Topic: What's in the game, after all? - page 4. (Read 4813 times)

Idk, to me bad luck is when you bet with 95% win chance and lose. When I bet with 0.01% win chance(which I frequently do), I don't consider it bad luck when I lose, tbh. That's why I almost never bet with 50%+ win chance, I don't want to give that bad luck a chance.


Thanks for the clarification! That's important. Hopefully, we'll come up with some useful ideas for all gamblers in this thread.

We have already discussed that

What our fellow member and gambler has in his mind seems to be a little bit different. First, everyone has their own understanding of the term "consistently". To me, for example, consistently means more day after day (read, pretty regularly). But we have already established that rolling a few couple times a month can also be considered consistent (regular) gambling on a long enough time line (say, 20 years). And if there were many, many millions of such gamblers (actually more like billions), there could in fact be a few winners of that kind, i.e. consistent winners, due to the law of large numbers (read, purely statistically)

Winning consistenly for years in a row is like winning at the lottery or finding a suitcase full of banknotes in the street, or even receiving an unwilling transaction on your btc wallet or your bank account, it's very unlikely to happen...
And you shouldn't forget that btc security is based on that : everyone can get the same private key or wallet seed as you, but because of the likelihood of that, it's very unlikely to happen during your lifetime, even if it's not impossible.

You would have to be extremely lucky for that, the opposite of bad luck in this case

It proves that with higher multipliers you are more susceptible to bouts of bad luck. More specifically, you are going to see more variance, but higher variance means more stopping power. It doesn't matter when you bet small because the more rolls you make the less relevant luck becomes, both bad and good. However, when you are betting big, the first ever losing streak will wipe out your balance


The higher the house edge the faster it will kick in (read, overcome the effect of luck). Just in case, I'm talking about the standard 1% house edge as in most dice casinos

It's true this time, but I could also win two times within the first 5 rolls. I'm sure it happened to you more than once, that you were winning with 10% win chance from the very first try. (Once I won with 1% win chance from the first roll). But neither of that proves anything, imo. It's all down to luck: you can lose everything you have within an hour, and, on the other hand, you can be winning consistently for years in a row. I still don't see a mathematical proof of the impossibility of that.



I think it is. If the house edge was not 1%, but 5% instead, I wouldn't have such (positive) results.

Btw, I think that if we are discussing how many rolls do we need for the luck to become irrelevant in comparison to the effect of the house edge, we have to settle which house edge we are talking about exactly. Do you agree with me on this?

You don't get it

You already lost in the first few bets as this is what your snapshots reveal. If you were betting for real and aiming high, you would have already lost your balance even before you managed to get into the green territory eventually. Bad luck is just that, you want to win big but instead, kind of unexpectedly, lose all right at the outset, game over

The setup you stick to allows you to last long enough to offset the destructive impact of bad luck, but this is not about the house edge at all. More technically, what you are trying to prove here is beyond the scope of the discussion, which is about house edge taking over luck after so many rolls, any luck for that matter, good or bad

I wasn't talking about martingale. Look at the following results of the test I just conducted. I was autobetting with 10% win chance, no increase on loss.



^^ At first, after 200+ rolls, I was in a pretty good profit, 25% from the total wagered amount. Then I started losing, but ended up with profit again, after 1,200+ rolls:



So, my question is, how many rolls do I need to "fall victim to bad luck", betting with less than 37% win chance?

I see the fun-filled gamblers as those who have control over the game, no pressure , no anxiety , no fear. They simply take whatever outcomes they see. Most times these kinds of people are winners. When they take it as fun not for the money. But anytime there is a switch, the reverse can be the case.

I don't need to make 10k rolls

Because I have already made, let me see, right, 31M rolls by now. And I know it from my own experience that with higher payouts I'm going to see a burst in variance. I can even tell the exact figure. With a win chance less than 37%, the martingale strategy I employ becomes unstable. In other words, it is not the house edge that is going to dispatch you, but variance itself (otherwise known as bad luck)

Remember, we are talking about the house edge beating luck, but not about luck itself turning sour and going against you. However, this is what happens with higher payouts (multipliers). In our scenario (i.e. going for big wins and betting high), you will fall victim to bad luck even before the house edge kicks in and catches up with you and your plethora of rolls. But once you are done, you are done, end of story (very romantic, yeah)

I agree that this is very unlikely that all those people are betting identically, and I, actually, never implied that they are. Imo, if we were so strict about this, we wouldn't have any stats at all, because, in fact, all situations are different. Among 1.25 million people that die in road crashes each year, some appear anywhere close to the road once per month and others 20 times per day. Yet all of them considered "victims of road accidents", regardless of other circumstances.


Okay, maybe try the following with your ongoing tests. Make 10k bets with 98% win chance and bet size of 0.0001 DOGE, and then make 10k bets, with the same bet size, with 1% win chance. You'll see that the outcome is pretty much the same.

We already know that

But this topic is not about such people. It is about people who are specifically gambling for reasons other than purely financial or economic in general. It is about exploring the depths of human mind, so to speak, the motives that are driving people to gamble if money is not an issue for them, and they may even want to lose some as a sort of payment at that. In the most mundane of terms, people are looking for gambling because they want to feel alive again, and they mostly gamble in order to run away from boredom

After all of the reasons that I have read, I conclude that the main reason for the gamblers why they are gambling is because of the money, they really want gambling because of its ability to make you rich as quick as is, but the probability of being rich in gambling is so low especially those gambling that don't requires your skills and analysis when playing or those game that you may only win because of the luck. There are also some people who are playing gamble because of the reasons of entertainment and fun, they find so happiness when they enter the casino, but the truth is they became happy only when they are winning the game, it is no only because of happiness, winning has a factor to be happy in gambling because how could you feel happiness if you are losing your money, right?

Indeed, the best thing that you should consider upon choosing the right game on gambling is, you should select the game that will make you happy even you may lose the game, but for me, if I am missing the game and the money I wouldn't be satisfied on that, but I know that there are still gamblers that do not care about winning, they care about happiness while playing the game.

Yes, gambling is all about luck if you are lucky so you can get profit from it and if you are not lucky then it will surely make you lose. In gambling earning and loss is all about your efforts so if you are showing good efforts you will win for sure. So be lucky and work hard to learn all gambling skills for earning Ana you can bet on games that you are expert in.

I agree that there are lucky guys

And I agree that as long as luck plays a certain role in the outcomes (read, as long as you don't make millions of bets and go for high wins), you can be that lucky guy. Moreover, given the number of people allegedly gambling every year (it doesn't really matter since we can just assume that they are for our thought experiment), it is also possible that there might in fact be a few people who could arguably be considered extremely lucky (read, statistical outliers now having their say due to bet outcomes following the law of large numbers)

However, you omit another detail from your story. Basically, your story implicitly assumes that everyone out 1.6 billion people are betting exactly that way. But this is simply not known to us, and unlikely if you ask me. In other words, to make your narrative look plausible, you should have all 1.6 billion people bet the same way in the same long run. Otherwise, it all comes down to what we have already established, i.e. as long as luck is capable of prevailing over the house edge, you can be lucky enough to win big. But we already knew it long before this discussion


In fact, it does matter a lot

With a 10x multiplier, you are set to struggle with extreme variance, with the implication being that you are going to lose your balance not so much due to the house edge, but specifically due to bad luck. Really, if there is good luck, there should also be bad luck, right? And just as good luck helps you increase your balance, the bad variety will help you lose it, with no house edge involved in the process at all. But once you lose your balance, there's no way back (read, it is a gameover for you)

If you agree that in betting 20 years in a row, 40 bets a month, luck still playing a role, than, I think, you can also agree that there can be several gamblers, out of 1.6 billion, who are lucky enough to be in profit from their gambling during this, pretty long, period of time. And that's my point, not everyone loses to gambling in the long run.

Btw, it doesn't matter whether it's 2x or 10x multiplier. Having not much time, I just made only 2k bets, but I think you can get the idea.

It was a hyperbole


I wouldn't call him an active gambler anyway (for an online casino, at least)

But it doesn't really matter since 10k refers to 2x multiplier, the point being that you can't actually claim big wins with this multiplier unless you stake big time too. But in that case your wins won't be big compared to both the base amount and the total wagered amount, which kinda defeats the goal

Indeed, you can claim that we should compare the net result with the base bet, but then I can say that you should be winning all the time (in net total), otherwise you get busted somewhere within this sequence of 10k rolls, and probably not just once. Either way, 40 bets a month doesn't say a lot on its own (apart from luck still playing a role)

First off, I was talking about someone rolling once per month(240 bets withing 20 years).

Secondly, since you are saying:


it means that someone could be making 40 bets per month during 20 years, and still it would be not enough for the house edge to indisputably beat luck, right? Can we call someone, who makes 40 bets per month during 20 years a "long time gambler"? I think we can.

That's the whole point

I think that in the case of gambling "in the long run" should actually refer to how many bets you make, not the nominal time span between your first and last rolls. After all, running has much more in common with rolling than sitting idly, right? As far as gambling is concerned, if you are running, you are rolling, as simple as it gets. But I'm still curious if you seriously consider someone rolling once or twice a year for 20 years as being deep in the game or a "long time gambler", successful or otherwise


When I'm finished, I will spin off a separate topic on this matter (read, longer tests require longer times to complete)

I'm not going to argue with this, because I'm pretty sure this is actually the case. Of course not  all of those 1.6 billion gamblers make millions and millions of bets. I think I start to understand why we don't agree with each other on this topic. When saying "in the long run" I mean a long period of time, like 10-15 years or more, while you imply "plenty of bets". If a gambler were in profit from betting once per month for 20 years in a row, I would set him as an example for proving my point, and you would retort: "He has made just 240 bets, it's nothing. If he'd made millions of bets, he'd definitely lose", right?

Indeed it's possible that most of the long time successful gamblers don't bet that much.

(That is not to say that I'm not interested in the results of your research/tests regarding the number of bets required for luck to be beaten by the house edge, indisputably).

Okay, let me try a different approach

That is, how do you know that all 1.6 billion people reported are actually gambling in the way we assume them to be gambling, i.e. making millions and millions of bets? Let's just think that it requires betting nonstop 24/7 for a few years, if not decades, unless they use autobet, which is suicidal with higher stakes. Put differently, it is next to impossible for all these masses of people to be relentless and uncompromising gamblers like some of us are

Then, it becomes totally possible that a few or even a few dozen people out of 1.6 billion people can be winning big. But that's simply because they don't gamble 24/7, more like once or twice a week or even a month. Thereby they are not outlandishly lucky but simply lucky enough to make it, and then make it again a couple more times. So no house edge gets hurt in the process


So far I can tell that 10k is nowhere near enough for the house edge to indisputably beat luck (read, luck may prevail, after all). But you already know this