People are massively underestimating the power of variance

Or, which is essentially the same, the potentially devastating effect of outliers. You can run a particular martingale setup for days on end, and not see a losing streak longer than, say, 10 reds. This gives you a false and utterly destructive sense of safety and confidence. Then reality kicks in, and you hit, or got hit by, an outlier like 20 reds in a row all of a sudden, after which your balance is emptied. You should expect losing streaks up to 25 reds on a 50% win chance if you want to stay in the game long enough

И на что потом будет жить рядовой американец?

Здесь дело в другом. Если даже исходить из презумпции смертельной опасности битка для фиатных валют (что само по себе весьма вольное допущение), то Биткоин Штатам оказывается в целом выгоден, поскольку именно для Америки как ведущей экономики мира он представляет наименьшую угрозу. Другими словами, пока толстый сохнет, худой сдохнет. Ну это примерно как в том анекдоте про двух туристов и медведя - Штатам не нужно быть сильнее битка, им достаточно быть сильнее других


Что там пишут про бабушку, которая хотела быть дедушкой?


Можно купить (зачеркнуто) продать в короткую

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)


"Post factum" here starts right after you see the first outcome (which your betting example proves). In other words, if you rolled high, bet on high next time (and vice versa). However, keep in mind that the house edge may still offset the tiny skew you are trying to exploit with this approach. Moreover, the outcomes in dice might in fact be pretty close to uniform after all (read, they are not truly random)


Strictly speaking, I started this thread specifically with "metaphysical" in mind. Gambling just happens to be the closest to it, apart from being the right place where to discuss these questions


If we are really like ants from the post above, the problem goes far beyond that

These are essentially the same feelings

Actually, it can be imagined that a player stops having fun when he constantly wins, as well as having fun for losing money (even though the latter requires quite an extraordinary amount of imagination, I daresay). But in gambling these two things ("wins and funs") are pretty much synonymous, given that great wins demand as extraordinary an amount of luck and they don't come too often (typically being followed or preceded by as great if not greater losses)

It is definitely not about some people

Unless you are a billionaire, and have been that way since your infancy (read, you've been born into wealth), you can't help becoming addicted to wins. Wins give you that supreme and unequaled feeling of being in control of your life, even your fate itself. In fact, we can call that a state of bliss or euphoria (provided you are actually winning)

So it is kind of normal and expected to become an addict of wins at almost all times and under virtually any circumstances. But the problem is, it is next to impossible to book profits in a casino all the time (which wins are about in this environment), or even most of the time for your average gambler in the long haul

Ну так а я про что пишу?


В этом случае бить по лайту все равно что воду в ступе толочь

Ну или поросенка стричь, ибо визгу будет много, а шерсти - мало. Гасить свет (зачеркнуто) лайт имеет смысл только в комплекте с битком и только всем табором, так как без скоординированных действий влиятельных государств типа Штатов и Китая (хотел еще написать России, но потом передумал) эффект будет аналогичным. Да и невыгодно тем же Штатам топить Биткоин, он для них слишком полезен, поскольку плюшек от него больше, чем какашек. Как говорится, если бы его не было, то его стоило бы придумать. Вот его взяли и придумали


Не дешевле ли просто докупать немного лайта на стоимость розетки в месяц?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

It may be true for some people

However, there can be other reasons as well. For example, you could engage in this activity for the purposes of better understanding how probabilities work or even your own mind under stressful conditions. And I'm not even speaking of purely financial reasons that a lot of gamblers stick to

So let's face the somewhat troubling truth here. Many folks are in fact looking not so much for entertainment or personal enjoyment as for easy money. Whether this money will be easy and whether there'll be any money other than their own at all is another question, though (actually, two questions)

I would say that depends

That depends on one's frame of reference. You disagree with me because we are looking at the same thing from different levels. On your level, random patterns are a misnomer (which I basically agree with) but I only use this term to better get across my point. What I mean by random patterns should probably be properly called irregularities on their own. But these irregularities could be considered a pattern of randomness at the next logical level (see theory of logical types to better understand my idea)

The numbers on their own (i.e. their particular values) will remain random (i.e. the distribution of their values). But since you distribute them evenly across or along something, that distribution will not


People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all


Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

That was and had been in fact intended as a question because you didn't say explicitly whether you consider the existing irregularities (I intentionally avoid the word patterns here) in the distribution of galaxies across the Universe as random. Truth be told, you are quite vague and ambiguous on this, deliberately or otherwise. In simple terms, make yourself clear on the matter

That's all I ask (note, not claim, assert, or challenge)


What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

But I agree with you

If you want to say that it can't be this way (read, merits being granted on purely subjective basis) and I say that it can't be any other way (read, merits granted on a set of objective criteria), then the system of merits will be abused, which seems to be the case. Moreover, I've never been fond of merits myself but it could have been worse than that, much worse. Just imagine how flawed and abused this system would become if it were possible to give negative feedback on individual posts


I'm not sure whom you refer to by "us" here

Regardless, I'm not saying anything new as there are no rules other than those society on the whole imposes on its members, road rules included (if that was your point). Some of these rules are more transparent than others, some less (and you'd be surprised how "transparent" are rules in certain sports, e.g. figure skating or rhythmic gymnastics), but there is not any other authority than the society itself. Simply put, you have to live with that


Care to explain what you mean?

There is a better approach to making your wealth invulnerable to price volatility

What you do by selling bitcoins (or any other cryptocurrencies) for a certain amount of stable coin (or some fiat directly) can be done more efficiently and effectively by hedging, that is, by short selling your bitcoins. The indisputable advantage of this approach lies in the fact that you don't have to collateralize your short position in full (for example, at Bitfinex you need only 15% of the position value), so you can safely keep your coins in your personal wallet, which is an enormously better choice than sticking with some stable coin if you ask me

Uh-oh, did I hit a nerve?

It seems to be somewhat off-topic here but I will reply nevertheless. There can be no set of transparent criteria (read, objective measure of the value of a post) because the whole idea of merits is entirely subjective. You merit a post on whether you personally like it, if it helps or enjoys you individually in some way, but since there are no two identical people (even twins are different), you can't objectively have it any other way, with no bias, let alone at all. The same applies to meritocracy in general, though on a larger scale (more specifically, on a society level)


I want to emphasize (again) that tokenization is not limited to creating a new coin, and this topic is definitely not about starting off yet another shitcoin

You won't be able to bet after you reach the max bet amount anyway

Apart from that, it works like the law of diminishing returns, i.e. after you reach a certain threshold, it doesn't make sense to increase the losing streak any more. For example, if you are not going to hit it within 3 years (statistically speaking), you may rightfully assume you are not going to bust any time soon. Indeed, it doesn't mean that you can't but nevertheless it is a pretty solid assumption. Then you can start building on that (and keep fingers crossed that the casino won't run away with your money in the process)


You are not going to roll for 30 years on end, so you should keep things balanced in terms of risk and reward

Personally, I would go for the Swiss franc

Japan is depending massively on both imports from and exports to US. If the American economy sinks, Japan will follow. The Swiss are the world bankers and have been so since long ago. They definitely know how to run the money. Apart from that, the Swiss franc is one of the most protected (difficult to fake) currencies in the world (with the British pound being the most counterfeited currency among major currencies)

Here we go again

By how much can theymos extend his authority, or rather the authority (or dominion, or supremacy) of the forum, into the external world on his own? I don't think that by much since otherwise he would have done so long ago. Satoshi did that with the help of Bitcoin. The forum supported Bitcoin, though you can think the other way too

But by now it has lost its imperative in the cryptoworld. A forum blockchain could help retrieve that momentum by reintegrating the forum into the changed environment at a new level. I understand that change can be difficult and even painful but sometimes it is required. Really, if Bitcoin is not about change, then what is?

That definitely depends on the game

Put differently, you may think yourself however skilled at playing dice (say, hi-lo game in an online casino) or tossing the coin, if you are unable to control the outcomes objectively, you will only be deluding yourself about your real abilities (even when things look different for some time and you experience the sense of being in control). In this way, it doesn't matter much whether you treat gambling as profession or not

Further, it is not only about games of chance (like the ones already mentioned) as nothing can stop you from being delusional in the games where skill does play a certain role (like poker, or whatever). You can think higher of your abilities, so when you lose, you may be prone to attribute or rather misattribute your loss to ill luck while in actuality you are dealing with a lack of skill and expertise

But that's what I'm talking about

Randomness is all about patterns, even if those patterns are random on their own. With this in mind, you can try to exploit this property consciously once you definitely see or assume that you are dealing with random events, or if you know that beforehand (which is often the case in real life). In fact, we are all using this subtlety of randomness in everyday life without even thinking about it, without even being aware of it


I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice)

It is ironic how people see only what they want to see

I wrote about using the forum blockchain as a backup option and received a feedback that it is not an optimal solution. I wrote about tokens being used as digital passports to prove one's identity (okay, forum membership beyond the forum) and was instantly accused of trying to promote the creation of yet another shitcoin. Then I write about earned merits and get a reply that it doesn't mean a shit since it is a meritocracy. What the fuck, really?

Isn't a backup option supposed to be used in case no optimal solution is currently available (read, the forum has been taken down or over)? What do authentication tokens have to do with shitcoins (or just any coins, for that matter)? Aren't earned merits a representation of a meritocracy incarnate (as even the word itself suggests), while their amount an assessment of one's usefulness and value to the forum?