Topic: House Edge vs. Luck - the Last Stand (Read 689 times)

You obviously forget that I was rolling for 3 months only

So it is not about making 10% monthly since I was able to multiply my capital a few times within that time span. Now guess how much I was making per month. Technically, it depends on your risk exposure, and my assessment is that 10% would be a feasible profit margin on pretty safe martingale settings, the ones I was using before I switched to trading doges instead of gambling them (but I'll be back if Dogecoin goes further down against Bitcoin). Check this thread (the last few pages of it) to see my stats

Yes, that is my point. If you had to bet everything, even just for once, it means that the size of your bankroll was at the lowest limit for your strategy to work.

Now, for a classic martingale it would mean that you already lost almost the same amount prior to that final bet, hence my formula, BANKROLL = [HIGHEST BET] X 2, but with your particular strategy I suspect you lost less than that, so it can be

BANKROLL = [HIGHEST BET] X 1.75

or something like that.

Can you say that during your experiment(30 million+ bets) you were always earning 10% of your [HIGHEST BET] X 1.75 per month?

Yes, I think it's feasible because (as I already explained on numerous occasions) you earn via outliers aka variance, not by collecting dust here and there. Ultimately, it depends on betting speeds (the faster the better)


I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at

I had seen it only a couple times at the very beginning when I actually had to bet everything if that is your point. After that, it was only half a dozen times when I had only 3 or 4 doublings left until bust. How much I earned in these cases in relative terms, you can calculate yourself. Strictly speaking, I was not doubling but increasing at something like 130% on a roughly 40% win chance (and compounding). I was actually able to increase my balance a few times within the three months' time span (I started with free doges), though I don't think I was using trully house-proof settings

No, I don't think so. 1 million USD is a killing amount to lose in a single year for almost any online casino. I think some of them make up to $10 million per year in net revenue, but even for them it would be hard to cope with.

But let's talk about your strategy once again. Are you sure you can earn 10% of your balance monthly with it? Because that would be a bold statement. Many people are dreaming of such an income, especially if almost no risk involved. And you are saying that you created a gambling strategy which can ensure it?

Now, when you have all your stats on those 30 million+ bets, I think we can check for that.

Let's assume that the bankroll needed is the highest bet you made times two:

BANKROLL = [HIGHEST BET] X 2

(if you disagree, let's discuss it, but I think it's a safe assumption)

Can you say that, given the above definition of bankroll, you can make 10% of it monthly in profits?

I think you can safely book up to 10% monthly

I was making way more than that, but I can't really say I was rolling with truly house-edge-proof settings. So if you invest 1,000 dollars in this effort and double your balance in a year, 1,000 such bettors would ruin almost any casino out there if allowed to roam and roll freely. Or do you really think that the majority of the existing online casinos will be able to withstand the loss of 1 million dollars within a single year? I strongly doubt that

this is the reason why i often see large betters that play on low multipliers  and this players are playing short time only   .

 they see if they can take advanatge of thier luck and win big but if not then it still okay   . loosing is always been part of it anyways  .   this is also what ive been doing sometimes but most times i play slowly and i knew how to quit if i feel that ive been winning too much already

Wait, no. There's no chance of them busting the casino. With that strategy you can earn, what, $50 per year max? What kind of a casino can be killed by that? Imo, theoretically it could be possible for someone willing to wager 20k BTC, replacing DOGE with BTC in that strategy, but normally people wouldn't deposit more than $100 million worth of Bitcoin on a gambling site. Moreover, since there are restrictions on the maximum bet amount and max profit, I don't think it's possible at all, even theoretically. I mean, we should take into account that while we can make a bet with 150 DOGE if needed for our strategy, we can't do that with BTC, no gambling site will allow it.

Based on my experience with gambling online and offline around the world, I can say without a doubt that luck can win against the house edge regularly in short sessions while the house edge will always win against luck over a lengthy session.

It all comes down to how long your gambling sessions are. Play for a short while and try and take advantage of luck or play for a long time and lose everything.

Well, I told you it was your call

But as it turns out, it is not anymore. In fact, it has never been in the first place. Even if we consider the Wikipedia entry on Martingale as an authoritative source, which we shouldn't, it is definitely not what is meant by "classic Martingale". Here's a dictionary definition of Martingale dated as back as 1828 (taken form here):


If anything, this should be considered the classic Martingale (its definition). But it doesn't say anything about odds, then the odds can be any, so you are in no way limited to earning only your base bet amount at each win

And how is it going to help you?

Even if that will be about losing less? Let's assume that you know the house edge and so what? This knowledge will only tell you how much you will be losing after a few thousand rolls (more like a a few hundred thousand but still) if you bet without any system or strategy in place, like martingale or whatever. The opening post of this very thread shows that abundantly clear. But if I'm missing something here (who knows), you are more than welcome to chime in

You can be lucky one day, two days but you cannot be lucky forever. One day you will lose all of your earnings from gambling because on a unlucky day you will lose all your profits too. People do win because of luck sometimes but more people lose because they are unlucky most of the time.

One thing that I can put my chips on is that you can use the house edge against the house, sure luck plays a big role when you are gambling but when you do not incorporate skill and you rely on luck all the time then you will inevitably lose, now back at the house edge, there is an exploit that you can use when you basically know the edge of every game in the house, this loops will not help you win in a sense but it will help you lose less which means that you can play more. In conclusion, luck is independent, skill is a must and edge is a double edged sword if you do not know about it.

Is 31 million rolls not enough to prove the opposite?

And it's about time this misconception should be put to rest for good. You can beat the house edge by using the random nature of bets (rolls, in case of dice) against the house, and there is nothing particularly extraordinary, fantastic or mind-boggling about it. Your profits won't be big, and probably not worth the time and effort (unless the very reality of earning something instead of losing makes you ecstatic), but it's a fact, a statistical one, regardless of opinion

Lot of people tend to think this way, they think they are winning against the house but literally they cannot. People always count how much they win today but did not count how much they have lost yesterday, even me it does not matter to me if I lost this day, what my mindset is that I can get it back tomorrow then I'm going to win tomorrow the half of what I have lost yesterday, it repeats itself. If you are gambling just for the sake of entertainment then good for you, you won't might even notice the house edge.

Def not for the weak hands and feeble minds


Yes, that's what this topic is about (you may want to read the OP finally)


In fact, if you reinvest the profits earned this way (which is another aspect of the strategy in question), you will be able to enter an endless loop of postponing the reckoning indefinitely into the future by increasing the killing streak as soon as it becomes possible (until you trip over the house limits). Indeed, you individually are still not guaranteed from busting, but if we take 1,000 gamblers and put them all to work, only a few will bust at the end of the century (provided they won't bust the casino first)

Your strategy isn't for greedy people, that's for sure.

But seriously, since we accept that trying to make big money with gambling is always a bad idea, we can use strategies that are about something else. For example, by making flat bets on a dice site with 1% house edge, we can learn what 49.50% win chance really means. Or, with your Martingale-DOGE strategy we can learn that the famous mantra "no-one-wins-with-gambling" isn't necessarily true. It appears that you actually can win(not big, but still, win is a win), and not because of luck or other uncontrollable factors, but with a strategy that statistically guarantees your winning during the next 100 years or so.

It is actually more like 0.00000001 DOGE

But never mind, since I got both fun and money at the end of the day. It was actually quite exhilarating to see my balance swelling up a few times (more like over 10 times) even if I had to start with the lowest possible amount as my base bet. Although I would definitely go for faster betting speeds to get even more kick out of it. In simple terms, I don't consider it a waste of time. In fact, I think it provided me with quite valuable knowledge, experience and insight which can be meaningfully as well as purposefully transferred to other areas of life


It's your call, but this is not how I used it and would advise anyone to use it


This multiplier is not what you think it is. It is what you get when you divide your win by your stake (plus one for the stake itself). It is also called a payout. So I kept on increasing the multiplier as my balance grew heavier and as soon as it allowed me to notch it up one step at a time while keeping the length of the max losing streak intact. In other words, I didn't and technically even couldn't increase it on the go, i.e. when I was running any given autobet session

The problem is not that people do not understand this fact. The problem is people believe they can beat the facts. We all know gambling is favored towards the house in a big way. First is the house edge, second is the limits on bets (which limits martingale tactics for example).

Then,,, you have to deal also with normal emotion of chasing losses or believing in streaks.

Nice, we have you to prove that this is effective on your end. I knew it that there will be others that can say that for this strategy. But, I don't really think that I'll get back to this strategy and try it again so that I can prove it to others too.
It's already enough that it's working to you and to others that will say that it worked for them with specific limits.

If there's a misunderstanding, it looks like it is on your account

But I can tell you exactly where its source lies or where it comes from. First off, let me say that I indeed mean just that, i.e. no amount of luck is going to help you beat the house (over millions of rolls). That's basically the key point of this entire thread. However, when you are using some strategy (irrespective of whether it is working or not), you are supposedly no longer relying on luck, per definition. Naturally, the vast majority of such strategies are no more than a variety of the infamous Gambler's Fallacy. If you are using such a strategy, your success continues to depend on luck, so all said and done in the first posts of this topic still fully applies to your gambling journey (read, you are set to lose eventually)

Then, if you are using a strategy which is not relying on luck, you can no longer say that luck determines the fate of your balance as it gets eliminated from the equation. This logic cannot be challenged. So the whole question under these assumptions comes down to whether such a strategy exists for real. And as my experience proves, moreover, even as your experience seems to prove, there is such a strategy, the one you dubbed Martingale-DOGE. As you can see, there is no contradiction in my words and line of reasoning. If we are talking about a working strategy that is actually able to overcome or work around the house edge, luck or its absence is no longer a factor (which you seem to understand intuitively)

If you just want to prove something, that's good to go. But if you are playing for the money and the fun, which are the two things that gamblers are usually after, that would simply be a waste of time. For that 100 bucks to turn into an unlimited funding, you will have to play autobet and opt for ∞ while placing as little as 0.0000001 DOGE for the first roll.


If I got you correctly, you refer to the variety of martingale described in the Wiki article (let's call it plain vanilla martingale). If so, then I agree with you, it is as ludicrous as utterly useless. But this is not the only way to implement it. Personally, I set it up in a way that allowed me not only to get back what I had cumulatively lost at the end of the losing streak but also earn as much. More specifically, I was continually increasing the multiplier as my balance grew, so eventually I ended up with a payout over 130%, i.e. at each winning roll I took home more than twice the total amount lost in the preceding rolls