Your stat are only "simulated" ? Why don't test directly to one dice with 1 satoshi minimum bet?
I use both. The simulator is to configure my strategy, and when I go live then I have a plan.
There are few sites that allow 1 satoshi bets, but 100 satoshi is also affordable because the small inter-bets are not that important.
The key of the strategy relies on the big bet after the consecutives.
I put out my strategy simulator I made, you can try it out if you want, I rolled out simulations on easily 200,000- 2,000,000 bets and it does hold up to those wins.
I also think the gambler fallacy is not what it looks like, it is certainly misinterpreted.
Rule 2 in the book is never chase your losses.
Yes because with any type of recovery strategy, the risk increases faster than the reward and you will end up losing more.
You have to let the losses go in order to stop losing more!
I also think the gambler fallacy is not what it looks like, it is certainly misinterpreted.
I am interesting to know so how would you get recover when you lost amount at any losing streak,
Rule 2 in the book is never chase your losses.
Yes because with any type of recovery strategy, the risk increases faster than the reward and you will end up losing more.
You have to let the losses go in order to stop losing more!
I am interesting to know so how would you get recover when you lost amount at any losing streak,
Rule 2 in the book is never chase your losses.
Same thing like prerolls. Just wastes extra time.
Edit:
Gambling is never positive EV. It would be tending towards -1.9% of your wagered amount.
Edit2: Simply understand every single bet is completely independent. Imagine there are 1000 sites, and you make the first 10 bets on 10 different sites, you will understand that the strategy makes no real sense. It only appears to.
Edit3: For 7.7% gain, simply bet 7.7% of the bankroll till you have one win more than the loss. Statistically better chance than the above method, and you can save on time and electricity.
I think SatoshiDice has lower edge on bets with very low chance? Still it is 1.9x standard house edge.
Edit:
Sorry but I did simulations with 200,000 rolls, and it works. I either end up with -0.01% loss or with 7.7% gain, so I think its a perfect strategy for low risk/ low reward gamblers.
The average consecutive loss/win there is ~ 15-17, so a 20 consecutive trigger is rare, so the risk to bet on that is low.
The average consecutive loss/win there is ~ 15-17, so a 20 consecutive trigger is rare, so the risk to bet on that is low.
Gambling is never positive EV. It would be tending towards -1.9% of your wagered amount.
Edit2: Simply understand every single bet is completely independent. Imagine there are 1000 sites, and you make the first 10 bets on 10 different sites, you will understand that the strategy makes no real sense. It only appears to.
Edit3: For 7.7% gain, simply bet 7.7% of the bankroll till you have one win more than the loss. Statistically better chance than the above method, and you can save on time and electricity.
I think SatoshiDice has lower edge on bets with very low chance? Still it is 1.9x standard house edge.
This is the dumbest strategy to date.
Quote
Now don't lecture me about the Gambler's fallacy problem
Sorry but I did simulations with 200,000 rolls, and it works. I either end up with -0.01% loss or with 7.7% gain, so I think its a perfect strategy for low risk/ low reward gamblers.
The average consecutive loss/win there is ~ 15-17, so a 20 consecutive trigger is rare, so the risk to bet on that is low.
This can be done in dice sites with 1%/0.5% house edge, but you will need a bot to stop on win and switch, as with what I know none of the dice sites has this option on their autopilot
Well it is easy with a bot, but you dont necessarly need to switch. I use Satoshidice and they dont have switch, so I just play off the consecutive losses and then increase the bet.
