If you are insisting on saying that martingale is a strategy that could make you money if you are smart enough or know how to use it, go ahead and use it. I am sure wolf.bet would be happy about getting your money, it is a casino in the end and they will want your money for sure. However, one thing is for certain and that is; you can't beat house edge no matter what your strategy is.
Martingale with 10-20-30 losses in a row is real, plus you can do much faster than 1 bet per second as well, and also if you are not going to do 100 million bets (not in one session, just in general) you are not going to make money as well, what is the point of stopping somewhere? If you want to keep making money, even if it takes months or years, you will eventually reach that much wagering and you will hit that big loss in a row.
Topic: 🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰 - page 79. (Read 50508 times)
You may not lose everything with just 23 rolls, there needs to be a max that we are talking about here. How about you calculate for 10? or 15? or 20? Those are very well hit the max, it all depends on what you start with of course, and if you start with under 1 dollars you are not going to hit the max that easily, but if you start off with 100 dollars you are going to hit it very quickly instead.
So, martingale could very well mean that for a long period of time you can end up winning but it is quite easy to hit 7x in a row loss for example, it happens very quickly and very commonly, so if 7x is the max, you are going to end up losing frequently, even 15x in a row loss is a bit common, not all the time of course but still it is a good chance that you can lose it all that way. So, you can calculate based on max bet allowed instead of 23x because we don't know if 23x is even possible basing on what the bet is.
So, martingale could very well mean that for a long period of time you can end up winning but it is quite easy to hit 7x in a row loss for example, it happens very quickly and very commonly, so if 7x is the max, you are going to end up losing frequently, even 15x in a row loss is a bit common, not all the time of course but still it is a good chance that you can lose it all that way. So, you can calculate based on max bet allowed instead of 23x because we don't know if 23x is even possible basing on what the bet is.
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there
I seen 23 reds 2 times for last 3 months. And if you ask players in chat of some dice they can tell you about higher, 26, 30
On exactly what win chance?
I've seen a few losing streaks over 30 losses on a ~40% win chance, and it didn't kill me because I was ready for them. Moreover, I in fact waited for them since it is through them that I profited handsomely. Anyway, the odds of seeing 23 consecutive losses with a 50% win chance are given above. So if you were able to make around 100M rolls within 3 months in a real casino (it's hard but possible), this is what you should reasonably have expected
Martingale is not-working strat
Indeed, it is going to be a non-working strategy if you use it mindlessly and without accounting for the above. But that's the same with any complex strategy in any area
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there
I seen 23 reds 2 times for last 3 months. And if you ask players in chat of some dice they can tell you about higher, 26, 30. Martingale is not-working strat
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak.
It's actually 25.676%
Worth noting that with enough bankroll (16777216 units) to survive 23 consecutive losses, 4 million rolls will profit you around 2 million units, for an effective 1.12x multiplier. A simple 1.12x bet against a 1% edge would give you an 88.39% of winning said amount, while martingaling reduces it to 74.324%.
I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.
The maximum losing streak I got so far is around 16, haven't got the chance to move up because my fund is depleted by then. Anyway, the martingale is indeed a good strategy to recuperate losses if we are lucky but very devastating if luck does not smile on us. Whether the martingale strategy is good for players or not, depends on how the player utilizes it. At the end of the day, it is the one who is playing who calls the roll.
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there
I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.
Can you give this calculation if the house edge is 1% which if offered by most of the casino's
The math is actually quite simple
When you bet on a 50% win chance, your chance to lose in a series of one roll is, well, 50%, and on average you will have to make 2 rolls to get there (which is 1/0.5). Then the odds of losing two times in a row are 0.5x0.5=0.25, so on average you will have to make 4 rolls to encounter it (1/0.25). Consequently, the odds of losing 23 times in a row are 0.523, which is 0.000000119209289 (it seems that I have missed one roll in my previous post). And it will take you 1/0.000000119209289=8388608 rolls on average to see so long a losing streak. The house edge itself doesn't change the odds as such, but what it does change is the amount you win or lose, i.e. on a 50% win chance you will lose more and win less than if it were a totally fair play (i.e. real 50/50)
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily
How many times have you seen 23 losses in a row on a 2x payout yourself?
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there
I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.
Can you give this calculation if the house edge is 1% which if offered by most of the casino's.
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.
It seems you dont understand what I mean! I mean even if it would 0% house edge you would lose anyway, martingale is just a bad strategy
they will never not take advantage, because one of the advantages of the house edge, without that I agree the possibility to get a victory will be smaller
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily
How many times have you seen 23 losses in a row on a 2x payout yourself?
But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.
It is not impossible because there are some sites offer 0% house edge for promotional purpose but it does not give you any guarantee of winning. Indeed you have a bit higher winning chance on each bet but in the long term you will find bad lose streak on 0% house edge dice game since every single bet is independent.
Some newbies who are recently started playing gambling think that with zero percent house edge they have more chances to win but this is not actually the case. Even with 0% house edge the casino will still win and the player will lose. Also some casino falsely claim that they offer 0% house edge but in reality they do not.
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.
It is not impossible because there are some sites offer 0% house edge for promotional purpose but it does not give you any guarantee of winning. Indeed you have a bit higher winning chance on each bet but in the long term you will find bad lose streak on 0% house edge dice game since every single bet is independent.
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.
It seems you dont understand what I mean! I mean even if it would 0% house edge you would lose anyway, martingale is just a bad strategy
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
what is that
a joke? or you never played dices at all?Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily, some players said they had even 30 red. Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red. So you would win?
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
For example, how much would you need for living? Let's say 100 bucks a day? So, you do martingale for 1 dollars, ideally you make 100 in a row but we know that is not going to happen, you put in money there and continue to gamble for 1 dollar per bet and if you win you got it, if you lose you double and in the end if for 100 dollar profit there is no 10-20 times loss you will end up with your 100 dollars.
Some days you may end up losing a lot of money, some days you may win and in the end if winning days outpace the losing days, you will be in profit. However what they fail to realize is that, when you lose, you lose big, and it is hard to recover.
Quote
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.
Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.
Great upgrade on the autobet features as it includes some ready to use strategies. Players do not need to set up the strategy manually.
I have never seen any sites with such features before so I think wolf.bet is the first one to implement this feature.
Most other sites are using 3rd party dicebot or players need to create their own script in order to use such strategies.
I think other sites will follow it in the near future if it will be a succeed feature that be used by many players.
Any news or clues that wolf.bet will add more games in the near future?
It is really cool for wolf.bet to make something that gets this much attention, these are the features that any casino that should add (not just this exact feature, just any feature that gets this much attention) because in the end you are talking about them and you are making them more interesting for other people. Sure there are methods that people feel more comfortable, and there are methods where you could get lucky for a while. But, nobody in the whole world could make me believe that there is a way to make money in the long term.I have never seen any sites with such features before so I think wolf.bet is the first one to implement this feature.
Most other sites are using 3rd party dicebot or players need to create their own script in order to use such strategies.
I think other sites will follow it in the near future if it will be a succeed feature that be used by many players.
Any news or clues that wolf.bet will add more games in the near future?
In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.
So it's possible to use a very carefully crafted martingale strategy to make it less unfavorable for the player to achieve a certain result. (e.g. instead of a 49.5% chance of doubling, you can lift it to a possible max of 49.65%). The way this works is by lowering your expected wager amount, while keeping aiming at your desired profit.
Although, I think you can invert this -- and say: Why does the casino punish users for using the normal UI for placing a bet? If it's possible to use a carefully crafted strategy to double your money with 49.65% chance, why if I use the normal bet form do I only get a 49.5% chance?
(I guess this comes down to my argument that flat-house-edges for different payouts are easy to understand but the wrong thing to do for players. Both my previous projects bustabit(v1) and moneypot didn't use fixed house edges, but I think it was misunderstood and under appreciated )
Although, I think you can invert this -- and say: Why does the casino punish users for using the normal UI for placing a bet? If it's possible to use a carefully crafted strategy to double your money with 49.65% chance, why if I use the normal bet form do I only get a 49.5% chance?
(I guess this comes down to my argument that flat-house-edges for different payouts are easy to understand but the wrong thing to do for players. Both my previous projects bustabit(v1) and moneypot didn't use fixed house edges, but I think it was misunderstood and under appreciated )
Your thread started out rational for a second there if we ignore the 'edge if only by chance alone' part.
Jump to: