So the Central Bank of Russia in 2018 held as a reserve: yuan-14.4%, dollar-22.6%. But this choice in favor of the yuan only led to losses, because the Chinese government has devalued the yuan several times over the past time. The digital yuan will also be devalued in the same way That's what happens when your government pursues political goals before economic ones The Chinese have been devaluing their national currency countless number of times in the past, and you didn't exactly need an MBA's degree to foresee such developments and expect more devaluations in the future. Moscow thinks it bought the Chinese support in the international scene but China knows better than that. And who is going to pay? Common folks will be paying, as always If I mention Russia in my answer, it does not mean that I am a citizen of Russia. Therefore, do not transfer your negativity to me. I believe this is a very good example of the digital yuan not being able to claim something big because the government is devaluing the yuan Obviously, I didn't mean Russian government as your government. I was just speaking generally (read, about any such government), and Moscow's "economic" policies based on purely political reasoning and reckoning just turned up as an illustrative example of what they may eventually lead to if they are not governed by economic interests of the local population. That was basically to show that governments often follow strategies destructive to their own citizens Anyway, if it gives you peace of mind, I'm from Russia |
|
|
|
Sorry, if my comments offend you, that is not my intention, don't take it personal Well, if you think that they are offending me, then let me tell you that they are not From a theoretical point of view, one player will bust in the end. This could be the player with the 200 USD, but also the player with the 1000 USD. It's more likely to be the player with the 200 USD though, because to put it very simple: It's more likely to occur a 200-winning-streak with 50/50, than to occur a 1000-winning streak with 50/50. But both are possible We have already established that But it makes a by far more interesting case when the bankrolls are the same and huge (but finite) in respect to the amount wagered at each toss (if we are talking about a coin flipping), following the conditions set forth in the OP and worked out further in the thread. It is a seemingly borderline and indeterminate case but since you can't have it both ways and there can be only one definitive answer or conclusion (either bust and win or no-win aka a "zero-sum game" by your invention), that makes it ever more intriguing to find the correct solution |
|
|
|
Lets say you have 1,000 USD bank roll and there are 200 players with 1 USD bankroll each. Now you toss a coin with each one of them, stake 1 USD. What do you expect your profit to be ? In first round you would eliminate 100 players. 100 players remain with bankroll of 2 USD each; your bankroll is still 1,000. Then in second round, third round etc. you would keep eliminating players, until there is only one player left with bankroll of 200 and you still have your 1,000 bankrolll. You will eliminate that player too sooner or later Why all the fuss with 200 players? The whole task can be reduced to just one player with 200 dollars. Then it is a bankroll of 1000 USD versus a bankroll of 200 USD, the point of discussion in this thread (of which you are certainly aware). But that's all side issues as the main issue here is still not settled decidedly, i.e. whether it is a bust and a win or a definite no-win for either player if the bankrolls are the same as well as large enough in a PVP game like heads or tails (with square odds in mind). And yes, it is important to know the answer to this dilemma (especially if it is a "zero-sum game", after all), and it is not like everyone agrees with the conclusion drawn in the OP |
|
|
|
The infinite toss theory assumes that you also have infinte bankroll for the very long timescale to occur and for the wins and losses to always become 50-50 That's not the case here It is indeed about a very finite and, moreover, equal bankrolls. So the question is that whether one of the players is going to bust or it will be a "zero-sum game", i.e. no one winning or losing anything (give or take) provided the player's bankrolls are big enough to allow for a very large number of tosses We have two polar opposite outcomes which exclude each other, and I'm utterly curious to find out which one is actually going to play out in real life (as it may have very important and practical implications in other domains). So far it looks more like one of the gamblers will invariably bust eventually |
|
|
|
The US has most Covid-19 cases because they conduct way more tests than any other country, including China. If Indonesia, for example, has more testing capabilities, only God knows how many actual cases we have That doesn't explain a high mortality rate If there were more tests, the mortality rate should have been lower, statistically speaking. It is one of the reported reasons why the death rate is very low in Russia despite it being in the third place by the number of confirmed cases. More extensive testing allows to catch asymptomatic cases which otherwise wouldn't have made it into the stats. It also shows the real death rate, which is below 1%. An outbreak in an isolated shift team caused only half of the people to get infected despite everyone having been massively exposed to the virus there |
|
|
|
but at the same time we are talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" and I would pick guaranteed income for my casino over a probable one any day of the week. Considering even with the current house edge system there is abundant amount of costs to run, they really need that guaranteed income for sure In fact, we are not talking about a "guaranteed" over a "probability" revenue flows If anything, these two revenue flows are adding up, not canceling each other out. And if we could leave a casino with the income procured by the house edge alone, I think most casinos would quickly starve to bankruptcy. This is just an assumption but a pretty solid one, though. If the casino operators were earning only the house edge, like 1% on the gamblers' balances, there wouldn't be much to run it on, anyway |
|
|
|
A player that has sufficient bankroll cannot go bust mate, because the RTP will always return to the theoretical RTP of 100%. Yes, there will be variance; however, it will return to the theoretical after xxx bets. Meaning if a player wagers $1 he will get $1 back So we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive ideas And that's actually a good thing because it allows us to work out a constructive approach that will lead to a correct conclusion, whatever it might be. If what you say is true and we know that with small bankrolls (relative to bet amount) someone is going to bust, there should necessarily be a tipping point, a cusp, where the function (its derivative) changes the sign. In more mundane terms, there should be an exact bankroll to bet amount ratio above which it statistically becomes a "zero-sum game", no matter how long you are going to play. That's highly suspicious if you ask me So why would someone play a PvP game with 50% winning chance? To find out who is luckier? |
|
|
|
Yes, this is a correct statement. And now ? I think everyone will agree Well, you can't speak for everyone. Moreover, you can't even assume that everyone is going to agree with this statement in the first place Ever gambled on the street? This topic has everything to do with how things are going to pan out there. And you are in for a big surprise if you expect "a zero-sum game" there. It is also called "learning it the hard way". Can anything be more practical and realistic? I never gambled on the street, no, sorry I gambled, like a lot. Lost as much, due to a failure to see and understand how things work in practice and for trusting other people a way too much. Remember that climax moment from Interstellar (probably worth watching the whole movie)? Please give an example how such a "street game" would look for you with all the parameters and what you would expect the result to be Does coin tossing count? If it counts, then you can start out with the example presented in the OP. A simple setup, known for literally millennia. You have 100 dollars and I have 100 dollars, the base bet is 1 dollar. Someone has to bust and relatively fast at that. Pretty much a "street game" if you ask me, and nowhere near a "zero-sum game" (as you mean it), Certainly worth trying it out with your friends, to feel it with your skin in the game, so to speak As long as your bankroll is finite, the staked amount is not zero, and remains the same (e.g. 1 dollar), on an infinitely long timeframe you will either bust or win provided the same terms are honored by your opponent too. Is all this a realistic scenario? No. Players that are in profit will leave the game before it ends. Now you will say: but, street rules. Yes, street rules, but no sane person will play against you To begin with, no sane person will gamble on the street. Yes, I was basically insane back in the day to gamble on the street if this is what you want to hear. But I was young, stupid and stubborn as youths can sometimes be. You can't leave while in profit unless the other side agrees or you have agreed beforehand upon the time when it is allowed to take dough and run. Indeed, if you could force your way out you would, but no one would be playing with you again |
|
|
|
A bunch of wily and artful gamblers can slowly but surely drain a casino's bankroll empty, and drive it out of business without any luck involved. How? There is no way to "surely" drain a casino's bankroll, unless that casino is offering flawed games that can be cheated, such as blackjack with only one or two decks and not clamping down on card counting No, I don't mean anything to that tune I mostly refer to dice as I'm best familiar with this game and how things work in practice with it. If we have one casino (more or less provably fair) and 1000 players, all of them using a very safe martingale setup, within a limited time span, say, a year, they will drain the casino bankroll dry, even if some of them are set to bust based on their probabilities. In other words, their combined profits will exceed their combined losses, and it can and most certainly will be enough to drive the casino out of business. The keyword here is variance, and in this case it will be playing against the house and its edge It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day A zero sum game is a game where the net gain and net losses by all participants is balanced - hence the sum of all gains and all losses is zero. Gambling is indeed a zero sum game, since the gains of the player are perfectly balanced by the losses of the casino, and vice versa. If my bankroll is $100 and I go bust, then I have lost $100, but as the casino has gained that $100, the sum is zero. It is a zero sum game This is not how the term has been used here. It is used in the context of no one winning in the very long run on square odds |
|
|
|
whatever the game is that doesn't rely entirely on luck,
because it was very annoying for a time.
yesterday I was playing dice with a 50% chance of winning and throwing 8 times and never won at all, it was very strange where the odds were 50:50 and from the 8 throws I never won.
8 times in a row is still alright, but definitely frustrating. In the beginning when I was doing just the old double up method betting on roulette. I ended up going broke because it came 14 times in a row black Both 8 and 14 times in a row are quite common with these odds Anyone planning on using martingale and actually earning something with it in a consistent and reliable manner should be ready to see and survive 20 losing rolls in a row at the very least on a 50% win chance. Lower odds (i.e. higher multipliers) require resistance to even longer losing streaks. It is outliers, i.e. random events, that are going to take you out, and you should be particularly aware of their existence and certainty |
|
|
|
Ok, so I have a finite bankroll of 100,000,000,000,000 USD and I stake 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it with every bet. My Stake is divisible into any imagineable amount - it can get as low as I want or as I need it to be, if I get very unlucky and lose 100000000000000000000000000000000 bets in a row. How can I bust ? As long as your bankroll is finite, the staked amount is not zero, and remains the same (e.g. 1 dollar), on an infinitely long timeframe you will either bust or win provided the same terms are honored by your opponent too Yes, this is a correct statement. And now ? Now let's wait for other folks to come to terms with this It's against proper money management though, since when you are down to 1 USD, you shouldn't stake that 1 USD on one bet/toss. And with "my" case I can't go broke, which is more realistic imo - the staking with % of your bankroll that is. Always staking the same amount regardless of your bankroll is not what any gambler should do If we thoroughly follow this logic through, then you shouldn't be tossing coins in the first place How come? Cause if you assume proper money management, you should assume it for both sides, right? Then the whole endeavor becomes an exercise in futility whether your goal is to win or not to bust as there are only two outcomes possible, a total win or a complete loss. In practice, though, you typically can't stake less than the base amount previously agreed upon, and you can't leave when in profit either (street gambling rules). So someone has to lose and accept it I admit, that I have trouble to understand what you are trying to achieve with this and the other thread. This is so far from reality, that it's just theoretical discussion, which is of course fine and interesting too. But it seems to me, that you are trying to prove something, what will have no added value to you, since it's not realistic to happen in real world Ever gambled on the street? This topic has everything to do with how things are going to pan out there. And you are in for a big surprise if you expect "a zero-sum game" there. It is also called "learning it the hard way". Can anything be more practical and realistic? |
|
|
|
For example, a player with $10,000 going up against somebody with $10 on a 50/50 odds table, the latter is most likely to first to bust—simply because he only gets 10 attempts vs 10,000 for the other guy That's an extension for the case of different bankrolls And that's also the reason why an extremely wealthy casino (or way wealthier than all its players combined) doesn't need a house edge at all to stay profitable. But that's a point of discussion in this thread. The present topic is a sort of spin-off of that thread to deal with a certain misconception that was revealed there Ok, so I have a finite bankroll of 100,000,000,000,000 USD and I stake 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it with every bet. My Stake is divisible into any imagineable amount - it can get as low as I want or as I need it to be, if I get very unlucky and lose 100000000000000000000000000000000 bets in a row. How can I bust ? As long as your bankroll is finite, the staked amount is not zero, and remains the same (e.g. 1 dollar), on an infinitely long timeframe you will either bust or win provided the same terms are honored by your opponent too Even if I have only 0.01 USD left and I always stake 50%, the next bet would be 0.005, next bet 0.0025 etc.. I can't go broke, it's not possible This is a separate case which needs to be dealt with independently (read, it is a different case) |
|
|
|
As this topic has shown, there are many people who erroneously assume that on a 50-50 win chance and no house edge in a game of chance, there'll be no clear winner on an infinite timescale, i.e. until someone busts with no time limits imposed (a kind of "a zero-sum game"). In fact, I was rather surprised with this view because it is pretty simple to prove the opposite, which I'm going to do below For simplicity's sake, let's consider a simple game of coin tossing. Two players are staking 1 dollar at each toss of a coin. It should be obvious without any further explanation that if they have only 1 dollar, one of them is going to bust straight away. If they have 10 dollars each, it will take a little bit longer but one player will still bust in the end, and it was estimated that it is going to happen under just 200 tosses on average It doesn't take a lot of brain power to see the overall dynamic, and draw a reasonable conclusion that it doesn't really matter what fraction of the bankroll the two players start off with since on a long enough timescale one of them is still set to bust. It could be further generalized that on an infinite timeframe gambling on a 50% win chance with a finite bankroll inevitably ends in a bust of one of the players. This is what I would call a statistical certainty And this is in stark contrast to what I've seen people claim. So what is your opinion?
To avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, I changed the part "it doesn't really matter what fraction of the bankroll the two players stake at each toss" to "it doesn't really matter what fraction of the bankroll the two players start off with" |
|
|
|
Трейдинг вообще вещь не однозначная. И он не бывает только в плюс. Но в итоге хороший трейдер больше зарабатывает чем сливает. Это целая и холодно кровная наука. Которая может покариться вовсе далеко не всем. Обычных хомячков и не опытных она просто съедает. Для тех кто хочет начать, сначала научитесь. Иначе вы там просто за тем, что бы отдавать свои деньги.
Научиться может каждый, но я считаю что в трейдинге важнее психология и дисциплина. Так же обязательно нужно трезво работать, а не так как некоторые в нетрезвом состоянии начинают сливаться. Тоже считаю, что психология стоит на первом месте для трейдера. Без нужного психологического состояния всегда будет слив Это даже не столько состояние, сколько склад личности как таковой Условно можно разделить людей на две группы (это чисто условное деление исключительно для пояснения, а не для деления на хороших и плохих) -- одни люди сначала делают, а потом думают, а другие сначала думают, а потом делают. Причем речь идет не абстрактных понятиях, а о поведении в критических ситуациях. Именно на таких моментах и проявляется натура человека, в том числе и в трейдинге. Кто-то действует чисто импульсивно, а кто-то подключает свой опыт |
|
|
|
My opinion about the house edge:
I think the house edge an extra opportunity for the casino owners of getting more profit from the casinos. And most of the players also take it easily, So why casino owners don't take this opportunity? They always looking for profits. So they will not remove the house edge from their site until the players start to avoid these casinos(which has house edge) And the house edge of 1% seems to be a well established and widely accepted figure I'm sure that wealthy casinos could make it even lower without incurring any losses, but it would likely raise unnecessary suspicions and concerns about the legitimacy of their operation. Really, we are all so used to the house edge that if we were to see a casino boasting a zero house edge, it would instantly trigger alarm bells among the gambling folks. And other casinos would be just as quick and happy to point a finger and then pull a trigger. So that's how the house edge came to be and will stay around |
|
|
|
Я бы сказал наоборот. Как раз в трейдинге гораздо больше шансов заработать на крипте, чем при холде, но лишь при условии наличия опыта и прибыльной стратегии При наличии опыта и знаний, можно зарабатывать на чем угодно и где угодно (Ваш Капитан) Ну вот, например, кто-то захомячил несколько тысяч битков году так в 2010 за копейки, а то и вообще задаром (понимание, инстинкт, озарение, просто повезло -- выбрать по вкусу), и тупо держал их на своем ванильном кошельке. А если бы воровал (зачеркнуто) торговал, то не факт, что не проторговался бы в итоге, или вообще монеты не отобрали, сначала на Гоксе, а потом на Вексе |
|
|
|
Marketing stuff is always been part because you wont succeed if you do lack exposure so its just normal for them to consider out on spreading awareness of its existence.
All of businesses out there will surely consider on allocating budget on this matter.What differs them is on how they do improve the site as they do operate way further.
Only the best one would sustain for long term aspect.In the case of Wolf.bet where comparing the current site into its past, i can say that theres really an improvement.
That is why I do not understand when people say " casinos should be making profit, it is technically impossible for them to lose money" and not consider all the operational costs. I mean sure the gambling part could be making profit with rare occasions of gamblers winning a lot, but there must be some big losses to cover that as well so all in all casino part should be profitable no matter what in the long term It all comes down to proper bankroll management There are math models for this. Even though I'm not familiar with them personally, I've seen discussions on the topic around here. If we, for simplicity's sake, consider just one currency, then the max bet (win) amount is a simple function of the bankroll size (with a margin for safety and daily fluctuations, indeed). So when someone hits the max win, the casino still has some dough to go on |
|
|
|
It can't possibly be a zero sum game for the simple reason someone is set to bust at the end of the day How so ? If I play with 0.1% stake (or whatever) of my bankroll for each "bet", I can never go broke. And with no house edge, over a big enough sample size, my bankroll will be the same as to when I started playing It's actually quite the opposite I'm not sure what you mean by "a big enough sample size" (and while we are at it, there are issues with understanding what you mean by "a zero sum game" here as well). If by "never" you mean never in your life, then I would agree with you. If, on the other hand, you mean never as never on an infinite timeframe, then it is just a matter of time until someone busts, you or your opponent. You can bet 1 dollar out of 10 dollars and bust in a hundred bets, or you can bet 1 dollar out of 1 million dollars and still bust at a certain point in the future, no matter how distant it could be (...) but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player. If you disallow Martingale and everyone plays with a proper money management*, there are no winners here, it's a zero sum game. Doesn't matter if the casino has gazillion times the bankroll of all their players combined It is not a "zero sum game" in the way you mean it ("no winners here"). To repeat, on an infinite timeframe with finite bankrolls there'll be enough variance to take out everyone but the winner (as the winner takes it all). And someone with a bigger bankroll (read, a casino) has a higher chance to be that winner at the end of it since once you bust, it's a gameover for you (and your money) |
|
|
|
In order for a casino to be successful and profitable it is a must to have the house edge implemented.In the Op theory that the larger bankroll makes you stay longer online and play longer is not true in all cases.Some player can be smart and win a lot in poker making this casino lose all its bankroll There's no house edge in poker In poker rooms you play against other (allegedly) human players. In that case the casino just subtracts some percentage from the amount taken home by the winner. With that said, I agree that a smart player can take on a house edge provided by a bigger bankroll in exactly the same way as he can do on a regular house edge, and ultimately drain the casino's bankroll empty. It doesn't happen in real life for the sole reason most players are not reasonable at all (pardon the pun) |
|
|
|
Let's imagine an extremely wealthy casino whose bankroll size by far exceeds the bankrolls of all its players combined. Will this casino need a house edge to earn profits? As I see it, the house edge would make for more revenue flow, but it will still be making profits with a zero house edge simply because it will be able to stay in the game longer than any other player.
Why Microsoft is not stopping about catching pirated copy of windows even they are one of the world's biggest corporate and their founder is top richest of world for consistently more than a decade I don't really know I don't know about how things have been for the last decade or so, but before that they were famous for very lax policies toward software piracy. As I can see, quite a few people in this thread come up with examples without checking or just caring about whether their examples have any bearing on real circumstances or events. Regardless, Microsoft or its policies against pirated copies of Windows have nothing to do with the topic raised here Bill Gates is ready to donate millions to billion dollars for philanthropy purposes but never think about forgiving a licence issue which costs ~$150 We have already agreed that Microsoft was a poor analogy, up to a point of not being an analogy at all. But you are welcome to suggest a better one |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
