Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 207.

Zaih

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: dooglus on July 07, 2013, 01:36:57 AM

Quote from: Zaih on July 06, 2013, 09:12:46 PM

In order to profit 1 BTC from martingaling with a start of 1 BTC, with a base stake of 0.1 BTC, you would have to do a MINIMUM of 1 BTC worth of bets.

I've been arguing about this all day. I'm 100% satisfied that I'm right, but can't spend any more time on it.

I would just say that you can profit 1 BTC from a single 0.1 BTC bet by betting at 11x to turn the 0.1 BTC into 1.1 BTC.

I managed to convince a religious fellow in the Just-Dice chat that I was right after several hours of back-and-forth with him. He even paid out some of the bet I made with him on the subject, and ended up accusing me of "cheating" because I had obviously thought about it in advance... If I can convince him, I'm sure I can convince anyone given enough time. If only there was more time.

*sigh*

Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor. Martingaling is only useful for manipulating static odds.

I'd be willing to put a wager on this if you wish.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: Dabs on July 07, 2013, 02:01:37 AM

Also, another but. You were the one that told me that the odds for 6 consecutive losses in a row on 87% was about 1 in 300,000. If that were true, then the chance of not losing 6 consecutive times in a row is 0.99999666666666666666666666666667 or 99.9996%

Another math fail?

edit* the house edge only counts if you win. If you lose, it doesn't matter, you lose everything, house edge or not.

0.13^6 = 0.0000048

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: dooglus on July 07, 2013, 01:40:03 AM

Quote from: Dabs on July 06, 2013, 10:52:24 AM

I think with a properly applied martingale, you can double or triple your money with better than 98% chance, compared to betting it once to double it on 49.5% chance.

That's clearly ridiculous. With a single bet, you have a 49.5% chance to double your money. With the best martingale sequence possible you can approach (but never quite achieve) a 50% chance to double up. But you can't get higher than 50%. That would mean you had overcome the house edge, which isn't possible.

You have anecdotal evidence of tripling up. That proves nothing about the chance of it happening. I can triple up by betting on a 3x payout. If I do it once and win, that doesn't show I had a better than 98% of winning.

Ok. I give up. I don't have the time to convince anyone, and you know I am a math fail most of the time. hehe.

I made my money by buying stuff for $1, then turning around and selling them for $3. Those 3%, they add up over time.

Math Fail.

But anyway, can I still play? It's more fun to bet nine hundred thousand times than it is to bet once.

Also, another but. You were the one that told me that the odds for 6 consecutive losses in a row on 87% was about 1 in 300,000. If that were true, then the chance of not losing 6 consecutive times in a row is 0.99999666666666666666666666666667 or 99.9996%

Another math fail?

edit* the house edge only counts if you win. If you lose, it doesn't matter, you lose everything, house edge or not.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: Dabs on July 06, 2013, 10:52:24 AM

I think with a properly applied martingale, you can double or triple your money with better than 98% chance, compared to betting it once to double it on 49.5% chance.

That's clearly ridiculous. With a single bet, you have a 49.5% chance to double your money. With the best martingale sequence possible you can approach (but never quite achieve) a 50% chance to double up. But you can't get higher than 50%. That would mean you had overcome the house edge, which isn't possible.

You have anecdotal evidence of tripling up. That proves nothing about the chance of it happening. I can triple up by betting on a 3x payout. If I do it once and win, that doesn't show I had a better than 98% of winning.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: Zaih on July 06, 2013, 09:12:46 PM

In order to profit 1 BTC from martingaling with a start of 1 BTC, with a base stake of 0.1 BTC, you would have to do a MINIMUM of 1 BTC worth of bets.

I've been arguing about this all day. I'm 100% satisfied that I'm right, but can't spend any more time on it.

I would just say that you can profit 1 BTC from a single 0.1 BTC bet by betting at 11x to turn the 0.1 BTC into 1.1 BTC.

I managed to convince a religious fellow in the Just-Dice chat that I was right after several hours of back-and-forth with him. He even paid out some of the bet I made with him on the subject, and ended up accusing me of "cheating" because I had obviously thought about it in advance... If I can convince him, I'm sure I can convince anyone given enough time. If only there was more time.

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: Zaih on July 06, 2013, 09:12:46 PM

Dabs, you have to be kidding me... Right?..

I'm not kidding. Why don't I post a little history of the experiment I made. I will do that later (or maybe not at all.)

TL;DR = I deposited 0.4 BTC two weeks ago, I cashed out 2.0 BTC (including that last 7th bet) the other day. I bet almost a million times. That's a 5x return. In between I bought asic shares (off-topic) with what I won (that's another gamble).

So I will not explain anymore the theories or the probabilities, I will just tell you what actually happened. You can argue and debate all year about probabilities, so I'd rather not explain to people who just don't get it, or don't want to get it, or don't want to believe it.

But you can't argue with facts. It's not theoretical. It's applied. It's past. It's history. There are logs. There are screen caps. (You can argue that these are fake, I'll not waste time doing that.)

Can I do it again? Maybe. Maybe not. That's the gamble.

What I'm saying, is if someone funded me with 40, I'd have cashed out with 200. But I only had 0.4, so I only cashed out 2.0. The stakes don't change the results.

-E-

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

If you aren't already on JD you need to get on it. Great site and it's only going to get better

acs26

Activity: -

Merit: -

Ugh.. Keep trying to win the one-in-a-million bet.

Keep getting 97.66, though.

Roll Eyes

J-D addiction strikes again!

Zaih

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: dooglus on July 06, 2013, 09:55:07 AM

Quote from: Zaih on July 06, 2013, 05:03:20 AM

Yeh. If you want to double your balance, bet it once on 2x rather than martingale. You will pay more "1% house edge" commission if you martingale. Therefore, martingaling or any form of betting progression is detrimental if your playing with house edge.

Correct me wrong if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Suppose you have 1 BTC and need 2.

If you bet it all on the 2x bet, you have a 49.5% chance of doubling up.

But if you bet 0.41421356 BTC on a 3.41421356x bet, and if you lose, bet the remaining 0.58578644 at the same odds, you still get to 2 BTC if you win either bet, and have a 49.58492857% chance of doing so.

Better, no?

(Every bet has a 1% house edge, meaning you expect to lose 1% of everything you bet. In the single large bet, you bet 1 BTC, so expect to lose 0.01 BTC. When martingaling, you expect to bet less than 1 BTC (sometimes you bet 0.414 BTC, sometimes you bet 1 BTC, average is somewhere between the two) so you expect to lose correspondingly less)

Sorry, but I disagree Doog.

I'm not referring to your first paragraph. That's just manipulation of multipliers.

Quote

(Every bet has a 1% house edge, meaning you expect to lose 1% of everything you bet. In the single large bet, you bet 1 BTC, so expect to lose 0.01 BTC. When martingaling, you expect to bet less than 1 BTC (sometimes you bet 0.414 BTC, sometimes you bet 1 BTC, average is somewhere between the two) so you expect to lose correspondingly less)

In order to profit 1 BTC from martingaling with a start of 1 BTC, with a base stake of 0.1 BTC, you would have to do a MINIMUM of 1 BTC worth of bets. (10x 0.1 BTC wins in a row). However, the moment you lose 1 of those bets & are forced to double up in order to regain losses, you're better more than 1 BTC. That essentially leads to your overall amount of volume increasing, which leads to a higher -EV.

Martingaling is detrimental in -EV games.

Edit:

Quote

I think with a properly applied martingale, you can double or triple your money with better than 98% chance, compared to betting it once to double it on 49.5% chance.

Dabs, you have to be kidding me... Right?..

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

I was looking for a table like this.

Martingale winnings:
min bet: 0.001
bankroll: 100
Chance: 50% (Let's ignore the 1% house edge for now)
Total win per round: 0.001
Chance to that you will loose everything: 0.xx%

So I can compare that "chance to loose everything" with the chance for a regular bet.

EDIT: http://bit.ly/smartingale

willphase

hero member

Activity: 767

Merit: 500

Quote from: infested999 on July 06, 2013, 11:24:07 AM

Quote from: Dabs on July 06, 2013, 10:52:24 AM

quote

I was under the impression that no matter what you put into the "bet" or "chance" field, the expected value was the same: 99% return.

Bet $1 at 50%: $0.99 return
Bet $1 at 95%: $0.99 return

I have not seen any math on the FULL probability and payout of a martingale, but does it break the laws of physics and offer a better return?

so I've also been really struggling to understand this too... How can it possibly be that one bet for 2x at 49.5% gives a 49.5% chance of doubling 1 bitcoin to 2, but two bets of (2 + √2)x gives chance of doubling my money as 49.58% - see here for the full numbers.

Well, the way I finally got my head round it, the house edge is against the amount you wager. In case 1 - you are wagering 1 bitcoin all the time, so the house takes 0.01bitcoins all the time. In case 2, you wager (√2 - 1) bitcoins if you win the first bet, and 1 bitcoin if you lose the first bet and subsequently win the second bet, so you wager less on average, meaning that the house takes less.

Will

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: Dabs on July 06, 2013, 10:52:24 AM

quote

I was under the impression that no matter what you put into the "bet" or "chance" field, the expected value was the same: 99% return.

Bet $1 at 50%: $0.99 return
Bet $1 at 95%: $0.99 return

I have not seen any math on the FULL probability and payout of a martingale, but does it break the laws of physics and offer a better return?

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

I think with a properly applied martingale, you can double or triple your money with better than 98% chance, compared to betting it once to double it on 49.5% chance.

If I'm wrong, then I guess I've been lucky over the last 900,000 bets.

You don't need infinite money, you just need enough to cover the longest losing streak you are willing to bet on, at the chance to win you are playing. On this site, this also means that the max bet on 87% is at least 1500 BTC, for example. On 98%, its more than 15k BTC. This, and the fact that you don't pay transaction fees compared to blockchain based dice games, some of which have 500 BTC max bet limits, allows you to play a longer sequence of martingale progressions before hitting the limit.

Of course, this also means that you have a small chance to lose everything. Small meaning less than 1%. It's not zero, therefore it is still possible to lose.

As to me personally disappearing with any amount of money that does not belong to me, I say there is zero percent chance of that. And I'm willing to bet on it, with my soul if you are religious, and with my life if you are after --whatever it is. On a more practical note, someone can make a bet on another site (bitbet comes to mind). Maybe an identity escrow would satisfy some people.

dooglus is also saying the same thing about not disappearing with 19k that has been invested in JD.

Unfortunately for us, this can't be proven. I guess in the bitcoin world, innocent until proven guilty just doesn't fly. You get accused of a crime that you will never commit.

On the martinfail of ZMan posted above, I've been telling them in the chat that 0.001 is too high a starting point. My initial bet on my 7 bet run, as can be seen in the screen capture, is a mere 2000 satoshis, and that is on 87%. At 50%, you have to start even lower to last long enough, as we've seen 40 loss streaks at 50%, and 111 loss streaks on 10%.

As per dooglus post before me, if you bet less, you lose less of the 1%. So if I am betting 2000 satoshis, I'm only losing 1% of that which is 20 satoshis. However I am winning 87% of the time. The 13% of the time that I lose, I attempt to gain it back by betting enough to cover the loss of the previous bet.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: Zaih on July 06, 2013, 05:03:20 AM

Yeh. If you want to double your balance, bet it once on 2x rather than martingale. You will pay more "1% house edge" commission if you martingale. Therefore, martingaling or any form of betting progression is detrimental if your playing with house edge.

Correct me wrong if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Suppose you have 1 BTC and need 2.

If you bet it all on the 2x bet, you have a 49.5% chance of doubling up.

But if you bet 0.41421356 BTC on a 3.41421356x bet, and if you lose, bet the remaining 0.58578644 at the same odds, you still get to 2 BTC if you win either bet, and have a 49.58492857% chance of doing so.

Better, no?

(Every bet has a 1% house edge, meaning you expect to lose 1% of everything you bet. In the single large bet, you bet 1 BTC, so expect to lose 0.01 BTC. When martingaling, you expect to bet less than 1 BTC (sometimes you bet 0.414 BTC, sometimes you bet 1 BTC, average is somewhere between the two) so you expect to lose correspondingly less)

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

ZMan's martinfail.

Code:

16:28:04 (4281)  WTF?
16:28:07 (2)  well, doogie isn't making my coffee, so i guess i best make my own! :P
16:28:10 (4281)  WTF?
16:28:11 (2)  why not dec?
16:28:38 (2)  i mean, i wont sell until they go up enough, and have been getting lil bits of dividends, so its not so bad
16:28:45 (1738)  Deb has sDice shares? o.O
16:28:49 (2)  doogie has some too
16:28:51 (9785)  Deb what price did you buy them at?
16:28:58 (4281)  Deb can you have Doogie look at my logs, I ahve no idea what just happened -_-
16:29:00 (393)  But SDice wont go up as long as this site exists
16:29:01 (1738)  And what are they now?
16:29:07 (4281)  I'm dead asleep and apaprently lost my .66 -_-
16:29:12 (2)  we'll have to ask doogie, cuz i don't really keep track, i just ask him to do all that for me :)
16:29:24 (393)  ZMan someone did to you what you did to PrimeDice
16:29:29 (1738)  hehehee
16:29:31 (4281)  No Dec.
16:29:35 (393)  jk this site is not trash
16:29:43 (4281)  I'm not in a joking mood.
16:29:44 (9785)  When did you buy?
16:29:47 (393)  It's karma
16:29:54 (4281)  Not even Dec.. They got refunds from the owner?
16:29:54 (1)  zman: what do you need?
16:29:59 (4281)  Check my bet logs Doog
16:30:03 (1)  what for?
16:30:03 (393)  ZMan hacked your account
16:30:06 (2)  so, i'll find out and write it down somewhere, sometime, so i can tell you :)
16:30:10 (4281)  I've been doing martingale .001
16:30:21 (4281)  DEC STFU... I'm tired as shit low patience.. Thanks
16:30:23 (393)  what does it say under My Bets
16:30:26 (4281)  -_-
16:30:31 (393)  Do you see a 33 btc bet/
16:30:58 (9620) <> a <> oh ZMAN, any post about the primedice yet ? or did you just see user stats after all ?
16:31:01 (1738)  My max bet (as far as I remember): 0.0001
16:31:08 (4281)  <> a <> I'm working on getting an email back from him still..
16:31:29 (1)  where shall I email the logs?
16:31:32 (4281)  I don't have time for you <> a <> I'm tired.
16:31:44 (4281)  I don't need em emailed they didn't seem to turn out fair
16:31:44 (9620) <> a <> sure, like if I had a lot of time for you
16:31:46 (1)  it will be the same as 'my bets' tab of course, but I can email if you like
16:31:50 (4281)  I know
16:31:59 (4281)  I'm saying can you check em I literally went from .6 to 0
16:32:01 (1)  fair how? you mean you verified the rolls and they're wrong?
16:32:20 (9785)  Lol I'm down 10 zman. It is fair
16:32:20 (4281)  I'm literally too tired to do anything statstical mathematical and all that hoo hah
16:32:33 (9620) <> a <> just check greater and lower
16:32:36 (9620) <> a <> 1 < 2
16:32:36 (4281)  Dooglus please add PRIVATE chat to this website..
16:32:38 (1)  your balance hasn't been over .3
16:32:39 (9620) <> a <> 2 > 1
16:32:41 (9620) <> a <> that tstuff
16:32:44 (4281)  It was .6
16:32:45 (4281)  O_O
16:32:54 (4281)  .66 was highest it got to
16:33:00 (393)  and you lost
16:33:02 (1)  you mean .06/
16:33:05 (4281)  No .6
16:33:06 (4281)  Dooglus
16:33:08 (393)  Ohh
16:33:11 (4281)  .66
16:33:15 (4281)  As a matter of fact.
16:33:19 (9620) <> a <> ah, I see the problem
16:33:22 (393)  That's how Martingale works
16:33:25 (9620) <> a <> maybe he never had .66
16:33:32 (4281)  ^ I'm tired of your shit
16:33:42 (4281)  This guy has been harassing me since I've gotten here.
16:33:48 (393)  That's what I do
16:33:52 (9620) <> a <> it is not me harassing you ZMAN
16:33:52 (4281)  Not yo DeC
16:33:56 (1738)  heheehehehehehehehheehehhehheee
16:33:58 (4664)  doog, I pm'd you on bitcoinchat regarding commissions
16:33:59 (9620) <> a <> it is just talking shit
16:34:05 (9620) <> a <> which annoys me
16:34:07 (1738)  /me the Grin Laugh
16:34:09 (4281)  I don't talk shit?
16:34:10 (4281)  -_-
16:34:12 (393)  trek you picked the worst time ever to PM him
16:34:20 (1)  zman: I see how you lost: it looks like a martinfail: #14135128 #14135140 #14135153 #14135166 #14135179
16:34:38 (393)  I setup a camping chair, ready to watch the show
16:34:43 (9620) <> a <> doog is so nice
16:34:45 (4281)  No doog
16:34:53 (1)  (losing 0.016 0.032 0.064 0.128 0.256)
16:34:54 (4281)  Look at the bets starting
16:35:01 (4281)  .016 .016 .016"
16:35:30 (1738)  Nice lose
16:35:30 (1)  trekkie: I'll look at it as soon as I can deal with this
16:35:37 (1)  we have an important issue here
16:35:38 (4281)  My base is normal .001 as you can see.
16:35:40 (829)  if this guy is getting a refund for his loss, i also want one
16:35:44 (829)  for all my loses
16:35:49 (1738)  Investors would have some profit
16:35:54 (1738)  :O
16:35:57 (393)  profit went up to 690
16:36:00 (1738)  WHO IS GETTING REFUND?
16:36:10 (1)  zman: maybe you can email me a summary of your problem. it's hard to follow here
16:36:16 (4281)  Clearly.
16:36:17 (393)  The only way this is not ZMan's fault is if the script screwed him

At 16:29:07 ZMan finds all of his balance to be missing.

What could possibly have happened?

Code:

16:34:20 (1)  zman: I see how you lost: it looks like a martinfail: #14135128 #14135140 #14135153 #14135166 #14135179

https://just-dice.com/roll/14135128 stake 0.016 BTC
https://just-dice.com/roll/14135140 stake 0.032 BTC
https://just-dice.com/roll/14135153 stake 0.064 BTC
https://just-dice.com/roll/14135166 stake 0.128 BTC
https://just-dice.com/roll/14135179 stake 0.256 BTC

Part 2

Code:

16:44:08 (2466)  What would being drunk have to do with anything? What part of personal responsibility do people not get?
16:44:20 (393)  He must have not been able to sleep and got up again and bet 140
16:44:20 (1167)  it was a joke
16:44:26 (1167)  :/
16:44:34 (4281)  Doog.
16:44:37 (1)  zman
16:44:59 (1)  "I don't understand your complaint yet. are you saying you didn't make the bets you made?"
16:45:32 (4281)  I can barely think straight as I told you guys, and yet the whole community laughs and makes a mockery of me -_-
16:45:35 (393)  doog don't give him a full refund
16:45:44 (9620) <> a <> give a double full refund!
16:45:44 (4281)  I honestly made an honest mistake.
16:45:44 (393)  ZMAN you know what the risk was!
16:45:47 (9620) <> a <> got the idea DeC
16:45:49 (1)  I'm just trying to understand what you want from me
16:45:53 (1)  if anything
16:45:59 (1)  can you stake your case?
16:46:02 (4281)  DeC.. That's like saying you are high as a kite and jump off a building, .. You know what the risk was.
16:46:04 (1)  state*
16:46:10 (2466)  Z. If you're tired...DON'T GAMBLE
16:46:15 (393)  Because martingale bots are not American-proof with a big warning of what the risk is
16:46:33 (4281)  I told you Dooglus: I was clearly out of my mind, and decided to hit a bet I wasn't suppose to.. Forgot to reset my minimum initial.
16:46:43 (4281)  Canna I figured.
16:46:45 (1)  Z: ok. sorry about that.
16:46:45 (4677)  how about having /msg  text here
16:46:48 (393)  Okay so it was an honest mistake
16:46:56 (1)  Z: I'd suggest not gambling while out of your mind in future
16:46:58 (4281)  My thinking ability is of 10% of Average.
16:47:03 (4281)  Can I not get my refund? :|
16:47:15 (393)  ZMAN you will
16:47:17 (1)  Z: and jumping off a building while high is clearly a user issue too. Don't get high if you can't handle it
16:47:23 (4281)  Haha.
16:47:25 (4281)  Yea.
16:47:27 (1)  your refund? what refund?
16:47:28 (393)  Individual investors might refund you themselves
16:47:29 (4281)  Well shit happens?
16:47:36 (9620) <> a <> doog an actual question now
16:47:50 (9620) <> a <> why is the player's lucky broadcast after a bet ?
16:47:53 (2466)  With all due respect. Didn't someone donate your original bankroll here. I seem to recall you with your tin cup a few days ago.

ZMan said it was just a mistake. Here are today's highlights:

Code:

16:45:44 (9620) <> a <> give a double full refund!

Code:

16:45:44 (393)  ZMAN you know what the risk was!

Code:

16:47:53 (2466)  With all due respect. Didn't someone donate your original bankroll here. I seem to recall you with your tin cup a few days ago.

petrescuerz

member

Activity: 102

Merit: 10

Site will be down for about 10 minutes to get the database ready for leader boards. Thanks for your patience!
Deb

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Code:

13:20:31 (383)  website was up 620, ursula took it down or someone else?
13:20:48 (8015)  hope it goes down to 0 and the winner donates it to charity
13:21:03 (393)  you hope the site goes down to 0
13:21:08 (393)  so the the gambler should win
13:21:26 (8015)  yes I hope one single gambler takes it then never gambles again after giving it all to the red cross
13:21:51 (393)  inb4 452.76 bet
13:22:07 (393)  then another 900 btc because he failed
13:22:21 (8015)  link?
13:22:32 (393)  No I'm "in before"
13:22:38 (393)  so it didn't happen yet
13:22:47 (8015)  ahhhh k

All it takes is a 450 BTC bet now...

Zaih

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: dooglus on July 06, 2013, 12:06:04 AM

Quote from: Zaih on July 05, 2013, 09:55:18 PM

You can manipulate those odds successfully through applying a martingale methodology, allowing bettors to assume odds like 87.5% chance of gaining the respective 'base stake' profit if playing a 50/50 martingale lose & double sequence three times. This indeed has higher -EV than if you did one bet, but it allows the user to manipulate the 'static' odds given by the host. This comes at a cost though, since your 'covering' bets through excessive volume which isn't altering odds.

I want to tell you you're wrong, but I'm not sure what you're saying. What does "higher -EV" mean to you?

I believe if you want to double your balance, you have a better chance of doing it using a martingale progression than if you place a single bet risking your whole balance at 2x payout. Is that what you're saying?

Yeh. If you want to double your balance, bet it once on 2x rather than martingale. You will pay more "1% house edge" commission if you martingale. Therefore, martingaling or any form of betting progression is detrimental if your playing with house edge.

Correct me wrong if I'm wrong.

Edit: "Higher -EV" means that you've bet higher volume

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: Zaih on July 05, 2013, 09:55:18 PM

It doesn't matter if you do a million bets. You haven't changed the odds

Exactly! Can someone explain why there are so many people crazy about martingale bots on this site?

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: Zaih on July 05, 2013, 09:55:18 PM

You can manipulate those odds successfully through applying a martingale methodology, allowing bettors to assume odds like 87.5% chance of gaining the respective 'base stake' profit if playing a 50/50 martingale lose & double sequence three times. This indeed has higher -EV than if you did one bet, but it allows the user to manipulate the 'static' odds given by the host. This comes at a cost though, since your 'covering' bets through excessive volume which isn't altering odds.

I want to tell you you're wrong, but I'm not sure what you're saying. What does "higher -EV" mean to you?

I believe if you want to double your balance, you have a better chance of doing it using a martingale progression than if you place a single bet risking your whole balance at 2x payout. Is that what you're saying?

Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 207. (Read 454769 times)