Topic: 🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰 - page 83. (Read 51693 times)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?   

What some of the addicted gamblers who are trying to achieve (and fail miserably) and say that "some guy they know does it" (which is a lie by that guy as well) maaaybe they could just play a little, they do not have to gamble too much but just a little.

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.

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.

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.

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  )

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