The way merit are being given out to some post on this forum is turn abused, how on earth will a single post merit 30+ merit? and must of this post are just simple question or answer. Post are not suppose to be merit more than 2-5 depends on how helpful and relevant the post.
I've seen posts that deserve 1000+ merits. There is enough merits and the admin can make more at any time. If you see someone actually selling merits report to admin but otherwise just forget what other people are getting or sending. Even if you could restrict merits per post it's not going to help you if you don't make good posts. |
|
|
|
You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.
Simply "quit while you're ahead"? Yes. That would be a smart move for any gambler. However it's incorrect that you will always end up with gains. Due to house edge and not having unlimited funds it's more likely that you will end up with losses. |
|
|
|
If its a computer RNG yes, if Its about statstics on random occurrence of an event in nature, and fair gambling game then no. Depend what is the purpose of the RNG its not the same if Its To generate secure password/key, for simulating natural pattern like fractal or perlin, if Its for gambling etc
But its the purpose of the algorithm that i posted before to make sure it tends toward a mean in the long run. How long is the run being dependant of the number of possibles values.
If you're saying that a gambling RNG (e.g. in an online dice casino) is purposefully biased towards the expected average then I again have to disagree. Since we can safely assume as well that at some point in the future our repetitive streak is going to end, we can also claim that with each roll this point comes closer and closer. But by deduction, we can then easily reach a conclusion that rolls are not really as independent as they seem to be, or future is not as unpredictable as it appears, either
There is a difference between a probability of a single roll and a probability of streak. The probability of a single roll is what matters for the player. The probability of a streak is just a statistical curiosity. The probability of a long streak is lower than the probability of short streak and that's just simple math - multiplying the probability of each roll. However that doesn't mean you can predict when the streak ends any more accurately than you can predict a single roll. In other words, if after 10 losses you decide to make a large bet expecting a win (the streak must end at some point, right?) you still have the same probability of losing or winning that roll as you had at the first roll of the game. |
|
|
|
It's fascinating that I specifically mentioned that the said may not be applicable to dice ("not speaking about dice here", "not sure about dice"). And here we are with you trying to challenge my point where I made it explicitly clear (and twice at that) it can't be challenged since there is nothing to challenge. Moreover, I even explained it further that if there were some form of "memory", the house edge would most certainly beat it into the ground making it completely irrelevant and inconsequential
Why would a dice game be different? It's a very simple purely random game so if there is memory in randomness (which you stated multiple times) then for sure dice would have it. So please make it clear if you still think there is memory in randomness, and if dice is not subject to it - how and why that is, so that we can discuss this properly. |
|
|
|
Its not about being far away from previous number, but the number of roll since the last occurrence of the number.
If there is 50 rolls without a one, you can still have more chance winning playing one in the next rolls.
But it will rarely reach even 50 rolls, and on the large number of roll you will still come back to average.
That's incorrect. You have the same chance to roll a 1 at any point during the game regardless of what (or how often) was rolled or not rolled before, otherwise the RNG would be flawed. There is no purposeful coming back to average. The average is the consequence of a good RNG, not something the RNG tries to simulate. In other words, if you hit an "unusual" streak of below-expected-average numbers the RNG will not generate above-expected-average numbers to compensate. The actual average will get closer to the expected average in a (very) long run as your "unusual" streak will have less and less weight in the total. |
|
|
|
It's not just ignorance, some people just have a tendency to think that laws don't apply to them, that they are special and have luck, and they surely will win. So, a person can understand that the odds are against them, and still gamble like crazy because of their superstition. I think this is far more common than not understanding the math behind gambling.
That's true, irrational behavior is a big part of it but that's a bit different issue and it also involves self-control, addiction, and other problems. My focus here is those who just don't know and there are many people like that. There is no knowledge test that one needs to pass before starting to gamble, and casinos may show some generic legal text about "games of chance" before opening the account but they don't really tell their users "YOU WILL LOSE!!!" - might be bad for business. That's where all sorts of scammers come in, trying to sell scripts and strategies to misinformed/underinformed gamblers. |
|
|
|
|
It's a waste of money. I can do it for $89.99 and I'll throw in a buy-two-get-one-at-25%-off coupon if you ask more than 2 questions on a fifth Tuesday of February.
|
|
|
|
I would say that depends
That depends on one's frame of reference.
Dictionary and math would be quite basic prerequisites in a discussion like this. You likely won't hit the same number again
But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)
You state this as a fact but it's backwards. If there was any kind of "memory" in a dice game it could be exploited by the casino or by the player, who could keep betting on numbers "far away" from the previous number to increase their chances. It would be over very quickly, most likely due to the casino going bankrupt. But fortunately it doesn't work like that. Do you think the roulette wheel has memory too? I hope you're not saying that casinos should use something like this. In the long run a good PRNG should approximate Poisson distribution and I believe certified RNGs are tested against it as well as many other statistical tests. But the RNG algorithm itself should not be based on it. |
|
|
|
Do we really feel guilty and responsible for people who buy scripts and bots and tries to win money but loses?
I mean this is gambling and website clearly states that they have a house edge that makes it impossible for anyone to make a profit in the long term, do we need anything extra other than that?
Plenty of people are misinformed about it and various scammers are preying on them. It's not about guilt, just when you see someone lying or dangerously mistaken you can either walk by or say something. I enjoy gambling and I'd like others to enjoy it for what it is and not go broke trying to get rich so I'll probably say something. |
|
|
|
So I'd like to ask you honestly - how is it "fun" when you lose money? What makes it fun - the prediction of what's gonna happen next? The winnings make it fun? But no one can win 100% of the times, right? (except for the house)
I don't get how it could be fun to jump off a bridge with my feet tied to a rope but there are people who pay a lot of money to do that and I don't think they could explain it to me in a way that I could understand. Gambling is of course different than bungee jumping but adrenaline is there, risk is there, plus the tantalizing expectation of a lucky win. The occasional small win keeps the excitement going. Just make sure to set the max budget and stick to it and you can have a lot of fun for $100. Don't make the rope too long or you'll smack you head into those rocks. |
|
|
|
Does gambling have a main purpose, to start with?
Yes, the purpose is to lose money and have fun doing it (fun may include temporary wins too). In most forms of gambling it's impossible to make money so trying to make money would be a stupid purpose. |
|
|
|
Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?
"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random. dictionary.com: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern" Merriam-Webster: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern" Cambridge Dictionary: "happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan or pattern" |
|
|
|
Be yourself. Don't pretend to know something you don't.
This is the only thing that will work in the long run. I'm surprised how many reputable members here are trying to play along with the OP and provide some strategy tips. There is no universal strategy that can make one a better poster, other than just do what you would normally do in a forum and forget aiming for merit. You do memes well? Can get merit for that if you do it in the right place and time. Know how to swear in 3 different languages? Might work too. Can manually hash a Bitcoin block? Welcome back, Satoshi, here is 100 thousand merits for you. This place is so extremely liberal that you can even get merits by posting about shitcoins which is mindblowing to me but it does happen. And there are many posters who will never get merits no matter how hard they try, that's a fact too. For example I looked at the few merits I earned and there is no chance I could have predicted that those posts would have earned merits. Except maybe the threads I started. Threads are more likely to earn merits I think maybe because people don't read past the OP. But it would be bad advice to say "create threads to earn merits". Don't do that. Create threads only if you have something to say that is not said in other threads and doesn't fit into other threads. |
|
|
|
Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random? That's literally the opposite of what I said. This discussion is going in circles now. There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)
Again, that doesn't fit the basic dictionary definition of random. By definition random doesn't have patterns. If you're seeing patterns then your randomization algorithm is not good (which technically is the case with almost any human-devised algorithm) or you're not actually seeing patterns. Going forward you probably should establish if you're discussing a specific algorithm or the hypothetical ideal randomness. There is no doubt that most algorithms have flaws limiting their entropy (but nonetheless are good enough for many practical purposes like gambling). But that doesn't mean a contradiction the way you're presenting it. |
|
|
|
There are also people who make a living simply playing dice, because their strategies keep them ahead of the curve and they know when to take a loss and not push the limits.
I was with you until that last sentence. Sports betting and poker are skill-based types of gambling. It's possible at least in theory to win more than you lose in those types of gambling or even win against the house although house edge/fees are often very high in those types of games. But there is no strategy that would allow one to make a living playing dice or other luck-based games. |
|
|
|
it is a good way to control losses and increase your possibilities of making profits.
No, it's just a different way to lose. There is only one strategy that can keep your from losing but you're not going to like it. I can't trust you. You're using a gambling signature, but your post against your signature. You should talk to your campaign manager, and tell him that you don't believe in the " provably fair" signature who's paying you weekly. There is nothing in adzino's post that would contradict his signature or invalidate provably-fair concept. He's right, house always wins. In a provably-fair game it wins in a provably-fair way. |
|
|
|
If they were to cheat, you would be losing either way (or rather any way)
Sorry, I meant a provably fair game and even then some systemic flaw and/or complacency from the player's side (e.g. not entering their own seed) would be required for the casino to attempt it. I though this was obvious from the context. If it's not provably fair then randomness doesn't matter, they can take your money any way they want. But isn't it what I mean exactly? If something happened once, then expect more of it (read, rare is relative). Actually, it is not like I have invented this as there are quite a few witticisms and pieces of common wisdom regarding this phenomenon (e.g. an evil chance seldom comes alone, troubles never come singly, etc)
Sounds more like superstition. I can't take it seriously in a discussion about randomness. Indeed galaxies are bound by gravity
But what makes galaxies in the first place? Why are there many and not just one conglomeration of stars, all tightly packed together? If this is random (in fact, it is kinda a scientific fact), you have to accept that patterns are a distinctive feature or property of randomness. The Universe has innumerable billions of stars, and that's more than enough to evaluate its properties
Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs. Besides, you can't have it any other way from a purely mathematical point of view (the approach which you seem to be particularly fond of). How come? The reason is simple. If it were not for patterns, you would have a uniform distribution which is not random by definition, as simple as it gets. Stated differently, you can't have a random distribution without patterns given sufficient sample size
Uniform distribution is a very distinctive pattern. The definition of random is: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". So it's the other way round. Random doesn't stop being random because you spotted a pattern. It either wasn't random to begin with, or you're wrong and there is no pattern. |
|
|
|
requirements are
making an account on a site and verifying it via phone and email. then posting my accounts for sale and bumping them every 6 hours. i have average 3 new accounts daily. thats it. 50 usd a month for just that. let me know. unfortunately i have no btc available so once i get 1 sale i pay for whole month and we keep on going i need a long partner
No escrow, you don't even have the money, this is super dodgy. Some other things about it. The person needs to tie her phone and email to some site, you're gonna be selling stuff that may be illegal, bumping every 6 hours sounds like it may be breaking the rules and a hassle (in the middle of the night?), and why don't you just do it yourself. It works out to about $10 per hour which is probably good money for some people but you need to provide more details and use escrow. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
