Why didn't you create this thread when we were going up ?
Because when it goes up it's just a dead cat... I've shown this time and time again. Well it seems like your winning this round It's been a consistent trend for a while now new lows might be breached again sigh Then retracing to a new lower high It is interesting to note that other cryptocurrencies (at least, dogecoins) are also losing in their dollar value, but, at the same time, keeping their value in respect to bitcoin. Surely not something that you would expect in the world of fiat where major currencies are not linked to each other that strong (if at all)... |
|
|
|
the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.
Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.
1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5
-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5
That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.
Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.
It wouldn't work.
You seem to not have read the whole thread. We are talking about a small negative house edge. And small here means small as compared to a house edge we see at dice sites in the "wild" (in absolute terms of course). I have mentioned a few times already that I mean an edge in the range of 0.05-0.1% negative. Should I actually have written tiny instead of small? And how are you going to easily spam 10000 bets if there is no auto-betting but time limits are set? Having a time limit and no auto-betting will take away a lot more customers than having a small "negative" house edge would bring in. And of course, both would cause the casino to lose a lot of money. Horrible idea. Won't argue with this on the whole. Nevertheless, the problem could be solved relatively easily by enabling auto-betting and disabling time limits per bet, but increasing the house edge at the same time, thus making it a function of betting speed. The higher the speed, the higher the house edge... To each his own |
|
|
|
No, they limit bets because they too have finite funds and want to practice sensible bankroll management. Some Bitcoin sites have been known to offer bets that they can't afford to pay out on, but they're in the minority. The limits are to make sure that if you win, the house can actually afford to pay you.
I don't quite understand this. Indeed, these limits won't allow you to bet and, consequently, win more than the set amount, but, at the same time, this invariably means that they in fact will make you lose if you employ martingale and come up to that... House limits can prevent you doubling your bet more than a few times, it's true. That doesn't say anything about the reason for the existence of those limits. Martingale betting is demonstrably a losing strategy, long term. There's no reason a casino would want to discourage it. People using Martingale betting tend to bet their bankroll over and over again. That's great business for the house. While it's probable that most people will make a small profit, you only need one of them to hit a bad streak and bust to more than make up for all the small profits. Ok, I got your point. At first I thought that those with huge bankrolls playing only once are effectively the same who use martingale (in respect to the amount put at stake), but I didn't consider the fact that once they win (or lose) they run away regardless of the outcome, while martingalers would continue betting (even if they win) until they lose all... |
|
|
|
the site will go bust in no time at all. You're talking a whole digit here. I've played a lot on dice sites and that house edge has usually played a big roll in anytime that I've busted.
Let's take a 1% house edge and a -1% house edge.
1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under: 49.5
Over: 50.5
-1% House Edge on 2x Multiplier:
Under 50.5
Over: 49.5
That's a whole 2 digit difference, a MASSIVE game changer for the players and casino owner.
Of course, the max profit could easily solve this, but even still it would be easy to spam 10000 bets on 2x and statistically you would be better off compared to the positive house edge.
It wouldn't work.
You seem to not have read the whole thread. We are talking about a small negative house edge. And small here means small as compared to a house edge we see at dice sites in the "wild" (in absolute terms of course). I have mentioned a few times already that I mean an edge in the range of 0.05-0.1% negative. Should I actually have written tiny instead of small? And how are you going to easily spam 10000 bets if there is no auto-betting but time limits are set? |
|
|
|
No one really knows when it will happen.. but it will eventually happen.
When this "collapse" or "crash" in the dollar happens in the US, the solution is how we respond. Martial law is an Obama response and would ruin us. The only option would be, is to move our global business operations back here. Open oil reserves and drill here. Stop the exportation of our food and goods and start producing for ourselves only. Consume what we produce as a self sustaining nation. Energy independence would save our country. If we sustain ourselves in every sector here in America, then we would value our own dollar here. Make our own goods and produce our own energy. We would eliminate the need for buying overseas and our dollar would be valued by us , not the world. SIMPLE
It is the export make USD worth something: Foreigners need USD to buy products/assets from US. If export stopped, huge amount of USD will become useless and sold by foreigners and the value of USD will crash O'really? If so, how did it come to happen that the US net exports are negative overall with a trade deficit of almost 41$ billion just in January of 2015? Is it a mere coincidence that in the recent years the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China and Japan, which also happen to be the largest holders of the US debt? So what is actually the United States exporting? |
|
|
|
I like playing %33 and triple when lost. It does end your bankroll quickly in a hurry if it goes bad in a row but it also makes good return if it goes well.
Doesn't every strategy make a good return if it goes well?  Absolutely not! Classic martingale makes a ridiculous return of just a base bet. It doesn't matter how many times you double your bet (at 49-50%), even though you may win in the end (which is not given as, I hope, you understand), you just recover the amount lost in the previous steps and earn only the amount that you started with (that is the base bet)... |
|
|
|
i am personally too lazy to start learning linux (as much as i like it) so i don't see myself going towards linux anytime soon.
on the other hand, many users like me can never migrate to linux completely because there are a lot of applications that we use which can not be run in linux or running them in linux would be a pain in the ass.
so it really is the user's choice with regards to their needs. for example someone who uses windows for working with MS Office can use win xp and never have any problem with it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Now that Microsoft has irrevocably terminated its support for Windows XP, any newly discovered security vulnerability would be fatal to a computer running this operating system, unless it is never connected to the net. In fact, any net, for that matter... And, I guess, there are many yet to be found (and others already known) |
|
|
|
It may make sense if it is a short-term temporary measure to promote a new site, but honestly I don't see why a site should make the odds unfavorable to the house.
why not? it would attract a lot of players and it would still be hard to win a lot I think negative house edge is interesting idea, but it should be used as promotional measure. Not as fixed feature. For example negative edge will ab available only for 1 day of the week, or just after some serious numbers of bets. I think the next step in the evolution of online betting will be a floating house edge. That is, the house edge will fluctuate from a small positive to a small negative in the given range (say, from +0.1 to -0.1), depending on the amount of profit being earned by the house at the moment... This should give more incentive to players, and will obviously raise the heat in the Martingale thread as well |
|
|
|
I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge. Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge. There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up. They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.
I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running... casino will pay you for betting 18+ hours with autobet / bot? I dont think so, due note that most people actually use autobet or bot to gamble, and never heard of casino to give some dollars for playing for such 18+ hours First of all, as you might have noticed, we are not talking about autobet, bots, and whatnot. We are talking about you (and me, for that matter) sitting most of the day betting at a dice site. But this is still just talk, and talk is cheap. Actually, 999dice.com does (did) just that. Specifically, they show (or did show) a button every 2 hours (approximately) for a few seconds in the chat, and if you were lucky enough to hit it, you would get a bonus of 10k-100k satoshi. As you can see, this amounts to the above mentioned few dollars per day (if you sit there long enough, of course)... |
|
|
|
No i would also opt for linux because to me it is the easiest to maintain security and i like being in communication with the computer to do things i want it to do. Windows i just have never liked for all reasons above plus only ever time my computer has been compromised was using that OS. 90% of the worlds super computers are linux based for a reason even if it is a tiny % of casual users use it. Safest.
The main reason why the total majority of super computers out there run Linux consists in the availability of the kernel source code. Proprietary Unices (to say nothing of Windows) are primarily closed-source software, so the super computer vendors cannot adjust the system to their rather specific needs. Although, this in no case can detract from outstanding technological advantages and breakthroughs of the Linux operating system... |
|
|
|
No, they limit bets because they too have finite funds and want to practice sensible bankroll management. Some Bitcoin sites have been known to offer bets that they can't afford to pay out on, but they're in the minority. The limits are to make sure that if you win, the house can actually afford to pay you.
I don't quite understand this. Indeed, these limits won't allow you to bet and, consequently, win more than the set amount, but, at the same time, this invariably means that they in fact will make you lose if you employ martingale and come up to that... Martingale can only work if you have infinite bankroll.
Most casinos have bet limits to counter people with huge bankroll to martingale.
Dooglus already explained that casinos dont have bet limits to counter martingale since martingale sucks anyways, they have bet limits to be able to pay their customers This doesn't in the least mean that they won't essentially stop a martingale sequence from exploding... |
|
|
|
~~~
So they resort to their old proven tactics of dropping support for a product (however popular) and pushing their user base to new systems and products not through innovation and their superiority over competition but through the exercise of market power. Linux 2.6 kernel branch is 10 years old already, but it is still actively supported, and most likely will be supported for another 10 years (actually, as long as there are enough active users of it)...
I still have an Athlon XP 2500+ computer, which is in perfect state despite being as old as 2004. If I hadn't been all in for Linux, what Windows could I install there?
no doubt about that, but to be fair windows 7 in comparison with xp had a lot of changes in performance, security and cool features. in my experience 7 and 8 are most suitable for laptops, in performance and battery usage. and they work much better with SSD hard drives. and about your computer,i am not sure but i think you can't install any x64 version of windows and you would have a better experience with XP. That was exactly my point. There are a lot of computers about 10 years old that could be used for office and things like that. But now, when the Windows XP support is over, you either have to install some flavor of Linux there, or just dispose of these boxes as garbage... What would you choose? I opt for Linux, but other people may indeed "think different" |
|
|
|
Btc-e.com and bitfinex.com are probably most popular. Both offer short trading and also leverage if you want it. I prefer bitfinex as customer support is way better.
Bitfinex looks promising, and I will look into it later (though they don't trade doges, as I got it so far). I've heard not very good things about the Btc-e exchange (them seem to be keen on ruining their clients). Though, on the other hand, they are long enough in the trade (no pun) to just run away with money... both btc-e' and bitfinex' support are not good, compared bitstamp and lakebtc.  Yes, but he was asking which exchanges he can short sell at. No problem, really. It is always helpful to hear what other people have to say about this or that exchange. And, in fact, it was me who said that the Btc-e exchange has got a somewhat muddy reputation, so the answer is quite in tune... |
|
|
|
I think most casinos wouldn't do too badly with a small negative house edge. Most people have such poor staking strategies that it will override the negative house edge. There would also be those who sit and play perfectly for 18h a day to gring out a few dollars, knowing that in the long run they will be up. They would be the death of the negative house edge casinos.
I think most casinos would be just happy to give you a few dollars as a give-away if you happened to sit 18 hours a day playing there. You would then most likely go and tell your friends here (and there) about how good and generous this casino is. Stunna had been paying a lot more when his PrimeDice signature campaign was running... |
|
|
|
I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice cites)?
The only way is if the house edge isn't fixed, I think. It could change so as to keep a small fixed profit for the casino. So if the casino was lucky in the last bets, the edge could go to negative. If the house lost money, the edge could be positive. But I think many people would not play when the edge was positive to the house, and only when it was negative xD That would be a really good marketing idea. Regarding people not playing when the edge would be positive to the house, I don't think that will be the case (to any significant degree, at least) First, if the house edge would frequently change in a small range (and with a good bankroll this is what we could safely expect), say, from +0.1 to -0.1, this wouldn't make a difference to most players, which are driven by adrenaline, not by house edge. Second, if people play at dice sites where house edge is set to around 1% positive, why would they not play when it is set (or, rather, fluctuating) way below that? Indeed, some people would evidently wait for the house edge to turn negative, but their numbers should be small... And the real house edge could be revealed only after the bet has been made |
|
|
|
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet (about a year ago), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%... Because freebitco.in is a faucet and not a real casino wich attracts more people nevertheless no one with a lot of money would play on a casino that has 0.1 max bet So people with real money come to real casinos to win, right? But if they come to win (since why would they ever come to lose?), this necessarily implies that they have a winning strategy (or, at least, they think so), even despite the positive house edge. In this manner, why wouldn't a casino have a plan to win even if it had a negative house edge set? As to me, the casino's chances are still higher than those of people coming to play there... |
|
|
|
When you think about it, a dice site with a 0% house edge and an integrated faucet would actually have an overall negative house edge. There would have to be measures in place to prevent automated betting as well as restrictions to the maximum size of the bet to prevent the house from going bankrupt too quickly and easily. It would be a good way to get some publicity as well as a unique method of advertising towards newbies who otherwise might have chosen to play with their satoshis elsewhere or not gamble at all.
Something like -0.1% house edge with automated betting disabled, a limit on the number of bets per second, and a maximum bet size of 0.1 BTC could work quite well. It wouldn't be a permanent thing. It would only be used during an initial promotional period as well as for special occasions (in a similar way to PD2's old happy hours).
Then why would anyone play there if your max bet is 0.1 your profit would be so low it wouldnt even be worth it At freebitco.in the max profit for bet is set to 0.94 BTC right now. But I still remember those times when the max profit had been just 0.05 BTC per bet about a year ago (or even less than that), and people, nevertheless, played there. Even despite the fact that the house edge at freebitco.in is crazy 5%... |
|
|
|
It is accepted by most here that a positive house edge will ultimately wipe out your deposit (rather sooner than later). But we could try to look at this issue from another angle. That is, whether the house is predetermined to lose in the long run if it had a negative house edge? As I see it, a positive house edge doesn't guarantee per se that a casino won't suffer heavy losses, but why should it necessarily suffer them if it had a small negative edge (to attract new users)? In other words, how long will it take till we see a casino claiming just that?
I've never seen a mention of the negative house edge here, so I decided to create a new topic on this issue (and added a poll)
When you play on a 1% edge site, the site owner is actually taking the same bet but with a 1% +EV. Will the site owner lose some bets? Surely they will. Will the site owner go bankrupt? Very unlikely as long as he has a good bankroll management. For the same token, if there is a negative house edge (+EV to the player) site, the players will very likely get a good profit as long as they bet according to the kelly formula.I think the same way, that the situation will be mirrored in a sense. But could the negative house edge be set in such a manner and value that would still allow the house to profit without turning into a Ponzi and lying about its real house edge (for the sake of getting a competitive edge over other dice sites)? |
|
|
|
If the house edge is negative just bet static bets, lets say 0.001 bets all the time
With a chance of 51% of win you would eventually reach that chance and for example in 1 million bets
you would win 510.000 and lose 490.000 bets
wich means that you won 20.000 bets more than loses 20.000 x 0.001 = 20 bitcoins
1% negative house edge seems to be a little overkill to me. Actually, I was thinking in the range of about 0.05-0.1% negative house edge. Small enough to last longer, and large enough to attract users from other dice sites. Furthermore, if you win 510.000 bets (and lose 490.000), this in no case implies that you gain profits unless you bet tiny amounts. But this loss on the casino part could be offset by bigger wins (dice sites still give out a lot of bonuses)... |
|
|
|
thank you very much dude, for your info, noe im already know the fact I agree with the other guy this is not winning fairly and therefore should not be counted as a 2000btc win but should be described as a 2000btc theft and not lucky just deceiving. I remember Stunna saying someone won around 220 bitcoins when he had just opened PrimeDice, and the user confirmed his huge win. The relevant posts should still be in the first pages of the PrimeDice thread here. Though there was suspicion circulating that it had actually been a give-away of sorts or an inside job to attract new users and raise interest to the site (those were the early days of PrimeDice)... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
