Topic: 🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰 - page 80. (Read 50531 times)

Your thread started out rational for a second there if we ignore the 'edge if only by chance alone' part.

Okay, I apologize for assuming that you'd be aware of something that you explicitly quoted. :shrug:


That was what I got from that thread.


No one's forcing you to respond. You stated something misleading and inaccurate (potentially to the detriment of others) and have had every opportunity to justify your position, and yet you refuse. Don't be surprised when people correct your false statements. Had you stated earlier "here's the strategy I use, here's the math behind it, as you can clearly see it gives the player +EV and lets them ruin the house, you're very incorrect and don't know what you're talking about", we wouldn't be this many replies in.

And?


Are you kidding me?

Do you seriously assume I have any inclination to talk to you at all? To set things straight, I'm replying to you here only because this is the official thread of Wolf.bet (read, I kinda have to, of my own accord). In any other thread I would have long ignored your replies altogether

No, but you quoted it. Presumably you'd be aware of it's existence given that you responded to someone who posted it. (Alternatively, I'm sorry for assuming that you're not a signature spammer who doesn't read the posts they reply to).


So 0.00000001 DOGE, 2.6757x payout (37% win chance). What other settings? Why are you so unwilling to clearly lay everything out?

This is not my screenshot. I don't even know whether D'Alembert and Paroli have anything to do with martingale. And technically, you can't even claim that I said that Wolf.bet is turning the tables in favor of gamblers. So what's your point?


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/martingale-revisited-5168782

Quote: (emphasis mine)

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies, and the user you quoted discusses how it makes it simpler and less of a hassle to set those strategies up. You explicitly mention martingale and how Wolfbet's lack of restrictions benefits players. At no point did you mention that you needed a very specific, no preset strategy to ruin a casino. I think the vast majority of readers would agree that it was never mentioned, explicitly or implicitly.

What is your exact strategy then?

I never said that

And I couldn't possibly say that because I'm not even familiar with their default strategies. I saw them in the list, that's true, but I didn't look into them. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. As I got it, they added something like a scripting language which allows to fine tune very specific martingale setups like the one described in the Martingale Revisited thread, but yet more advanced. And this is the killer feature from my point of view, not Wolf.bet default martingale strategies. Regardless, it should be obvious that I won't be using any preset strategy


I don't know as this has nothing to do with my point

I've never stated that it's inevitable. I've been talking in expected value and probability, and not about your specific luck at any site. A dice bet against a 1% house edge with 1.1x multiplier has a 90% win probability. My entire argument has been that using martingale and trying to extend your martingale loss streak as long as possible against a 2x multiplier is a less optimal way to play, or that it offers a lower probability of making a profit. Using martingale might only decrease your win probability by 1% or less, which is why I have no interest in betting against someone wanting to experimentally determine the results. (instead of a 90% chance of winning 10%, you might lower it to 89%. That's clearly worse, but it's still only an 11% chance that my side wins).

Wolfbet offers DOGE and you said that them adding default strategies benefits gamblers, so I don't see why they are implicitly excluded.

Simply said, here is my claim:
A single all-in bet at 1.1x has a higher probability of winning 10% profit than any martingale streak at 2x multiplier (doubling bet size on loss) and enough bankroll to survive a loss streak at 20 or greater (you can increase the number of consecutive losses the bankroll can sustain if you'd like).

Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

Good, what are your terms?

I bet my entire balance as martingale presumes, so if I lose it, which is inevitable according to you, you win. If I don't lose it, I win and you lose your bet in the agreed amount. That seems pretty fair and square to me. And since I implicitly excluded Wolf.bet leaving the choice of a casino to you, this discussion no longer belongs here

I just wanted to clarify the bet, so that everything is 100% clear from the start  
I did see that you stated this in the thread:
I mentioned that the thread itself if spammy, and not specifically your posts. For someone so eager to follow rules (though I guess only when it benefits you), you should know that mods often lock spam threads in the various discussions sections  

I take it that you're no longer interested in betting or disproving my argument? I guess once we talk about actual facts, you're no longer interested in arguing  

My stats and my approach to martingale have been explained in great detail in the thread the link to which I posted earlier and which you discarded as spammy. So, you see, there is essentially nothing we can meaningfully discuss here from then on. But anyway, it's good that you made it abundantly clear, in a sense

Sure. Let's not use variance to determine who wins or loses though. Remember, we're trying to gamble on facts, and it would suck for either of us to lose simply because of variance, despite being correct. For something that can be mathematically determined, why mess around with luck? And obviously, even you should know that a a bet with no upsides is not a very good bet (even if I think I'm 100% correct, I could be accidentally missing something or misspeak) for me, so why don't you stake some money too  

But first, two points (for full transparency and clarity):
I realized that an earlier statement I made was likely wrong, as it causes the player to increase their wagering and thus decrease EV. Here is the new edit to that post:

Secondly, all 4 default strategies on Wolfbet are on the 2x multiplier, and there's no obvious and easy way to change the multiplier. Since your argument is that Wolfbet is helping the player by offering these, presumably whatever statement you make would be at 2x?

With those two points out of the way, what exactly is your claim? For example, you've stated some very wrong claims:

I won't hold you to an obviously incorrect statement though - if this was possible with +EV, you'd see whales register dozens if not hundreds of accounts and bankrupt sites. There is no strategy that gives the player an edge against the house. The best you can do is reduce the effective house edge.
How about something less bold, and maybe more easily proven.

Is your claim that by using any of Wolfbet's default strategies, players have a higher chance of making profit versus a simple 2x bet to hit their profit target? So going back to your 10% profit example, and your choice of stake size, is your argument that a player with a large X number of DOGE and as small of a base bet as possible has a higher chance of winning than a single 1.1x all-in bet?

It's worth noting that martingale does provide a better chance of winning in certain circumstances, and is essentially what dooglus' 49.65% chance of doubling against 1% house edge strategy is. You're not arguing for that though; it appears to me that you're arguing for a 2x multiplier and as small of a base bet as possible. Correct?

Let's keep it simple. How much are you going to stake so as not to sound like a loudmouth? Say, you stake 1000 dollars, and I run a martingale setup with as much for one month nonstop. You can choose any casino out there where the bets can be independently checked, there is a fast autobet (3-4 rolls a second, the more the better), and it is possible to roll with Dogecoin starting with the least possible amount (which is 0.00000001). If I lose, I lose, if I make around 10% monthly, then your grand becomes my grand. Is it a deal?

Just in case, it is an open offer, so anyone is welcome to join

You're welcome to report it and have a mod delete the posts. I don't see how unlocking a spam megathread helps either, and I'm not reading through an 11 page thread of spam and people who might be even more misinformed than you.

My opinion is that it isn't off-topic (though maybe these two posts are), since it directly relates to your statement about how Wolfbet is "turning the tables in favor of gamblers" that's provably wrong. At best you just don't know what you're talking about; at worst, you're trying to mislead and misdirect less knowledgeable gamblers to play at Wolfbet and use the supposedly better profit making strategies (that are actually worse) so Wolfbet makes more money. I don't think it's off-topic to correct your blatantly wrong statements. Maybe you want to move it to a different thread so that gamblers reading the Wolfbet thread are more likely to be fooled?

This is off-topic here. If you want to continue, ask the mod to unlock this thread (reading it won't hurt either) or start a new one (I will join you there)

Are we clear?

If you're going to be ignorant about how casinos function and why martingale is a bad strategy both in the short term and long term, don't be surprised if people attack your incorrect opinion. Martingale 'forces' players to wager more, so casinos get a lot more EV out of their wagering. A player trying to win 10% profit is very likely going to be wagering more from martingale than they are with a single 1.1x, so their odds of winning are lower. (edit: this might be incorrect and dependent on a few variables. I can say that running 2x martingale with a lower stake will always be worse than just betting 10% of your bankroll on 2x from an EV standpoint). That's why the most optimal way to gamble is to use smaller bets with a high multiplier. dooglus explains this pretty simply:

Would be great to see a source for this too:

The vast majority of sites offer auto betting, 1 satoshi minimum bets and a easy "change bet by x% on loss" setting.

It didn't take long

^That cannot right at all, not even close to being right. Casinos would love it if people would gamble in martingale, that way they would be capable of actually making a lot more profit as well.

I mean right now people are actually losing money with martingale, why? Because if you gamble it long enough you are going to get 10+ time lose in a row and you are going to run out of max bet and you are not going to profit anymore. This is why I think gamblers playing martingale is better for the casinos, they want people to do that. What I say about wolf.bet putting premade strategies is the fact that you are going to lose a lot more money to them, and they are going to profit from this, which is why it makes no sense to actually congratulate them on something like this.

It is not martingale that is at fault here

It is how you use it, to great success or tragic failure, as with any powerful device you can easily shoot yourself in the foot (read, you should blame yourself for your failure with it). Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss whether martingale is a working strategy or not, but let me just say that it is, specifically on finite timescales (statistically speaking). That's why it can be employed to ruin a casino if most gamblers start using it cautiously and wisely. Altogether, you could simply say that people shouldn't gamble, and get done with that

I have always said that any strategy that you are dealing with will only hurt you by giving you a look that you are going to win something whereas you are not going to. So in the end, this is not only hurting you but also makes you think that you may not be hurt at all. Don't get me wrong, it is awesome for wolf.bet to add this because people would do it themselves anyway, so it is just making it easier for people to use it instead of doing it all themselves.

However I just wanted to warn people that yes martingale could make you money in the short term and most of the time, but that one bad streak of losses could mean losing all of your money. Which is why I support wolf.bets decision to add a feature like this which is awesome but I would warn people to be careful with them as well.