House Edge vs. Luck - the Last Stand - page 3.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Betwrong on May 03, 2020, 09:35:15 AM

Quote from: deisik on April 29, 2020, 02:53:21 PM

~
I remember we have already discussed this matter, and recently you have been forwarded to my topic where I actually show real-life stats proving that after 100k bets luck, as the only force opposing the house edge, becomes utterly irrelevant and inconsequential. Simply put, 1 billion bets, whether made by a single player or by a crowd of countless players, is a massive overkill in this regard

Then how would you explain that some people are in overall profit after making millions of bets on dice sites? Do you think all of them are using some kind of sophisticated betting strategy, something like that "Martingale-DOGE" one of yours? Or how else could they beat the house edge, if not by pure luck?

Let's keep it simple

You show me these people who "are in overall profit after making millions of bets" while not using "some kind of sophisticated betting strategy" (like "Martingale-DOGE" by my invention), i.e. by pure luck alone, and I will agree that there is however small a chance that you can still be in the game after so many rolls betting randomly (as we are talking about luck here) and risking your entire balance at each roll of a die (don't miss this part)

It would be an extreme outlier, most likely caused by a glitch in a casino RNG expertly exploited by a smart gambler, even though in that very case it makes no sense to place so many bets when you could just bet high once or twice and then run with the spoil. Unless, of course, you mean successfully betting high a few times and betting 1 satoshi 1 million times afterwards. Then you would likely remain in profit indeed

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Ryker1 on May 01, 2020, 01:30:13 PM

It will be best if you double your bet if you lose once and if you win when you double your bet then you already be able to recover easily but think of it what if you lose again on your next bet then automatically that makes you lose thrice

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by the above

Regardless, I double at each loss, so when I score a win I do not only recover what I have lost until now but also win as much. In fact, I win even more than that for the simple reason I typically use multipliers a little higher than a regular x2. The whole idea consists in using variance against the house edge and waiting for an outlier that is long enough to produce juice but not long enough to take me out

Quote from: Saint-loup on May 01, 2020, 03:32:45 PM

Thank you for this thread. It clearly shows that dice rolls aren't as independent as people think. Results aren't random at all here, they respect the rule of the probability. So your luck isn't independent from your previous results

Well, what you see is the house edge taking on luck (i.e. randomness) and then decisively taking it down. As such, this has little to do with whether rolls are independent of each other or not. Simply put, you are making an interpretation error, i.e. the results are valid but your interpretation of them is not

20kevin20

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1598

Now that is a possible explanation why all my overnight auto-betting bots turned into losses. Cheesy

IIRC, the casino at the time could handle ~1 second per bet which means 10k bets would be reached within 3 hours.

So does that mean that the strat should be changed every 5k bets in order to avoid the house edge losses?

Quote from: Ryker1 on May 01, 2020, 01:30:13 PM

~
there are strategies that can be used to recover losses like the martingale strategy. It will be best
~

I think martingale is the quickest way to lose. It always made me lose everything within minutes. I had streaks of +20 losses with it. Start with 0.00000001BTC on martingale and after 20 losses you'll need to bet 0.02097152BTC already. Starting from one satoshi! That is equal to starting with $1 and having to bet a whopping $2,097,152 after 20 losses.

Saint-loup

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 2353

Ryker1

sr. member

Activity: 1932

Merit: 442

Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!

Quote from: deisik on April 30, 2020, 03:59:37 PM

[snip]
Without randomness there would be no luck

But without luck there would be no winners ..

Well, you are right. Gambling is always a game of luck though, there are strategies that can be used to recover losses like the martingale strategy. It will be best if you double your bet if you lose once and if you win when you double your bet then you already be able to recover easily but think of it what if you lose again on your next bet then automatically that makes you lose thrice. Sadly with a house edge, it only secures the profit of the gambling sites you may get eager to win back what you have lost but luck is your only hope, perhaps before playing you must be aware and ready that there is a chance of winning and a chance of losing and that will make you not to be emotionally distracted when the game doesn't on your side.

Indeed, I am sure if you will accept the fact that you may either win or lose then you will always have control and think to stop playing since you don't need to be eager in winning back your losses to the point of betting all you have and in the end lose everything.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: DarkDays on April 30, 2020, 03:05:46 PM

Randomness and the house edge are actually working with each other, not against each other

Without randomness there would be no luck

But without luck there would be no winners (other than the casino, obviously). Pretty simple logic, isn't it? In that way, I'm not sure if randomness and the house edge could ever be living peacefully together. Let me guess, you are mistaking uniform distribution for random. If this is the case, then I agree with you. In a uniform distribution there is no place for variance (it simply makes no sense), and thus no place for luck either as the house edge becomes a dominating force from the very first roll. That's essentially why any casino would go for a uniform distribution instead of a truly random one, with its potentially devastating statistical outliers (aka lucky streaks)

Quote from: DarkDays on April 30, 2020, 03:05:46 PM

Casinos hope that you wager more and more, that way they increase the odds that your results will fall within the normal distribution

Random distribution is very different from normal distribution. Again, you are likely confusing random distribution with uniform. But uniform is not normal either (was there a pun there?)

Quote from: DarkDays on April 30, 2020, 03:05:46 PM

A lot of people play into their hands by wagering extremely small amounts with a high frequency, meaning they're moving closer and closer to the expected distribution very quickly

And?

Quote from: DarkDays on April 30, 2020, 03:05:46 PM

However, the really smart gamblers are the ones that bet big, but infrequently. That's why I pay more attention to the higher rollers than the small fish, and probably why the high rollers tend to come out on top more often than the auto-bettors

Could you specify what you mean by "high rollers coming out on top more often than the auto-bettors"? What metric do you refer to here that the high-rollers are defeating auto-bettors in?

STT

legendary

Activity: 4060

Merit: 1448

The overwhelming appeal to martingale is its simplicity, thats it and why its a strategy repeated and remembered by punters for ages. To employ more complex statistical techniques and analysis would involve more time, effort and education to gain any advantage if there was one to have.
I heard about martingale sitting in a casino bar 20 years ago, I wont be surprised if it goes back decades before that and its just like an urban myth that lights peoples imaginations. No discernible benefit clearly where as the OP points out house advantage is ongoing in in its importance and is something worth noting every bet placed.

DarkDays

legendary

Activity: 2030

Merit: 1189

Randomness and the house edge are actually working with each other, not against each other.

Casinos hope that you wager more and more, that way they increase the odds that your results will fall within the normal distribution.

A lot of people play into their hands by wagering extremely small amounts with a high frequency, meaning they're moving closer and closer to the expected distribution very quickly.

However, the really smart gamblers are the ones that bet big, but infrequently. That's why I pay more attention to the higher rollers than the small fish, and probably why the high rollers tend to come out on top more often than the auto-bettors.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Lakai01 on April 29, 2020, 05:21:43 AM

First of all thank you very much for this interesting data

You're welcome, bro

Quote from: Lakai01 on April 29, 2020, 05:21:43 AM

We have often had discussions here about why Martingale works (or doesn't work). Most of the time it was argued that longer loss streaks are very unlikely

The longer losing streaks are called statistical outliers (or variance)

They are rare but they are far from being unlikely. In fact, they are a given in any martingale setup for the simple reason martingale is about making a very large number of rolls, so you are inevitably going to see very long losing or winning streaks eventually. Moreover, the only way to stay in the game while using martingale is to exploit the power of these outliers against the casino, and thus beat the house edge

Quote from: Lakai01 on April 29, 2020, 05:21:43 AM

Let's imagine that you had bet on Martingale here at your Rolls and started with 0.0002 BTC (= $1.6). With a loss streak of 14 Rolls you would already have to bet 1.6384 BTC on your 15th attempt. That this is not unrealistic is shown by your screenshots where the loss-streaks vary between 12 and 18 attempts

That's why you must stick with cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin and with casinos that allow the lowest possible denomination as a base bet

Tipstar

sr. member

Activity: 1890

Merit: 300

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

There's no wining if you go with same strategy for a long time as house edge keeps on working. If you want to have a luck favor, you need to keep changing your strategy and pause gambling if you thing you are in a bad streak. Martingale is a good strategy but don't use it plain and straight. Do it manually and change target to avoid long streak.

Lakai01

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 2721

First of all thank you very much for this interesting data.

We have often had discussions here about why Martingale works (or doesn't work). Most of the time it was argued that longer loss streaks are very unlikely. I would like to take up this again on the basis of your screenshots. Here you can see a loss-streak of 14 rolls:

To put it short if someone doesn't know what Martingale is:

Quote

The strategy had the gambler double the bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake. The martingale strategy has been applied to roulette as well, as the probability of hitting either red or black is close to 50%.

Source

Let's imagine that you had bet on Martingale here at your Rolls and started with 0.0002 BTC (= $1.6). With a loss streak of 14 Rolls you would already have to bet 1.6384 BTC on your 15th attempt. That this is not unrealistic is shown by your screenshots where the loss-streaks vary between 12 and 18 attempts.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: tyKiwanuka on April 28, 2020, 03:13:18 PM

Change your point of view and think of the gambling site operator as a (single) player. They are easily able to play dice gazillion of times. And they will win 1% (if that is the house edge) with every play on average

I had already tried this approach in the past

Like 1 billion people playing 1000 times can be re-framed as a single player betting a trillion times, and she will lose exactly the house edge, whatever it might be. But we still shouldn't discard a key difference between 1 player versus 1 billion players, and it is variance. Variance can't do anything with 1 billion gamblers as it gets instantly averaged out among so many players with only 1000 bets to make each -- too few bets for too many people. However, it will most certainly kill a lonely player, and I would say it won't take anywhere close to 1 trillion bets. Just like it will probably kill some of the players in their first, and only, 1000 bets, but not en masse

tyKiwanuka

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1671

#birdgang

I will put this discussion from the other thread here, hope you don't mind @deisik

Quote from: Betwrong on April 28, 2020, 08:38:42 AM

I think many people misunderstand how the house edge works(or it is I who misunderstands it, but, anyways, I think differently). The house edge is not working against you in particular, because you simply can't, you physically can't, not only play a quadrillion times in a row, like in your example, but you can't play a billion times during your lifetime. And, as you rightly put it, only with the enormous amounts of bets, we can predict with high probability what is going to happen.

In short, one particular player can either win because of good luck, or lose because of bad luck, but the house edge, especially as small as just 1%, has little to do with it.

I can't argue against that. There might be players, that only played dice very few times and they could be overall winning dice players. There are also people, that won millions in a lottery having played only once. But I am just looking at the theory/statistics/math behind it. The majority of people don't poker, play dice or do sportsbets only once, but they always come back and they are probably victims of the math then.

Change your point of view and think of the gambling site operator as a (single) player. They are easily able to play dice gazillion of times. And they will win 1% (if that is the house edge) with every play on average.

Quote from: Betwrong on April 28, 2020, 08:38:42 AM

Again, it is not that simple. The "longterm" can mean a thousand years. Within a year or two anything can happen with the best poker player, or sports bettor. Look at the Tom Dwan's performance during the year 2009, for example:

Quote from: https://www.highstakesdb.com/10105-the-rise-and-fall-of-tom-dwan.aspx

Yes, there are lots of graphs like this to be found from a lot of very good poker players. Quite a few of them were broke at least once during their career. Variance can hit very bad in poker - and for a long time. But Tom Dwan is a multi-millionaire nowadays. Is he a poker millionaire just because he was lucky ? No, he is a poker millionaire, because he mastered the game and played the odds/probabilities (while having the same starting hands - again on average - as everyone else). He surely played millions of hands in his career and the luck factor is negligible for him.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Here we go again!

Now I ran 7 tests with 50k bets each. Long story short, luck received heavy beating by the house edge. The best it could get is -0.00000068, which is still a loss. But a loss is a loss under any name:

The worst result is -0.00000920, which is not as bad as the baddest of 100k rolls (or even the second worst) but still more than enough to kill you and wipe out your balance in the process:

The table of all 50k tests:

Result

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Your image host is down at the moment!
Nice post, but still it doesn't JUST have to do with the total number of rolls. The odds tend to even out in the long run, but long unlucky streaks can have the exact opposite effect of good luck even in the short run. That's why strategies like martingale always fail and can be especially catastrophic in a short run too.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

It is not a secret that the longer you gamble, the less impact luck will have on the net outcome of your bets in games of chance. On the other hand, the house edge is what makes you lose in the long run by and large. Thus we have two forces which are fighting with each other -- the force representing randomness in the form of luck, and the force representing determinacy in the form of house edge

So how are they going to score against each other in the games of chance such as dice? Read on and find out

As said above, the house edge is set to win the longer you roll (read, you are going to lose). But this abstract knowledge doesn't tell us anything when exactly the house edge is going to dominate luck, i.e. how many rolls we will have to make until luck and its impact become insignificant and can thus be safely discarded for almost all practical intents and purposes. This is what I tested for myself and share with my fellow gamblers in this topic

At first, I ran a series of 10k rolls to see if this was enough for the house edge to beat luck. The short answer is no, as the snapshot below proves (with 9995 rolls):

After making so many rolls, I was still in profit. What does it tell us? Basically, that the impact of chance is still important at 10k bets with the given house edge (1%). Below is the table of all 10k tests that I ran:

Result

Pages:

«
1
2
3
»

Bitcoin Forum>Economy>Marketplace>Gambling>Gambling discussion

Jump to:

Topic: House Edge vs. Luck - the Last Stand - page 3. (Read 683 times)