Hey yogg! Are you able to give quotes beforehand on how much it'll cost to get something done? To me, the worst thing is having someone take 10 hours to do a job that takes someone else 15 minutes to do, even though they charge the same rate. I'm more inclined to work with someone that can tell how much it is up front and then if it takes 15m, great. If it takes 25 hours, it's fine too, since it doesn't cost more.

I'm actually surprised they'd only ask for 10%...

But keep in mind that if you let ANYONE else to your coins, you never know what's going to happen to them. They might return your 90% or they might not.

Check your math again. You said 1k satoshi * 24h = 24k bits. No. That would be 2.4k bits (1000 satoshi = 100 bits, not 1000). So that monthly amount wouldn't be 720k, but 72k. Way less.

This listing is awesome, . I run a faucet rotator (here) that has a lot of these on it, though it may go defunct sooner, rather than later. With that said, if it goes offline, I'll be pushing people your way!

People put far too much emphasis on domain names, when they aren't as important as the brand behind it. You could rank #1 for "bitcoin bank" using the domain http://imafloppydonkey.com if you wanted. All you have to do is build the brand around it.

Your question, therefore, leads to showing you don't quite understand how search engines and ranking work, nor how to market. I'd highly suggest you learn more about these before delving in.

Not if he's able to migrate the referral listing as well (and just wipe the rest).

OP, we need more details about your setup to answer your question properly. This is like saying "if I fill my car with octane 87, will it cause issues?" What kind of car is it? Is it electric? Is it a diesel? Can't answer without information.

That's a very informative explanation. So basically, the more iterations you have, the "safer" it would be (i.e., going at 1 satoshi would be a lot more successful than going with 10000 satoshi per roll)?

I'll probably need to get in touch with Dooglus and see his opinion on this. He's pretty solid when it comes to figuring these things out and if he has time, should be able to see what's wrong.

That post I made with all the math I think has to be off. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and I don't see how raising bet amounts (without changing the % chance) could possibly affect the house edge. I just don't know where I went wrong with it...

I guess it's possible that it's correct. It just doesn't make logical sense.

It also gives the benefit of showing users that you can transact less than a cent, and still pay almost nothing to do it. Compare this to sending this through ACH (impossible), Western Union ($10+ and impossible), etc. Bitcoin is the only system that allows things like this (well, and other cryptos).

It's not really lowering the house edge, per se, but rather exploiting the rounding of numbers. Some sites have already fixed that issue, though, and it relies on very specific sets of numbers to work even on those that haven't fixed it. With that said, it's less of a "beating the house" and more of an exploit than anything.

Well, yeah, you'd have a "guaranteed" return if it goes up. But who is to say it'll keep going up? Bitcoin is still very much experimental. The support behind it could just as easily move to a different crypto, leaving BTC to die later. It's still a very risky investment at this point.

Let's say you start with 1 BTC, and you're going at 2x. It will depend on how much you're risking. Let's say you want to risk:

1 BTC at 0.00001 BTC starting (2x on loss) = you can lose 13x in a row. it will take 100000 wins before getting to doubled up (which is around 200000 rolls). Essentially you're dealing with (tl;dr version):

Won amount per win: 0.001%
Chance to lose 13x in a row: 0.00179%

You're statistically going to bust 1.8x for every 1x you double up, giving a 35% or so chance of making it happen.

Let's say you decide to risk 0.001 BTC per roll instead. Now you can lose up to 8x in a row. This puts the stats at:

Won amount per win: 0.1%
Chance to lose 8x in a row: 0.2136%

Now you're statistically over 2x more likely to bust than to double up, leading to a 30% or so chance of success.

If we did just one satoshi, you're at a 1.93:1 odd of busting before doubling up (with a 25x fail streak required).

Edit: someone check this and make sure I'm calculating the odds right? This is how I inferred how you'd figure out the true odds. I may be wrong on that...?

The theory would state that you're dealing with a reputable (read: they won't run off) casino and the site/casino can't be hacked, though (or at least would be insured). So it really just deals with the numbers of betting vs. return.

I've run many simulations, trying to find a "sweet spot," including bets that differ from the 2x/50%, such as going to 3x, 4x, etc., and all end up the same way. With that said, I have found methods that statistically are a LOT safer than the straight 2x/50% way, but they all ultimately result in losses at some point.

The question has then always been to me... when do you stop? Mathematically speaking, you have a great chance to build up to SOMETHING. It's the continuing on that causes losses. I have yet to get anything built 2x its starting amount, for what it's worth, though I did come close with one (and it failed after repetition like 41k or so).

This is true as well, but we make decisions based on the assumption this won't happen. Otherwise we wouldn't be playing on the site/in that casino regardless as to if we wanted to martingale or not, .

But it is a good point, that there's also the risk of them running. And in that case, when dealing with cryptos we can throw out another: the risk that the site is hacked (or "hacked") while you're trying to martingale.

People believe in it because in theory, it would work. The reality, though, is that there are two things stopping it:

1) Player bankroll
2) Site max bet allowance

One of these is going to be hit, as neither of these can be infinite. Should these be removed, it would change things, as you could lose millions of times in a row and still not have "lost" yet.

The limits are really worthless, when you think about it. You can buy and sell accounts on the forums. So if you want to go outside that limit, buy more accounts, max. out their limits, and continue doing that and using the money to get more (or just hold a few). Limits just add that extra step, and they really don't resolve anything.

Or even merge the two together, such that when you post in a thread, it's added to the watchlist. The watchlist would then show all threads you're watching, and "new posts" would pull the listing FROM the watchlist, but ONLY show those with new posts. This would be the perfect solution.

There's not, because people would just create new accounts, spam until they get caught/banned, put the money they earned aside, and repeat the process. Not to mention newbies are really limited on signatures, which kills the flair.

That's an odd thing to do... and it shouldn't make a huge difference in the long run. You could go down a little while invested or go up a LOT and miss the boat due to trying to time it. I think it's a lot like stocks (S&P) -- invest and let it sit.