Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 176.

Hfleer

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Changing avatars is currently not possible.

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 12:17:25 PM

I'm look for the post.

meanwhile, I found this idiot: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2732846

The original post was deleted but that is mirror^^

Well that post was good for amusement purposes. Some people will try anything.

Hfleer

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Changing avatars is currently not possible.

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 12:00:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

My point is that your return on a single bet is better than your return on multiple bets. When considered as a probability.

For a given bankroll you will end up with more money by placing a single bet.

But this is an average over many possible outcomes. An actual gambler making a single bet has one particular outcome, either wins or loses the entire bankroll.

Here is another way to state it. If you took the average gain of all the people who make one bet only they would have a higher return than the average of all the people who make many bets. And of course all of these people would on average have a negative return.

Now that I say it that way it doesn't sound correct. This is why I avoid saying stuff. I'll think about it later.

I can't find the post but about 20 pages before this one doog confirms that when you split a bet into two smaller bets, you end up with slightly higher EV

That's wrong, you would only have a better chance of winning at least 1 bet, obviously. EV wouldn't change. Also you can go for a long time with martingale, but the odds aren't any better.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

I'm look for the post.

meanwhile, I found this idiot: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2732846

The original post was deleted but that is mirror^^

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: drawingthesun on August 06, 2013, 12:07:24 PM

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 12:00:43 PM

I can't find the post but about 20 pages before this one doog confirms that when you split a bet into two smaller bets, you end up with slightly higher EV

If anyone can find the math for this I would be very happy. This seems counter intuitive at first glance.

My understanding was that house edge is always the same and so EV is always the same. Smaller bets reduce variance and larger bets increase variance (relative to the gamblers bankroll) however EV should be the same.

My reasoning is that no matter the number of bets, the house edge is always of the same proportion. Even if you reduce the variance, in the long run its all the same and anything else is a type of gamblers fallacy.

I mean it makes sense- for example. 3btc bet has 1% edge, which is 0.03, if you did it- 1btc, then 2btc in a martingale its 0.01+0.02 which = 0.03 making the edge the same.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 12:00:43 PM

I can't find the post but about 20 pages before this one doog confirms that when you split a bet into two smaller bets, you end up with slightly higher EV

If anyone can find the math for this I would be very happy. This seems counter intuitive at first glance.

My understanding was that house edge is always the same and so EV is always the same. Smaller bets reduce variance and larger bets increase variance (relative to the gamblers bankroll) however EV should be the same.

My reasoning is that no matter the number of bets, the house edge is always of the same proportion. Even if you reduce the variance, in the long run its all the same and anything else is a type of gamblers fallacy.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

My point is that your return on a single bet is better than your return on multiple bets. When considered as a probability.

For a given bankroll you will end up with more money by placing a single bet.

But this is an average over many possible outcomes. An actual gambler making a single bet has one particular outcome, either wins or loses the entire bankroll.

Here is another way to state it. If you took the average gain of all the people who make one bet only they would have a higher return than the average of all the people who make many bets. And of course all of these people would on average have a negative return.

Now that I say it that way it doesn't sound correct. This is why I avoid saying stuff. I'll think about it later.

I can't find the post but about 20 pages before this one doog confirms that when you split a bet into two smaller bets, you end up with slightly higher EV

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 11:17:03 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 11:04:20 AM

an all-in bet, if won, is more profitable than a series of martingale wins.

Well yea if you win it then of coarse you are going to win money.

haha that's how gambling works. Tongue

Sorry if I sounded offensive too- Didn't mean for it to come across that way.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 11:04:20 AM

an all-in bet, if won, is more profitable than a series of martingale wins.

Well yea if you win it then of coarse you are going to win money.

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:57:42 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:51:21 AM

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:44:37 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:28:54 AM

I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps can't read very well.

Point: You make more profit gambling all-in if you win, but MAYBE have better odds with a martingale, although it requires more winning streaks than just the 1 all-in bet.
Also, my post was clearly talking just about 49.5% win chance.

There is more variance if you make multiple bets OR decrease the chance to win.

Of course there is more variance, my point though is that it doesn't change the fact that you need more winnings streaks to make the same profit as an all-in bet though. The odds may begin to work in your favor, which can be more ideal, but youd still actually need to win more that way to gain more.

You don't need any winning streaks in a martingale, you just need 1 win every once and a while.

That's what I mean by 'winning streaks' - especially if you don't have a bet limit set up. If you need say 5 losses to break you, then you can go for a while, and make good profit, but probably not that 3btc profit you are looking for. that 5 loss streak comes along and takes it all away. So I think we agree that you may have better 'odds' with a martingale, but I still hold to the idea that an all-in bet, if won, is more profitable than a series of martingale wins.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:51:21 AM

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:44:37 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:28:54 AM

I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps can't read very well.

Point: You make more profit gambling all-in if you win, but MAYBE have better odds with a martingale, although it requires more winning streaks than just the 1 all-in bet.
Also, my post was clearly talking just about 49.5% win chance.

There is more variance if you make multiple bets OR decrease the chance to win.

Of course there is more variance, my point though is that it doesn't change the fact that you need more winnings streaks to make the same profit as an all-in bet though. The odds may begin to work in your favor, which can be more ideal, but youd still actually need to win more that way to gain more.

You don't need any winning streaks in a martingale, you just need 1 win every once and a while.

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:44:37 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:28:54 AM

I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps can't read very well.

Point: You make more profit gambling all-in if you win, but MAYBE have better odds with a martingale, although it requires more winning streaks than just the 1 all-in bet.
Also, my post was clearly talking just about 49.5% win chance.

There is more variance if you make multiple bets OR decrease the chance to win.

Of course there is more variance, my point though is that it doesn't change the fact that you need more winnings streaks to make the same profit as an all-in bet though. The odds may begin to work in your favor, which can be more ideal, but youd still actually need to win more that way to gain more.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:28:54 AM

I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps can't read very well.

Point: You make more profit gambling all-in if you win, but MAYBE have better odds with a martingale, although it requires more winning streaks than just the 1 all-in bet.
Also, my post was clearly talking just about 49.5% win chance.

There is more variance if you make multiple bets OR decrease the chance to win.

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:27:00 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:23:01 AM

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:21:50 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:19:58 AM

If you had 3 BTC to gamble, playing at 49.5%, you would get 2x return back for a win.

3x2=6BTC for one shot win (profit 3btc)

during a martingale, start with 1BTC

1btc, loss- bet 2btc-win=4btc. (profit 1btc)

So you definitely make more profit from gambling in one shot, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale. You would need 3 successful martingale runs in order to make the profit of just 1 all-in gamble.

That is a stupid post

Well that was nice- I don't suppose you'd actually explain yourself?

you basically said that:

You can bet 1 BTC at 49.5% = 1 BTC profit
You can bet 1 BTC at 9.9% = 10 BTC profit

So you definitely make more profit from gambling at 9.9%, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale.

I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps can't read very well.

Point: You make more profit gambling all-in if you win, but MAYBE have better odds with a martingale, although it requires more winning streaks than just the 1 all-in bet.
Also, my post was clearly talking just about 49.5% win chance.

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:23:01 AM

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:21:50 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:19:58 AM

If you had 3 BTC to gamble, playing at 49.5%, you would get 2x return back for a win.

3x2=6BTC for one shot win (profit 3btc)

during a martingale, start with 1BTC

1btc, loss- bet 2btc-win=4btc. (profit 1btc)

So you definitely make more profit from gambling in one shot, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale. You would need 3 successful martingale runs in order to make the profit of just 1 all-in gamble.

That is a stupid post

Well that was nice- I don't suppose you'd actually explain yourself?

you basically said that:

You can bet 1 BTC at 49.5% = 1 BTC profit
You can bet 1 BTC at 9.9% = 10 BTC profit

So you definitely make more profit from gambling at 9.9%, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale.

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

Quote from: infested999 on August 06, 2013, 10:21:50 AM

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:19:58 AM

If you had 3 BTC to gamble, playing at 49.5%, you would get 2x return back for a win.

3x2=6BTC for one shot win (profit 3btc)

during a martingale, start with 1BTC

1btc, loss- bet 2btc-win=4btc. (profit 1btc)

So you definitely make more profit from gambling in one shot, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale. You would need 3 successful martingale runs in order to make the profit of just 1 all-in gamble.

That is a stupid post

Well that was nice- I don't suppose you'd actually explain yourself?

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: HollowIP on August 06, 2013, 10:19:58 AM

If you had 3 BTC to gamble, playing at 49.5%, you would get 2x return back for a win.

3x2=6BTC for one shot win (profit 3btc)

during a martingale, start with 1BTC

1btc, loss- bet 2btc-win=4btc. (profit 1btc)

So you definitely make more profit from gambling in one shot, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale. You would need 3 successful martingale runs in order to make the profit of just 1 all-in gamble.

That is a stupid post

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Rannasha on August 06, 2013, 03:19:38 AM

No matter what complicated strategy you use, you're better off making a single straight-up bet for the amount you aim to win.

...

This was a good explanation. To simplify it: A single bet with a particular probability of winning has a higher expected value than multiple bets with the same combined probability.

Of course the variance of a single bet is a lot higher then for many multiple bets.

The really important point: all bets have a negative return, the expected value is less than the amount wagered.

I'm convinced that the best strategy is to bet once the amount you are willing to lose and if you win then never bet again because you have maximized you gains. If you lose then never bet again because you will only lose more.

Someday I will try to write out the expected value of a martingale sequence. Has somebody done this already?

There is some truth to what Dabs is saying. If you make one single bet there is a 1% house edge. However you can split that bet into two bets and it will reduce the house edge a bit. A martingale with remove a big part of the house edge. But other than 1% you can't change much.

Quote

I'm convinced that the best strategy is to bet once the amount you are willing to lose and if you win then never bet again because you have maximized you gains.

At what percent should you make this bet at?

HollowIP

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

If you had 3 BTC to gamble, playing at 49.5%, you would get 2x return back for a win.

3x2=6BTC for one shot win (profit 3btc)

during a martingale, start with 1BTC

1btc, loss- bet 2btc-win=4btc. (profit 1btc)

So you definitely make more profit from gambling in one shot, but perhaps have better 'odds' gambling in a martingale. You would need 3 successful martingale runs in order to make the profit of just 1 all-in gamble.

Hfleer

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Changing avatars is currently not possible.

Just-Dice is close to 4,000 BTC in profit as I'm typing this. That's the highest I've ever seen it. Congratulations to the investors, looks like they've made a decent return quick.

KingOfSports

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Acc bought - used solely for signature testing

Dabs, you pay back 100 BTC for the 92 used, however my question is, from reading one of your "updates" is that you keep some of the profit made. How much does the 92 BTC turn into before you pay people out?

Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 176. (Read 454823 times)