🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰 - page 132.

serjent05

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1280

Get $2100 deposit bonuses & 60 FS

It seems Wolf.bet had a maintenance today, does this mean we have a new huge update? No wonder we have experienced lag, and delayed stats on the ranking, it seems the management is cooking something great for their players Grin

.

Quote from: rexxarofmoknathal on October 09, 2019, 01:04:17 PM

Yh, I agree with you that gambling smaller amounts allows the player to experience more fun when gambling than when throwing in a large sum and I suppose most people agree and thus prefer to gamble this way. But just to make an opposite statement that there are people out there and involved in this market that gambling for them is another way to possibly get more money and so if they start with big amounts to them is nothing even if they lose it all as it seems that what's most important to these people is time as opposed to the amount they bet - just saying that the methods out there are not a one-size-fits-all recipe.

I think the fun on the amount of bet a person wagered is subjective. For big players, wagering a small amount will not trigger any kind of excitement/fun for them. Since they had experience the excitement of big amount being wagered.

rexxarofmoknathal

sr. member

Activity: 980

Merit: 260

Quote from: el kaka22 on October 09, 2019, 12:38:04 PM

Quote from: Haunebu on October 09, 2019, 02:27:04 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 08, 2019, 10:36:12 AM

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

This is why I gamble with my entire bankroll at once with an x2 multiplier which I can afford to lose. If I lose, I quit for sometime and gamble with my entire bankroll some other time. If I win, I keep my winnings and don't gamble for sometime.

Yolo gambling has helped me many times already and I never needed to depend on any sort of progression strategy like Martingale etc. This is why I prefer this style of gambling.

Yolo gambling where you put all your money at risk will help you have a higher chance because 50% chance you walk away with double your money and you can use it somewhere else, at worst you will lose all your money quickly and you will lose your money in any other method as well so there is no point on not losing your money, any other method loses money as well so no difference there.

However, if we are talking about how to reach the highest wagered amount possible, that is literally a worthless method, you may literally just gamble once and leave, maybe twice or thrice but that's about it. Hence, gambling smaller amounts for many more times would guarantee higher wagered amount and on top of that you get to have more fun while playing for hours and hours.

Yh, I agree with you that gambling smaller amounts allows the player to experience more fun when gambling than when throwing in a large sum and I suppose most people agree and thus prefer to gamble this way. But just to make an opposite statement that there are people out there and involved in this market that gambling for them is another way to possibly get more money and so if they start with big amounts to them is nothing even if they lose it all as it seems that what's most important to these people is time as opposed to the amount they bet - just saying that the methods out there are not a one-size-fits-all recipe.

el kaka22

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1165

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: Haunebu on October 09, 2019, 02:27:04 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 08, 2019, 10:36:12 AM

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

This is why I gamble with my entire bankroll at once with an x2 multiplier which I can afford to lose. If I lose, I quit for sometime and gamble with my entire bankroll some other time. If I win, I keep my winnings and don't gamble for sometime.

Yolo gambling has helped me many times already and I never needed to depend on any sort of progression strategy like Martingale etc. This is why I prefer this style of gambling.

Yolo gambling where you put all your money at risk will help you have a higher chance because 50% chance you walk away with double your money and you can use it somewhere else, at worst you will lose all your money quickly and you will lose your money in any other method as well so there is no point on not losing your money, any other method loses money as well so no difference there.

However, if we are talking about how to reach the highest wagered amount possible, that is literally a worthless method, you may literally just gamble once and leave, maybe twice or thrice but that's about it. Hence, gambling smaller amounts for many more times would guarantee higher wagered amount and on top of that you get to have more fun while playing for hours and hours.

Haunebu

hero member

Activity: 3178

Merit: 977

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: deisik on October 08, 2019, 10:36:12 AM

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

This is why I gamble with my entire bankroll at once with an x2 multiplier which I can afford to lose. If I lose, I quit for sometime and gamble with my entire bankroll some other time. If I win, I keep my winnings and don't gamble for sometime.

Yolo gambling has helped me many times already and I never needed to depend on any sort of progression strategy like Martingale etc. This is why I prefer this style of gambling.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: darewaller on October 09, 2019, 12:26:55 AM

Quote from: shoreno on October 07, 2019, 05:37:37 AM

you said short term ? short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets . i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

Short term and long term is not the amount if you ask me, its the time and the wagered amount. Just to give an example if you gamble with 1k satoshi for a whole day on all automatic you will still get at most 1-2 btc (or maybe more I don't really know the speed) but if you gamble 100 satoshi for 1 month you will gamble a lot more. Which is why I personally think its the wagered time instead of wagered amount

I'd say it is more about the number of bets you make

Yep, given the same betting speed it still comes down to how long you roll (given the same bet amount), but technically, it is the number of rolls multiplied by your average bet amount (if I'm not missing something here). In this manner. betting 1k for 3 days on end should be the same as betting 100 satoshi for 1 month in terms of wagered amount, even though the times are obviously quite different. Correct me if I got something wrong here

Quote from: darewaller on October 09, 2019, 12:26:55 AM

You can gamble 10 btc all at once and win or lose the same amount, that is just once and you won't find out the average loss expectancy that way, however if you bet 1 million times with 100 satoshi over a month period then you will get to the 1% house edge average for sure. You won't also lose much and still have a high wagered amount that would help you out

You don't need to wait a whole month

That would be an enormous overkill as rolling around 1000 times will typically suffice to see where the house edge is. It pretty fast approximates to that number (1%), or whatever it is (I tested this approach at other casinos)

darewaller

hero member

Activity: 2926

Merit: 640

Quote from: shoreno on October 07, 2019, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 05:10:10 AM

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ? short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets . i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

Short term and long term is not the amount if you ask me, its the time and the wagered amount. Just to give an example if you gamble with 1k satoshi for a whole day on all automatic you will still get at most 1-2 btc (or maybe more I don't really know the speed) but if you gamble 100 satoshi for 1 month you will gamble a lot more. Which is why I personally think its the wagered time instead of wagered amount.

You can gamble 10 btc all at once and win or lose the same amount, that is just once and you won't find out the average loss expectancy that way, however if you bet 1 million times with 100 satoshi over a month period then you will get to the 1% house edge average for sure. You won't also lose much and still have a high wagered amount that would help you out.

serjent05

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1280

Get $2100 deposit bonuses & 60 FS

Quote from: WolfBet on October 08, 2019, 01:36:48 PM

Congratulations everyone winning today

Btw guys, did anyone noticed something different when logging into wolf.bet today? Tongue

There is a notification about this:

Quote from: finity on October 06, 2019, 01:58:09 PM

Is this site really having a 1000 usd race every single day? Anyone here can confirm withdrawing larger amounts from here?

They have, and players are happily competing for the spot. There is no problem on withdrawing funds, I have done several times without any issue.

rexxarofmoknathal

sr. member

Activity: 980

Merit: 260

I feel that the wagered amount of the top three players is insane considering the BTC value and the supposedly expected bull run. Anyways these guys seem to have done well, still by winning a little extra.
Though gambling for me with more than a fraction of BTC is what I consider risky but that's because I know my limit, unlike these guys whose limit seems to be more generous than what I can allow myself to play out. Nice and smooth guys, well played!

WolfBet

copper member

Activity: 231

Merit: 29

Congratulations everyone winning today

Btw guys, did anyone noticed something different when logging into wolf.bet today? Tongue

davinchi

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1058

What you guys are missing out is that 1% is the median expected loss because of the house edge but when you gamble yourself as just one person then you can literally lose all of your money before the expected result, for example betting on 990x and expecting you will have 1 win out of 990 but you could end up losing all your money before the 990th bet, that is literally a thing.

Hence, there is no way of knowing what will happen, you can hit 990x 3 times in under 990 bets, you can hit zero but in the end you are just one individual so what happens to you is not the outcome for the house which has thousands of people bet on it every month for god knows how many bitcoins. So, calculating the "average expected loss" makes no sense when calculating just one persons bets.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Haunebu on October 08, 2019, 06:34:29 AM

Quote from: veleten on October 07, 2019, 12:55:00 PM

by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

It is pointless betting on such low multipliers in my opinion since every roll is independent and it is possible to lose 3 or 4 times in a row even with such a small multiplier which is why x2 is always my preferred multiplier

I definitely see your train of thought

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

Haunebu

hero member

Activity: 3178

Merit: 977

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: veleten on October 07, 2019, 12:55:00 PM

by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

It is pointless betting on such low multipliers in my opinion since every roll is independent and it is possible to lose 3 or 4 times in a row even with such a small multiplier which is why x2 is always my preferred multiplier.

Going all in to try and earn some money in the short term is what I prefer when it comes to gambling and sports betting for that matter and I have earned decent profits over time in this manner.

MrCrank

sr. member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 258

Quote from: BTCevo on October 07, 2019, 08:02:44 PM

Quote from: shoreno on October 07, 2019, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 05:10:10 AM

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ? short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets . i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

This is somehow right but most people tend to play longer but of course with smaller bankroll. But if you have bigger amount and do not want to play longer you can use higher multiplier so any win or any profit will let you stop at the moment. But still most people can't tolerate to get profit. Most of them will be greedy enough to continue and losing their balance in the end. Btw if you do not have big bankroll you can adjust the amount that you want to bet so it will stay longer

Agreed with you.
But can catch lady luck also can 20 times wins in row. I have lot of experience in gambling. This is luck only.
I will try wolf.bet soon

BTCevo

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1008

Quote from: shoreno on October 07, 2019, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 05:10:10 AM

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ? short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets . i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

This is somehow right but most people tend to play longer but of course with smaller bankroll. But if you have bigger amount and do not want to play longer you can use higher multiplier so any win or any profit will let you stop at the moment. But still most people can't tolerate to get profit. Most of them will be greedy enough to continue and losing their balance in the end. Btw if you do not have big bankroll you can adjust the amount that you want to bet so it will stay longer

WolfBet

copper member

Activity: 231

Merit: 29

Here is today's top 10, congratulations everyone!

veleten

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1107

if you wonder wherever any of the multipliers are better than others , then no - every single multiplier gives you exactly 99% return on your bets
if you want to find a particular multiplier that suits your bank and play style , then yes - some tend to lose faster Cheesy

you can use this tool ( or any other similar) to calculate the chances of a streak to happen :
https://dicesites.com/tools
by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: veleten on October 07, 2019, 09:27:42 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 04:20:48 AM

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 02:57:01 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 02:30:42 AM

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

15 reds on 1.01x is almost impossible , even 5 in a row is extra rare , think the most I had was 4 in a row ever
as for the variance , 1.01x gives you the worst , the best is 2x

Well, there is more to it (but thanks for the link, I will look into it)

Just 5 losses on 1.01x is a rare event, when 15 would be an extreme outlier no one has probably witnessed ever in the whole gambling history of the world (though who knows). But that's the whole thing about outliers that they are outliers, i.e. something which shouldn't happen but nevertheless does happen in real life, no matter what (read, statistically improbable is not the same thing as statistically impossible)

Further, if we calculate the odds of this highly unlikely event (like 15 losses on 1.01x) and then calculate back the losing streak for the 9900x multiplier, we would seemingly have two losing streaks very different in length though still having the same odds. But does it mean that such an outlier on 9900x will in fact be as likely as on 1.01x? Remember, these are outliers, i.e. they are not required to follow any rules per definition (otherwise it is not an outlier)

veleten

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1107

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 04:20:48 AM

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 02:57:01 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 02:30:42 AM

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

15 reds on 1.01x is almost impossible , even 5 in a row is extra rare , think the most I had was 4 in a row ever
as for the variance , 1.01x gives you the worst , the best is 2x
I think there was a topic here on bitcointalk to try and gauge the best strategy in dice , you can google it
think it was the just dice's owner , dooglus who came up with the math
p.s. here is the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=939776.20

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ahmadakbari on October 07, 2019, 06:09:34 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 05:46:27 AM

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high.

Every thing is possible. I myself lost 3 times in a row while the odds was 1.01x

That's called an outlier

Well, 3 times in a row on 1.01x may not be what a real outlier would look like (since something like 10 and more would be one such) but if such things are happening more often on 1.01x than on 9900x (normalized to some metric to allow for valid comparison of the frequencies) or vice versa, that would make a dramatic difference. From what I read about other people's experiences and what I come to think myself, the higher the multiplier (payout), the more you are exposing yourself to the impact of outliers

ahmadakbari

full member

Activity: 602

Merit: 116

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 05:46:27 AM

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high.

Every thing is possible. I myself lost 3 times in a row while the odds was 1.01x.

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2019, 05:46:27 AM

Is the frequency of outliers normalized to some common denominator (i.e. variance or deviation from the mean) going to be the same for these two multipliers? That's what interests me so much

The number you roll does not depend on the odds and probablity of winning. In the long term, we have statistical distribution.

Topic: 🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰 - page 132. (Read 50426 times)