I sent them a PM asking to remove the negative feedback. Will keep everyone posted

They seem to have made into DT2


Okay, we are there. Now what?


It loos like circumstances have changed


Time for action?


Let's see how it goes in practice

Такой бот будет только убытки "зарабатывать"

Если он будет добавляться по тренду, а закрываться по развороту, откуда прибыли-то взяться? Если речь идет про пингпонговый бот и соответствующую стратегию (т.е. закуп с выставлением ордера на продажу с определенной маржей прибыли), то такой бот может и не сольет, но ничего не мешает запустить его на закуп какого-нибудь шиткоина. Он и закупится на всю котлету

That's unlikely in practice

For this to come true, we need all the gamblers to play flawlessly and profitably. However, if they just play randomly, i.e. without trying to take advantage of variance (which is possible with a properly managed martingale setup), then the house would still beat them all even on even odds (smells like a pun to me) provided the house bankroll by far exceeds the combined balances of the players

On the other hand, if all gamblers are capable of sticking to a safe martingale setup, they will be able to beat any real casino with a small house edge on any finite timescale. To avoid possible confusion and misunderstanding, by safe here I mean such setup that allows gamblers to earn more than lose collectively (read, some may bust, but the net result will still be positive on the part of the gamblers). To repeat, on finite timescales only

Это к вопросу интерпретации

С точки зрения шортистов любое падение рынка — это их доход и, стало быть, для них падение — это рост (а война — это мир). Поэтому говорить об откате можно только в том случае, если потом снова будет рост. Вот, например, падение с 20к конца 2017 года до сегодняшних цифр 2020 года — это откат или обвал?

Yeah, I understand that the distinction may not be clear to an inexperienced observer

But if you look through my posts where I referred to the notion of a zero-sum game in the course of the discussion, the phrase was double-quoted, and for a reason. So should I proceed to assume that it is actually you who failed to understand the purpose that double quotation marks can serve, and how they can be used in a sentence?


I leave it to you to find out where the term was first misused. I guess you might be interested in that kind of thing

Интересно девки пляшут

Давайте теперь откатим цену до максимумов 2013 года (чуть больше килобакса, кто не в курсе). Ну, или чего уже мелочиться -- даешь ценник 2010 года! Гулять, так гулять! С точки зрения закоренелых шортистов, рынок так вообще вырастет. Может еще и в область мнимых чисел уйдет. Кто там говорил, что шорты ограничены нулем? Ударим по нему крепкой палкой длинного минуса

What's the point?


The key difference, though, is whether X represents any finite number. If it does, then it doesn't matter. And while we are at it, "several" is actually synonymous with "a few" (not to be confused with just "few", which has a slightly different meaning or connotation)


You are welcome here


If you wager (synonymous with stake) all, and your opponent does the same, one of you is going to bust with 100% certainty, regardless of the individual odds (fifty-fifty or otherwise)

So do you agree that martingale is a losing strategy on an infinite timeframe with a finite bankroll?

On any specific timeframe (or within any given number of bets) that should be the case

That's another interesting aspect, which is worth looking into. But it doesn't take anything from the outcome described in the OP, of course, with one of the players busting in the end. Put differently, we don't know when and within which range this is going to happen. The only thing that we can be certain about is the inevitability of such an outcome on an indefinitely long timeframe. The example of martingale seems to be fitting here once more. You may roll a million times collecting dust, and then bust on a losing streak of 20 rolls, end of story

Emphasis added:

You had it coming:

Okay, now we have two people who seem to have changed their mind


And that's the exact reason why I was putting the term in double quotes

Was it not enough to give a hint that there's something wrong with its usage? Regardless, in case you missed (some part of) my previous reply or missed the other no-house-edge thread in its entirety, it was not me who had first used the term in this meaning ("no individual gain or loss"). So why did you decide to come up with this post now, and throw it at me? But seriously, where have you been before and what were you waiting for?


Now everyone should stop and think where they really stand

It's called variance, get used to it

And on an infinite timescale it can be any, with the implication being that you are going to see losing streaks long enough to wipe out no matter how big a balance. That's technically the same reason why martingale is a losing strategy under similar conditions. But unlike martingale, you don't even need one losing streak to bust with a finite bankroll as just enough losing streaks interspersed with some wins will do exactly the same to your or your opponent's balance (read, martingale is better in this regard). It's so for the simple reason that the balance is limited (finite), while you have unlimited time to see a sequence of losses sufficient to drain any such balance dry (read, one of the players will inevitably bust)


This looks more like a commonplace misconception

That no one is going to bust, and, consequently, no one will score a definitive win

But there's more to this than it appears at the first glance. It is extremely amusing to see some people claim that martingale is a losing strategy and those same people assert that "the variance will balance out to zero" with this setup. They don't seem to understand how tightly these two cases are interconnected. If the player with a finite bankroll is set to bust eventually when utilizing martingale, the same is equally applicable to the two players betting against each other (i.e. one of them will bust) as it is same variance at play here


So is martingale a losing strategy for a finite bankroll on an infinitely long timescale or what?

FFS, this is not a joke, this is a cliché


There's no misunderstanding here

The definition of a zero-sum game also includes the possibility of a no-win situation for both players. In fact, any such game would be a zero-sum game whether there is a house edge or not, whether bankrolls are equal or otherwise, or whatever. And throughout this and the other thread I have been enclosing this phrase in double quotation marks to show specifically that a) its meaning is somewhat different (narrower) from the established (wider) one, and b) it was not me who started to use it in this sense when referring to such an outcome. However, it wasn't that hard to get the meaning from the context (read, you could have done that too)

As the saying goes, every business serves two masters, its customer and its bottom line


I don't think gambling is actually different

What players (consumers) are supposed to get in return is satisfaction from the game, i.e. essentially the same as with any other product sold out there. If you are not satisfied with what you've got, this is understandable and kind of expected. But you can be just as dissatisfied with virtually anything you pay your shekels for

There's definitely a difference between being a blind contrarian (mostly for the sake of just expressing your disagreement) and disagreeing on some factual or logical grounds


These are not conclusions, these are possible outcomes


We are talking statistics here

It doesn't matter what the outcome will be in a few games, generally speaking. What matters, though, is the direction where things are going. Besides, after just one bet, there'll already be an edge in the form of a bigger balance because one player necessarily loses and the other necessarily wins. And technically, if they wager all, there is 100% certainty that one of the players will bust. Since bankrolls are finite, this can be the case on an infinitely long timescale as well

It's a difference that makes the difference

And you know where it lies? In a casino you could actually win. I'm not even talking about using complex approaches aiming at beating the house edge and squeezing whatever small profits you can take home at the end of the day. Even when you toss a coin, your chances are 50%, i.e. you will be winning in half of all the flips. Indeed, there's the house edge in a casino. But then you will be winning in a little fewer rolls, like 49 out of 100 on average (if we are talking about dice on x2 multiplier as the simplest setup). The point is that the luck is there, and it is for real

The three unwritten rules of life

And why exactly is making money through gambling (e.g. dice) a mathematical impossibility?

As long as variance overrides the house edge, which is almost always the case with today's house edges of ~1% across the gambling landscape, there's nothing mathematically or, more correctly, statistically impossible in beating the house edge. And when you can beat the house edge, on the one hand, and not fall yourself victim to variance, on the other, you can make dough via gambling in a pretty consistent way. Not much, but profits are profits, no matter how small