To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end
Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?
Martingale is losing strategy because few reasons: probability of event doesn't depend on result from previous one. You can lose 100 times in a row, or win. So, you can't be sure on what iteration you will win. But our money is limit resource, so you can't lose for example 1000 time in meaning of available funds. But in meaning of probability - you can  So, you with bigger chance lose all your limit, than win with this strategy. But from mathematical point, it's normal strategy. And yeah, your ideas to "update" martingale is even worse than original strategy, my tho. |
|
|
|
Since democrats elected Biden there already no any another result than Trump victory. I will bet a little, but it's not interesting anyway. Another 4 years with Trump is coming  I am not so sure that Trump will win. Without the corona crisis, I would say that it was an easy win for Trump, but right now? But it is too bad that Biden is not a super candidate for the Democrats, if they would have someone such as Obama... As many said before me, Trump got lucky with this coronavirus case. Rating of most presidents and politics (in Ukraine too, lol) is rising due to all this situation. And in autumn, average american will remember Trump as a president which lead country across coronavirus pandemia. |
|
|
|
the other thing to consider is the small probability that either hand makes a straight. Understood. Maybe this is reason why T9 is stronger than ordinary pair. Also it has probability to get two pairs (TT-99) and win against AA. Get it. against AA, pocket pairs between 55 and TT are slightly stronger than KK because they are more likely to hit a straight. KK needs 9-K or T-A to hit a straight, which means the pocket AA blocks 2 of his outs to a straight. For honest, the probability to get straight with one card (with pair second card it's doesn't matter) so insignificant, that term "slightly stronger" is counted in tenths of a percent  T9s = 10-9 suited
Yep, a chance to get straight or flush, because of that difference in 3 % (between 19.251 and 22.2). For example, i don't know about that, that it's more chance to win against monster hand with suited cards rather than one pair. |
|
|
|
here are some examples of preflop odds:    so AA is in a very dominant position---winning ~4 out of 5 hands---when the opponent is isolated. multi-way pots are much more of a gamble. AA in a family pot preflop won't even win a majority of the time so it's important to raise preflop. a lot of people slow play AA preflop and then end up in bad positions postflop. Ok, let's see using not some sites, but math and theory of probability (I don't tell that information on sites is wrong or something like that, but maybe want to improve my skill in probability and maybe it will be interesting for you. Also, i want to check is my calculations will match with site information). AA against ANY another pair: In this example i will take situation where you have AA on your hands and going ALL in in preflop. What outcomes can be: There any the same card for you or your opponent - you win There another A for you - you win with set There another card for your opponent and no card for you - opponent wins with set There card for you opponent and A for you - you win with higher set. So, as we see, AA is really strong hand (opponent will win only in 1 against 3 outcomes). But what about language of numbers? It's obvious, that full outcome consists of two probabilities: you win or opponent win. Together they create a full space of outcomes (100 % outcome). (For honest, i don't know how it correct calls in english, in russian it will be - пoлнaя гpyппa coбытий) To make our goal easier, it will be better to count a chance for opponent's hand to win (otherwise we need to calculate 1, 2, and 4 probabilities and to add them). This chance consists of two parts: a chance to get another card which connect with his hand AND a chance that you do not get another A (this chance, with chance to get A also creates full space of outcome, so if chance to get A is 15 %, this will be 85 ) Less words, more numbers! 1. A chance to get AT LEAST one card: 2/48 (full deck 52, and we don't count his cards and your hand) + 2/47 + 2/46 + 2/45 + 2/44 = 0.041 + 0.042 + 0.043 + 0.044 + 0.045 = 21,5 % . But this will be a little wrong calculation, let me tell you why: For example, we have two snipers, and question "What a probability that at least (OR) one sniper will hit his target? Chance of the first sniper is - 0.8 and the second one - 0.5" As you can see, we can't just add them, because this will be 130 %, and this is idiotic. We should add them, besides one outcome, when they hit target both (yeah, this is the most complicated part, many can't understand why so). The probability this outcome will be multiplication of the chances this two snipers. 0.8 * 0.5 = 0.4 (or 40 %), so, the right answer will be = 0.8 + 0.5 - 0.4 = 0.9 ). yep, the correct formula depends from how full events interconnected one with the other in space of outcomes (sometimes it's correct just to add). But our case is the same with two snipers. So we should to subtract the case when we have two card on the table (Four of the kind): 2/48 * (1/47 + 1/46 + 1/45 + 1/44) = 0.3 % (yep, that's less than 1 %) 21.5 - 0.3 = 21.2 %And the chance for you to not get another A card: 100 % - chance to get ( ) because i count it before (21.2 %) it will be much faster = 100 - 21.2 = 88.8 % And now, we need to multiplicate them (because we need TWO of this event to happen, meaning AND): 21.2 * 88.8 = 18.82 %You were right - a chance for any another pair to win against AA is just 18.82 % AND BECAUSE OF THIS MY ASSHOLE BURNS MUCH MORE WHEN I HAVE AA CALLING ALL IN AND A GUY WITH 33 WINS BECAUSE HE GET THIRD 3 ON RIVER  P.S: And yeah, mu calculations is enough close to what shows in this site, i'm satisfied And yeah, i found why they have 19.251 and I 18.82 . They do not substract the probability that you get Four of a kind. This is a little wrong mathematically, but logically this is correct (it is obvious that you win for sure with 3333) P.P.S: But i don't agree that a chance for the opponent to win will depend on what pair he have on his hands. 33 or 99 or KK it doesn't matter (if i understood right, T9s means two nines |
|
|
|
Agreed. The Democrats would have a better chance to win the independent votes with Bernie Sanders running for them. However, everyone is fearful of him because he is similar to Trump. He has his own mind.
Yes, i thought about Bernie too. I don't think he would win, but at least all this would be not so obvious. Problem of Bernie was that his electorate consisted mostly from lazy zoomers, which ignored elections. I think something the same would happen on president election. Means that Trump would win anyway. |
|
|
|
Жестко, но зато правда и точнее не скажешь.
Так а чего жестко то? Так оно и работает, убеждают хомяков усредняться и все, дальше дело за малым. Некоторые до сих пор усредняются и откупают. Например недавно продал один шиток баунтейный, в стаканы налил, притом по относительно адекватной цене. Зашел глянуть в их тему (думал что ордеров на покупку вообще не будет), а там народ до сих пор усредняется  |
|
|
|
По всем известному закону подлости, в независимости от наших ожиданий и постоянного сдвига сроков, как всегда булран будет только после того, как все его перестанут ждать и сольют свои альты по низкой цене.
Или его не будет. Вот сидит хомячье, и каждый думает что умнее другого, мол сольются эти дураки, а меня добрые дяди повезут на Луну и обеспечат островом. Вот они усредняются и усредняются, каждый понемногу, а дядя в них разгружает свои вагоны скупленного цифрового говна. Из-за того, что игра с неполной информацией, хомяки не могут списаться и осознать что делают все тоже самое, и что тогда вопрос у кого они покупают. А здесь на форуме вот и начинаются разные измышления разной степени безумности. Хотя правильный вывод один: списать все это никому не нужное говно в утиль и двигаться дальше. |
|
|
|
Это у медведей рога бычьи режутся. Видимо болезненно  О, Свин, привет. А что сам то думаешь? не так то давно сам был свино-медведем, топил за падение. Какие настроения сейчас у тебя преобладают то, а? Вот Флак вроде бы потихоньку начинает бычиться, ну или мне так кажется. |
|
|
|
Anyone feel similar?
For honest, no. I invested in crypto in early 2015, and despite the fact that first bitcoins (before investing some more amount) were received from binary options (it's close to gamble, something like head or tails game) i don't feel any necessity to gamble. So this is something wrong with you, i think you played even before starting to be familiar with crypto. |
|
|
|
Since democrats elected Biden there already no any another result than Trump victory. I will bet a little, but it's not interesting anyway. Another 4 years with Trump is coming |
|
|
|
Any gambling it;s more about gambling than skill. My opinion.
Luck, you mean? Yep, already corrected Actually it's hard to say if it's about luck or skills because that depends on the person gambling.
There are even some gamblers who believe that a lucked based game like dice or roulette, they can find a strategy to win consistently, but actually they are wrong, they are just being unrealistic so they think it's possible.
Chance based or skilled based, it's still not easy to win in gambling because in reality people are even losing more in skilled based games as they are more aggressive in terms of betting because they think they had some good chance.
As i said before, in some situations it's doesnt matter how good your skill or how do you play. Only a chance and luck will decide. Unlike chess, where only your skill is put on the edge of game result. |
|
|
|
that's one reason to avoid oversized preflop all-ins, especially multi-way. too much chance, too much gambling. even AA will lose almost 1 out 4 times to mid suited connectors. a more marginal hand like AK suited will lose against any random hand 1 out of 3 times. i like to get my chips in after the flop, when the odds are more clearly in my favor. I think the chance for AA to lose to any another pair is something like 1 out of 3 (i don't count exact probability, but from game theory it's looks like that) the element of chance is crucial though---if there was no chance involved then donkeys wouldn't play poker because they would never win. this means we need to ride out the statistical variance and play statistically smart poker. in the long run, it's profitable.
Maybe, but even one game can be lost due to shit luck. So this can;t be considered only as skill game. Skill games it's chess or Go. Any gambling it;s more about gambling than skill. My opinion. |
|
|
|
Так, ради любопытства, в чем же будет интерес и за какие средства идет борьба при помощи траст-листа? Так как я вижу, что в подписных люди и с отрицательным трастом участвуют и без особых проблем, так как менеджер смотрит на аккаунт и качество постов. Сколько стоит тот шкурный интерес? На самом деле, красный траст влияет на это вот все. Даже точнее не так: может влияет, а может и нет, ты не можешь точно знать, так как тот же менеджер не отчитывается перед тобой почему он тебя не выбрал, допустим. А так да, красный траст не особо ужасен, иногда доставляет некие неудобства, но в принципе терпимо, главное этим не запариваться особо. |
|
|
|
That's why I prefer skill-based game, so that when there's someone to blame, it is myself. The strategies and results are in my own hand, it is really much enjoyable if you are really playing instead of just waiting there for the outcome. Sometimes, there are still circumstances where skill-based gambling is not that lucky enough for you to win.
Yeah, for example poker, when you playing correctly due to your strategy, with a monster hand, call "all in" and finally lose to lucker. Heh, Such "enjoyable" |
|
|
|
Casinos have the right to deny service to anyone, and of makes sense to deny players from playing a game in which they have an advantage versus the house. So perhaps, one casino considers that counting cards are illegal, and they will ban the player from using that method. But in the other casino, counting cards is not illegal, and the player can use it as long as the player is doing without any technology. Well, that will depend on where you play the game  It's enough stupid, i think anyone here understand. As i said before, "counting" doesn't affect probability of game result. For example, we are playing Hold'em, and i have two Jacks on my hand. So, i'm counting the probability to get at least one more Jack for set. This will be 2/50 (i don't count cards at my hand, and poker deck has 52 cards). Will it affect a chance to get one more Jack? Obvious - no. So where is cheating? this is how group card counting works:
1. the spotter plays the minimum and is the lead card counter
2. he signals the big bettor when the deck is hot (ie more likely to produce face cards and aces = better odds)
3. the big bettor raises the stakes
instead of prohibiting this type of action, casinos use a practice called "preferential shuffling". when stakes are raised mid-game, the decks are shuffled. this removes any card counting advantage but allows players to raise the stakes, yielding more profits for the casino.
Heh, really interesting But you're talking about some pure cheating, if i correctly understand what you're talking about. With ordinary probability theory you can't be sure what cards will be after, only the chance to get it. Also, you should know all hands of all players at the table (if we are talking about poker) |
|
|
|
Clearly we need to ban cars until there are zero traffic deaths.
Many people can't understand this one simple truth. Also, i don't know did you think about that, but it's very funny to see how government react to all this situation: there was a chance to avoid all of this, if EU, USA and other countries would ban air traffic with China. Like Taiwan has done (and yeah, in Taiwan there only 600 ill people for all the time). But government was affected by air company lobbies which didn't want to lose big profits (it's funny that now they losing much more day after day, heh). So, for clever people it's obvious that government can be into two main conditions: Ignore everything and closing his eyes to problem or overreacting, creating some kind of soviet GULAG . "Great", yeah |
|
|
|
He has a huge experience of trading in various markets, about 5 years ago, he started trading here. My friend does nothing else but trade.
I also know two people who lost their families to gambling. One of them used to be my neighbor.
Perhaps this is only in my circle of communication so. Some people may have successful gamblers in their social circle.
Are you sure he is "day trader"? because here we talking about exactly day trading, not some month options or futures trading. It's normal, unlike day trading, because of one fundamental law (and maybe paradox) that it's more easier to predict what will be after 10 years with a market , than what will be after one month. And of course, noone can say for sure what price will be tomorrow. (Paradox, because in many other parts of our life you can predict more precise what will be tomorrow, than what will be with you after 10 years or even month) Soi still consider day trading as a gambling. |
|
|
|
Мне больше всего нравится, как меняется мнение той же Лавз, исходя из чистого эгоизма и шкурного интереса. То, что Пелосыч неадекват, было понятно еще очень давно, что впрочем не помешало "доверенному" члену локали Лавз добавить его себе в траст лист. Ну а что, неадекватность была направлена ведь на других, значит почему бы и нет? Как только гнев Пахома Пелосо повернулся на Лавз, то сразу он стал "обиженным мальчиком" или как там было Вообще смешно наблюдать как человек катит бочку на того, кто пробыл чуть ли не пол года в траст листе, и был туда добавлен перед тем же Бальтазаром и многими другими. У любого умного человека возникнет вполне логичный вопрос: "Если Пелосыч такой плохой, какого хера, ты курица умница держала так долго его в своем траст листе?"Особенно учитывая что его поведение не поменялось ни капли, какой он сейчас, таким и в 2015м был (Как коньяк прямо, сохраняет качество). Ответ один: избирательная слепота Радует только одно: на данный момент вся эта мышиная возня не особо играет роль. Пропал финансовый интерес (по крайней мере в той мере, в какой он был представлен в 2016-2018), а следовательно и бодаться с кем то смысла особого нет. |
|
|
|
Транзакции накапливаются когда они есть. В этом и сложность вести такой вот анализ, ведь много факторов остается не точными, из-за того что нет возможности увидеть всю картину.
Так и я про это же: транзакции накапливаются в мемпуле, когда их делают. В "обычное" время очень небольшой пропускной способности сети битка хватает на всех желающих и комиссии минимальны (что мы и наблюдали многие месяцы за последние пару лет. Несмотря на все заверения Департамента криптопиздежа о том, как популярен биток в Венесуэле, Аргентине и ХЗ где ещё.). Т.к. битком почти никто реально не пользуется, то и его низкой пропускной способности за глаза хватает на всех. Ну те графики где я привел, видно что просто упало само количество транзакций, люди начали меньше пересылать. И это вполне могло быть следствием уменьшения торговой и деловой активности, в связи с тем же карантином. Про "реальное использование" уже миллион раз разбирали, на это пинять вообще как то не очень. Собирать те же донаты в битках уже совсем обычное дело, или покупать за битки всякие китайские чаи и спортивный инвентарь. Сомневаюсь что ты, или кто то из тех кто утверждает про "не используется", проводил глубокую аналитику этого рыночного сегмента. В основном такие заявления тоже спекулятивные, часто они начинают звучать громче, когда какой нибудь Dell или Steam отказываются от биткоина, но почему то не упоминают новые магазины которые открылись за недавнее время, или добавили способ оплаты битком. А их на моей памяти тоже появилось порядком. |
|
|
|
Посмотри по своим же ссылкам март 2020 (после флэш-крэша) - хэшрейт падал гораздо сильнее, чем сейчас. И среднее время добычи блока вырастало до 15-16 минут. Вот только такой заполненности мемпула тогда и близко не было. И "как снежный ком" транзакции не накапливались. Особенно с высокой комсой Транзакции накапливаются когда они есть. В этом и сложность вести такой вот анализ, ведь много факторов остается не точными, из-за того что нет возможности увидеть всю картину. Не было вот транзакций, или не такое количество, и все уже такая проблема так остро не стояла. Но вот вариант с мощностями на ажиотаже выглядит вполне реальным. И да, количество транзакций тогда, в конце марта, почему то резко упало - https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions и вот https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block. Чуть ли не в 2 раза. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
