With all these, I wonder why DEXs remain as options when they are clearly way much better than centralized exchanges They are not much better The sad truth is, it actually remains to be seen if they are overall better at all. The vast majority of so-called decentralized exchanges are in fact as centralized as any other exchange out there, though they may be centralized at a different level. To make such an exchange competitive, with trades as fast as possible, you will have to run a private (read, centralized) blockchain, and how is that different from a regular cryptocurrency exchange in terms of centralization and control over users funds and assets? |
|
|
|
Simply put, you can't reevaluate the probability of the whole series of flips after you have made some flips Yes, you absolutely can. Please read about conditional probability as I suggested above Could you explain it in a couple of sentences? In this case, the event in question will be the outcome of 10 flips like all being heads, so you can't reevaluate it after you already flipped a few coins ("becomes greater") If you don't recalculate the odds like you claim you aren't allowed to, then what you are stating is that the odds of 10 flips all being heads is 1/1024 regardless of what has already happened Yes, the odds of getting 10 heads in 10 flips yet to be made are 1/1024 regardless of what has already happened So if I flip 9 heads, by your logic, my next flip only has a 1/1024 chance of being heads and a 1023/1024 chance of being tails, which is obviously nonsense Since you are posting this, it means that you are still confused about what I'm talking about Your next flip has 1/2 chance of being heads (or tails, for that matter) as any other single flip you make, but it doesn't mean that the odds of hitting 10 heads in a given series have suddenly became 1/2 after you flipped heads 9 times before. To repeat, the odds are applicable only to future events, not the ones that already happened, so your inference would be fundamentally incorrect as far as probabilities as such are concerned It may seem like nitpicking or some useless mental gymnastics, or whatever, but in reality it is fundamental to our understanding how odds actually play out in real life. Being able to calculate them purely arithmetically (as you do) without being aware of the fact that you are dealing with what can be loosely called "undefined behavior" exposes you to a bunch of pretty ugly mistakes and misjudgments |
|
|
|
What people also seem to get wrong is not understanding that as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less This is not what you say now This is exactly what I am saying now: The probability of a series of flips all being heads becomes greater as you work along the series, because there are fewer flips left to make You obviously don't take into account the factor of time (which is crucial to the whole idea of a random event) As you are evaluating the probability a series of flips at the moment before you started flipping (i.e. with 10 flips still ahead of you) after you have already made some flips. In other words, your inferences are correct but only when you remove the factor of time from the equation (which you can't). If you don't, the probabilities of past events no longer exist. Note, it is not like they are 100% as the idea of probabilities itself makes no sense in respect to events that already happened with their outcomes known to us When talking about probabilities we are talking about events that will either happen in the future or their outcomes are still unknown to us. Simply put, you can't reevaluate the probability of the whole series of flips after you have made some flips and already know their outcomes as this violates the definition of probability as a description of how likely an event is to occur or how likely its certain outcome is. In this case, the event in question will be the outcome of 10 flips like all being heads, so you can't reevaluate it after you already flipped a few coins ("becomes greater") |
|
|
|
...
Okay, let's do some quoting here What people also seem to get wrong is not understanding that as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less This is not what you say now Indeed, people get it wrong thinking that when they progress along a streak of losses (reds), their chances of hitting a green become more likely as they remain the same as ever. But it is as wrong to assume that these chances become less likely (the opposite of more likely) for the whole streak of 10 losses in a row. Why you can't do that I explained in my previous post. You implicitly evaluate and take into account chances of past events where there are no more chances, to begin or end with |
|
|
|
People make the mistake of not realizing that as you progress through a run of reds, your chances of reaching 10 (or whatever) in a row becomes more likely, not because previous rolls have any bearing on future events, but precisely because they don't. They have a probability of 100%, and so can be excluded from any probability calculation You are still confused And let me explain where and why exactly. But before we proceed, let me also say that you are right about the Gambler's fallacy. But you are in fact using the same logic and reasoning as that insane gambler, though reversed and inverted. The fallacious Gambler thinks (as you correctly note) that the farther he goes down the losing streak, the higher are his chances to hit a green, which is rightfully wrong (pardon this choice of words but it seems to be confusingly appropriate) However, you essentially make the same mistake by claiming that the farther the poor mate goes down the losing streak, the higher are his chances to hit a red. But the truth is his chances are exactly the same. And here's the root and source of your confusion. You recalculate the odds of hitting 10 reds in a row after you already hit 5 reds, i.e. in hindsight, which you must not do as there are no odds in respect to past events. Isn't it essentially the same mistake as the fallen Gambler's opposite assumption? |
|
|
|
Developed nations don't want underdeveloped nations to be really developed, they want underdeveloped nations to keep depending on them, this way developed nations make more money by flexing on their natural resources in return for aid as a bribe to ensure their leaders maintain the status quo. This world economy is not balance you need to be ruthless and clever to beat their game As they say, charity begins at home Or everyone for himself (and devil take the hindmost), and it equally applies not just to men only but to entire nations as well, the meaning being that every nation must work independently toward their own success. So it is not like developed nations don't want underdeveloped nations to be developed or developing, it is just competition where no one really wants anyone else to be more developed than themselves |
|
|
|
I think, when looking at cryptos in general, the only exchange rate matters is the one versus BTC.
BTC: 1 BTC=1 BTC
other shitcoins: SHT/BTC
Reasoning versus USD is meaningless That's not quite true. I don't know about all altcoins, but as far as I checked the trading volumes at a couple of exchanges, people trade Dogecoin mostly for fiat currencies (though not necessarily USD). That explains the seemingly counterintuitive fact that doges are moving against Bitcoin, not following it, i.e. when Bitcoin rises, Dogecoin goes down in bitcoins, and vice versa, which means its price is more or less stable in dollars. As I'm inclined to think, it is mostly due to people buying doges to gamble them away, and they don't want to spend their precious bitcoins on something they are expected to lose anyway If anyone has a different view, you're welcome to chime in |
|
|
|
However, this is how it may play out in the end (pun intended as well). I mean people lose big time and that teaches them a lesson, the hard way, that is. So they end up "personally grown" in a sense (not all but many). A few years ago I lost like 1.5 BTC in one losing streak at PD, and I guess that taught me something. The point is, if we can use such an experience in other areas of our lives (transfer it), it may be worth the buck (lost) after all
That's right. Our brain is designed in such a way that only our own mistakes help us to learn and develop. The main question is how each individual relates to their own mistakes That's the real problem And our brains are in fact designed in such a way that we are prone to repeat our own mistakes again and again. When it comes to making a decision, especially in stressful, complex and out of time situations, we are bound to rely on our feelings as a fallback and contingency option because we may not have time to make an informed decision based entirely on rational considerations We just happen to feel right about something, and that gives way to all sorts of delusions, misconceptions and logical fallacies. All in all, people do not only fail to learn from the mistakes of others, they also fail to learn from their own mistakes as that requires a conscious and strenuous effort of rewiring one's brains and behavioral patterns -- a feat that very few of us are capable of |
|
|
|
One of the best way to make the economy of country stronger and stable is the promotion of its local products. Instead of importing things from other countries, under developed countries have to focus on the production and promotion of their own products. Governments should make the products of their own country easily accessible and purchasable for the citizens. This will make the economy of country stronger It doesn't work that way In the modern world self-sufficiency (North Korea style) is a dead end. But you really don't need to be an Einstein to understand what makes the economy strong. The real way to get strong economically is to export something nobody else can produce but which everyone wants (e.g. the American dollar) This gives you a competitive advantage, and if you have a lot of such goods, you are the king of the hood (in this case, of the whole world). Then you can choose among the bunch of producers whose goods you need to import, if at all. Put differently, export everything that is unique and import everything that is not It will work If it didn't work in the past, why should it start working now? And you can't build a self-sufficient and competitive economy even in principle. For that, you would need highly qualified workforce, advanced technology and science in every possible field, as well as the whole gamut of natural resources by far exceeding those of any competitor. No country has that in their entirety, and ironically, most of that comes through competition (read, being open). Even China, with its huge population, lacks massively in a multitude of other important areas which prevent it from building a self-contained economy that would be competitive with open economies. They will have to compete with the whole world, and the world will just beat them with the raw power And even if purely theoretically there were such a country, it would still be economically beneficial not to close or get closed in but to trade openly with your neighbors due to multiple effects of second and higher orders (for example, logistics). The Soviets tried to pull that trick off and they still failed miserably in the end. Mate, I have nothing against self-education (which feels to be the case here) but without a good book on economics describing all these ideas in greater detail, you may easily come to very strange conclusions like the one you draw here ("economic independence is the key to a country's progress and growth"). Progress and growth come through competition, and that is impossible without being open to the outside world |
|
|
|
At the moment not too much players playing at Luckydice, so it can be just few players who use auto-bet. Pattern will be visible after few months! I will probably inject some doges and give it a try (then report here) Besides, as a firm supporter of and believer in martingale (done properly while we are at it), I'm interested in getting the maximum speed in autobet. The fastest that I've seen so far is at Wolf.bet (like 3-4 rolls a second) with rumors circulating you could make around 7-8 rolls at Bitsler (though not sure about the exact casino and whether it is true indeed). If you can make bets as fast (i.e. in the range of 4-5 rolls per second), you will doubtless attract quite a bunch of gamblers like myself (provided we can start with the minimum base bet possible with Dogecoin) |
|
|
|
However, with hundreds of millions(1.6 billion, by some estimations) people gambling each year, there have to be deviations from the general rule, and it can be 50, or even 100 people, who win big from playing dice(or another luck based game) during a particular year. And 3-4 gamblers(out of 1.6 billion) winning big 5-10 years in row is also possible. And, whatever they might think, the reason for their winnings was pure luck, and not their strategies, witchcraft, prayers or whatever. And the sooner they understand it, the more money they will save I understand where you are coming from and leading to Basically, you proceed, either consciously or intuitively, from the theory (law) of large numbers, and assume that given enough trials everything becomes possible (read, someone winning all the time). But it actually proves the exact opposite. To be more specific, it tells us that the casino will be winning long-term, even if it may lose some money in a single roll of dice or spin of a roulette. It is like two infinities with one winning over the other the longer you play Given enough rolls and spins, anyone is going to lose due to the house edge unless there is a bug, and they slowly milk the casino without being noticed. So with every spin or roll the chances are in fact decreasing and not rising for him to win big constantly. The implication is that this effect totally offsets the possibility of an extreme outlier like "3-4 gamblers winning big 5-10 years in a row given enough gamblers" (read, it doesn't happen in real life) |
|
|
|
What people also seem to get wrong is not understanding that as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less. Lots of people think, "Well, I've just rolled 5 reds, I'm bound to get a green soon", when actually after already rolling 5 reds the odds of rolling 5 more has changed from 1 in 1024 to only 1 in 32 Well, I tend to disagree with you here, at an entirely fundamental level It could be said that you are basically making the same mistake as the proverbial fallacious Gambler, even though in reverse, obviously. Look, chances make sense only with respect to future events, right? So before you started to roll the chances of hitting 5 reds in a row in a series of no matter how many rolls longer than that are 1 in 32 (or whatever), but after you rolled 5 times and actually hit 5 reds, the odds of that event no longer make sense as it already happened And it is not like they are 100% for the simple reason there are no more odds as the event has already transpired. What I mean to say is that the probability of a series of independent events is an entirely abstract idea, with the implication being that you should consider it as such (i.e. as only a theoretical concept), and only when dealing with future outcomes (read, not in the middle of a series of rolls). But I understand your confusion |
|
|
|
what you are saying about working hard and not looking for shortcuts ,this is perseverance and dedicating mate and not luck at all That's what he means He is just cutting off the impact of luck from the life equation, if I can say so. If we follow this path, we will be inclined to reject the lucky moments we all have now and then. And losing such a lucky opportunity when it presents itself may cause, and most certainly does, great regrets that will follow us through our entire lives. Rationalizing a failure to grab an opportunity at the right time in the way described can indeed make suffering less severe but it also facilitates more such failures in the future |
|
|
|
snip-
Gambling will be same like watching a movie or hearing a song if money is not involved.
But it isn't the same feeling of having a thrill and maybe feeling intense while you are in gambling. You should spend a buck of money while watching movie and eating popcorn With gambling, the thrill lies in the opportunity, or more correct, in the possibility of winning your money back and above that. I think it's a crucial difference. In a cinema, you typically don't expect to get your money paid back to you You have to control your luck, always. That is possible. Wanna know how? Work hard, stop trying to look for shortcuts Honestly, I don't think it is a bright idea The point is, you can't control your luck in a productive way. In practice, it would mean ignoring worthy opportunities which can be made available to you only through luck. This mode of reasoning and the behavioral patterns that follow from it ("stop trying to look for shortcuts") will make you ignore a shortcut when you are lucky to encounter one. Indeed, you should work hard, but when you see a real chance, don't wait and think twice before someone else takes it. In other words, don't underestimate the power of luck in life. It is real, important, and can be life-changing |
|
|
|
They did this because of the current situation in China, which is the Corona Virus; they need a short-term raise in the capital for their country to possibly fight against this situation. [2] This is not panic printing but liquidating to have more room for research to fight this disease It's not about fighting the disease. The PBOC is doing the same thing the Fed was doing in 2008 in order to prevent a banking liquidity crisis where banks stop lending to each other and other businesses. If that were to happen, the entire economy could grind to a halt and basically collapse Don't forget that the virus can be easily made into a scapegoat if it comes to that In line with this conspiracy theory, it could also be claimed that the virus was created specifically to deal with the impending economic doom and gloom. So the PBOC went even further than the Fed back then, and if the Chinese economy fails and collapses, they have already invented something to blame and at ready. Did anyone look at this situation from such an angle or only deep conspirologists like myself can see the connection here? |
|
|
|
This line of thinking is common, but completely false. It leads to the creation of betting systems such as Martingale, where people think "As long as I keep going, I'll definitely get a green eventually". Each roll is completely independent of other rolls, and the Martingale system bankrupts people daily To make things clear, I do not deny that rolls are independent of each other Buy if we assume that (a correct assumption anyway), then, as I see it, we shouldn't calculate the odds of hitting 20 reds (or blacks, or whatever) as such calculation (and probability thus obtained) makes no sense in the real world. And that gives us a clue why so many people fall for this infamous Gambler's fallacy People understand (purely mathematically) how to calculate the probability of hitting 20 consecutive losses, and that makes them feel that the rolls and their outcomes are somehow linked to each other. In other words, if it were explained that this probability is only an abstraction, people would be more cautious with martingale and similar strategies |
|
|
|
Are they playing dice with martingale? Then, "I told you so".
Yeah, I do remember that.  But you were telling about winning only small amounts with that strategy, and that's why you suggested to bet with the smallest fraction of DOGE instead of BTC. One needs to have like 100 million BTC to employ that strategy successfully with it That's true indeed. You can't beat the house with Bitcoin. You need a somewhat more powerful weapon, with greater killing power. And Dogecoin is that kryptonite (pun intended) Anyways, my point is that one shouldn't necessarily lose in the long run(even if we take your definition of "in the long run" here). If you are wise enough to know that big wins happen extremely rarely, you can cash out right after that happens, and then play with dust for 5 or 10 years afterwards, thus remaining in positive profit for a long time These dudes just got lucky And then were smart enough not to try their luck again. However, you could just as well stay away from gambling altogether after hitting a jackpot, right? But would that count as winning big all that time? Apparently not, but this is not what you meant to convey, or at least not how it got over to me. I understood it like they were extremely lucky and had been winning huge amounts all the time. But it was only a one-off event |
|
|
|
Despite the predictions that cryptocurrency markets will settle as they develop, particularly as supposed stablecoins develop in prominence and impact. Consider the possibility that, in any case, the entirety of the instability isn't a bug. It's altogether conceivable that it's a market include that is not leaving at any point in the near future.
These predictions have been proved wrong time and again In fact, people were making such claims as back as 2015 (and probably even earlier). They claimed that Bitcoin (let's talk about it here) was going to be more stable at higher prices. But it is impossible for a speculative asset to remain stable for any longer amount of time, and still less so at higher prices. And the reasoning can be easily reversed. If we want a more stable Bitcoin, we should make it less speculative (which is a daunting task on its own, though). Dogecoin is an illustrative example of how things should be with Bitcoin in this regard |
|
|
|
of course there are deviations on this behavior but I don't see how people would approach gamble on a "personal growth" way.
more like a "test of luck" or "destiny's checking" Well, I agree that these people may not think about it this way exactly However, this is how it may play out in the end (pun intended as well). I mean people lose big time and that teaches them a lesson, the hard way, that is. So they end up "personally grown" in a sense (not all but many). A few years ago I lost like 1.5 BTC in one losing streak at PD, and I guess that taught me something. The point is, if we can use such an experience in other areas of our lives (transfer it), it may be worth the buck (lost) after all |
|
|
|
~
On the other hand (in case you disagree), it can be said that these games of chance (dice, roulette, slots, etc) are in fact quite predictable in the sense you are set to lose in the long run. Can it be considered a valid walkthrough? I doubt that, but it doesn't make them less predictable in this regard, right?
It depends on what you mean by "in the long run". I know dice players who were 3-5 BTC in profit from playing this game for several years. And it's not from their words, but from the stats. Unfortunately, you can't see someone's total profit currently on PD, but I remember seeing that last year. You are more likely to lose in the long run, that's true, but it's not like it's set And what is in these stats? Are they playing dice with martingale? Then, "I told you so". Otherwise, I can envisage only one way they can stay in profit after so many years of dicing. That is if they won jackpot and they continued to gamble for dust, or that they were gambling for dust first and then proceeded to win jackpot. You simply can't have it any other way To summarize it in more abstract terms, they managed to make luck relevant in the time span of those several years. And then they were just lucky enough without even being extremely lucky to be in profit at this moment. Put differently, "in the long run" means long enough to make luck irrelevant while the house edge overwhelming you need no knowledge as long as you choose the Numbers to bet,not like other game that there are too many things we need to learn Yes, it's the embodiment of simplicity without losing the intensity |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
