That's what I'm trying to get across here

Since you are playing against other human players with casino standing on the sidelines (i.e. not taking part in the game), the house is not supposed to change the odds in favor of a certain player (as it officially does in favor of itself when you are playing dice). In essence, it means that all players are on equal terms (other than luck and personal experience if we are talking about poker here)

I know some fellow posters are going to challenge this point by coming forth with the idea of a fee which the casino takes. However, this idea is easily refuted by the simple fact that the fee is often taken from the winnings after the game is over, so in no case it can affect the odds and thus be a house edge in the conventional sense of the word (as the casino advantage over the player)

Believe me, I've been there (many, many times)

And that's nowhere near enough. The minimum denomination for Dogecoin (as well as for the majority of other coins) is 0.00000001 (i.e. 8 digits after the decimal point), and this is where you typically start off with your martingale journey (you can calculate for yourself how much, or little, of a dollar that amounts to). Look into this thread for more info

Anyway, I'm not complaining, I'm only pointing out what can be improved (adding Dogecoin, as it is a coin of choice for online gambling) and changed to make it attractive to people who entertain gambling strategies like martingale (lowering the minimum bet amount to the lowest possible denomination). Gambling folks like doges

Being able to make a prediction doesn't necessarily make it right

I'm not completely disqualifying TA as it definitely has some useful and valid techniques (mostly related to trend discovery). But how often is it more like a broken clock being right twice a day when we make a correct prediction using some bizarre and outlandish indicator?

There should be methods (let's call them metamethods as they are not directly related to making trading decisions) which would allow us to tell that a certain TA indicator actually works the way we assume it does (read, possesses a real predictive power other than purely random and coincidental)

As I've been "a member of Roobet since January 18, 2019" (I checked, yeah), and had some coins left in my wallet, I decided to give it a try. Because I'm primarily interested in things like martingale and automatic betting in dice, I tried the latter and was able to make around 200 bets within a minute, which is pretty impressive if you ask me. But without being able to build and run sophisticated martingale strategies, it is of no great help and use

The point is, we need coins like doges to make dice really fun and entertaining

You know what they say?

They say that we should compare things in equal conditions (otherwise known as "all other things being the same"). More specifically, to make dice look like poker (for two players), you should set the payout to 2, which would match the outcome of a poker game (what you win is what the other party loses). And in that case, your chances won't be 50/50, but rather something like 49.5/50.5 in favor of the casino. Basically, we have just excluded the payout factor from the equation and made things equal between dice and poker


I wouldn't call that "somehow similar to that". The reason is quite simple. You are not playing against the house, so even if it does somehow look similar to the house edge, it is not a house edge in and of itself (which follows straight from your post, by the way)

Here's the relevant part from another topic, which seems to be worthy of its own dedicated thread:


But that has nothing to do with your chances

And that's exactly why we can't call it a house edge as a house edge is supposed to do just that, i.e. make the game unfair (let's call it provably unfair). Look, you get an advantage over your opponent though skill or pure luck, and this advantage allows you to win. You are playing against the other player(s), not the casino. So however small your advantage might be (like 0.001%), you still win all and then the casino takes its fee (like 1% or whatever)

Put differently, this kind of house edge affects all the players in equal degree, with the meaning being that everyone is treated equally. You either win and then the other players lose, or vice versa. Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

I suggest we continue here so as not to derail this thread

I wouldn't call that a house edge

Edge means an advantage, in this case the advantage of the casino before the player. But since casino is not playing in poker (unless you are playing against the house, of course, and not the other human players), you can't consider this percentage taken from your winnings a house edge even if it does go to the house. I would suggest to think of it as a fee, a playing fee of sorts. Most importantly, it doesn't take anything from the advantage you may (or may not) have over the other players

Highlighted that part for you

Dice is definitely simple and beautiful but the house edge takes away a lot from its beauty and appeal. And this is where games like poker shine. If you play against the casino (as in dice), the house edge is always there, at every bet you make. Some people may not be happy with this at all

On the other hand, when you are playing against other folks (as in poker), the house edge becomes kinda irrelevant because it is the same for all other players as well, but you win not by taking the casino's money but the money of other players. And that's the true beauty of it


Or making the minimum bet amount intolerably high (which would ruin the entire purpose and appeal of martingale)

I stopped gambling for "profit" when I lost 1.5 BTC at PD at one go

Well, back in the day Bitcoin was not what it is now, and I lost around $500 as Bitcoin's price was around $300 then. Of course, you could say this amount is worth almost 15k nowadays (and in 2017 it was 30k), so you can easily imagine all the good things which could have been bought with that money today. But honestly, I don't think or feel this way at all. Regardless, today I play only with free coins, and I can say that I don't have a gambling mentality. I'm more of a trader, if that makes any difference

Fully support this view

If you have a strong addiction to things like alcohol, drugs, or if you are a gambling addict, these addictions are there for life, and it is very hard, if not downright impossible, to get rid of them. The sad irony (which is often overlooked) is that people who can free themselves of these ruinous dependences on their own are unlikely to turn into addicts in the first place. It is those who can't that become addicted


Smoking is also difficult to drop

I know many people who had been claiming in the broad daylight they could easily stop smoking, but eventually they started smoking again. On the other hand, some people are smoking without getting addicted to this habit at all, and they could quit smoking cold-turkey if they chose so. It is all in one's mental makeup

Actually, that remains an open-ended question, so to speak

The truth is, we don't know what drives land-based casino operators, what is on their mind, and because the online gambling business seems to be on the rise (rather, it has been on the rise since 2013 and early PrimeDice times), we don't know for certain if these operators are not in fact behind some of these businesses. Do we know who is actually behind this or that casino other than some nickname over here? We don't know that, but given the financial leverage land-based casinos certainly have, they may have already been in the online gambling business and since long ago (keeping it quiet as they always do)

Well, technically it is not quite so

Many casinos bankrupted in the past for being unable to properly manage their bankroll (the forum remembers that). Running a casino in a safe and efficient way is not as simple as it seems. If it is a matter of luck for players, it is also a matter of luck for the casino (minus the house edge, obviously). The point is, one big player can make a bet so high that it will eat away half of the casino bankroll if it wins. That's why casinos set a limit on the max bet amount (read, it is a complex matter), but it is not just that, though

This is a complicated issue

As most people are very well aware that they can't win in dice other than through luck, they knowingly come to play mostly for fun and excitement at first. It is only later, probably after they have already won something, their attitude changes more toward the "profit" aspect of gambling, even if this process of "change" happens unconsciously. People can't quite understand when and how such a change takes place, but this lack of understanding doesn't make it less real. And then they turn greedy, stop playing for fun and start chasing their losses (which are a given). The results are predictably devastating


If you can stick to your guns, so to speak, no matter what, that is, to avoid falling into the trap of greed described above, you should be ok

Applying for a Legendary Member spot:

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=156665
Current amount of Posts (Including this post): 22495
SegWit BTC address for payouts: bc1qhdl0cte0eapjaqftrmf07sgh88kngjru827cvg
EARNED merit in the last 120 days: 18

Want to enroll (if there's a Legendary member spot available):

Sorry, been accepted into another campaign

Everyone is wise after the event

But in 2017 there were enough people even here, on the forum, who had been fooled and dizzied by the exponential rise of Bitcoin's price. Actually, most of the forum went off their rocker back in the day. It was no use trying to explain to all these people that the crash was sort of inevitable as they were extremely aggressive toward anyone who had been ever so slightly cautious and suspicious about so insane a rise. You would read things like "millions of dollars sitting in the orderbooks waiting to buy Bitcoin if there is a small correction". These dollars then quickly disappeared provided they had been there at all

It is unlikely you are going to develop these maladies in a year or so

But you can ruin your own life and the lives of your dear ones within months due to uncontrollable gambling (what gambling addiction basically amounts to). And with excessive gambling you are bound to have serious health issues as well eventually. The connection may seem less obvious but that doesn't make these issues less real or less severe. After reading posts in this thread it is difficult to avoid drawing a conclusion that many fellow posters have little understanding of what real addiction is or how dangerous it can be

Designing a really interesting, engaging and entertaining game takes time

Look, dice is a simple hi-lo game but developing anything beyond that while making it playable and really enjoyable at the same time may turn out to be quite a daunting task requiring a lot of effort, and more importantly, expertise and know-how in the field which wolf.bet developers simply may not have yet (no offense intended)

And it is even more so when we are talking about games that are played by more than one human player (think poker room here). Only a few casinos can actually make these games the right way. If dice is sort of arithmetics in the gambling world, poker is more like highly advanced calculus

This is all pure speculation

As you note further in your post, we went from lower 3k's to almost 14k (not 9k), and we did this feat without any halving. That actually leaves it open to discussion whether the coming halving will have such an impact on prices. Yeah, we would like to expect Bitcoin to rise past its 2017's highs. But if it rose so much without halving (i.e. thanks to speculation alone), it could as easily drop before or after the next halving. Each halving becomes less and less relevant since the reduction in the reward will be affecting the total supply in an ever smaller and smaller degree