Still, so say you wanted to turn 127 BTC into 135 BTC...something like that....would it be better then trying to bet once at say 95% or something? Not sure...
To turn 127 into 135 with a single bet, you would have to use a 93.133333% bet: >>> 99 / (135/127.0) 93.13333333333333 That obviously has a 93.133333% chance of success. To do the same thing with the 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 martingale, we need to play (and win) 8 times. We know that the chance of winning any single time is: >>> 1 - 0.505**7 0.991623942561664 so the chance of succeeding 8 times in a row is: >>> (1 - 0.505**7) ** 8 0.934923407802361 or 93.49234% So yes, you're still slightly better off (93.49% vs 93.13%) to run the 1,2,4,...,64 martingale 8 times in a row. In fact it's better to use the 1 BTC martingale over and over for all profits up to 11 BTC, but for 12 BTC a single large bet is better: >>> p=8; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (93.13333333333333, 93.4923407802361) >>> p=9; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (92.4485294117647, 92.70924356381637) >>> p=10; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (91.77372262773721, 91.93270561466116) >>> p=11; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (91.1086956521739, 91.16267199197111) >>> p=12; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (90.45323741007194, 90.39908821513419) Edit: By an amazing coincidence the expected loss per game is exactly 1% of the amount you expect to risk, which is 7.21 BTC per "game":
So that's weird. The martingale risks an average 7.21 per game, whereas the large bet risks 127. 127 / 7.21 = 17.6. So the martingale risks 17 times less, on average. So why does running it just 12 times give a lower chance of success? That seems wrong to me. Maybe it's because failing the 12'th martingale leaves you with the 11 you won from the first 11 successes, whereas failing the single large bet leaves you with nothing. Still, so say you wanted to turn 127 BTC into 135 BTC...something like that....would it be better then trying to bet once at say 95% or something? Not sure...
To turn 127 into 135 with a single bet, you would have to use a 93.133333% bet: >>> 99 / (135/127.0) 93.13333333333333 That obviously has a 93.133333% chance of success. To do the same thing with the 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 martingale, we need to play (and win) 8 times. We know that the chance of winning any single time is: >>> 1 - 0.505**7 0.991623942561664 so the chance of succeeding 8 times in a row is: >>> (1 - 0.505**7) ** 8 0.934923407802361 or 93.49234% So yes, you're still slightly better off (93.49% vs 93.13%) to run the 1,2,4,...,64 martingale 8 times in a row. In fact it's better to use the 1 BTC martingale over and over for all profits up to 11 BTC, but for 12 BTC a single large bet is better: >>> p=8; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (93.13333333333333, 93.4923407802361) >>> p=9; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (92.4485294117647, 92.70924356381637) >>> p=10; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (91.77372262773721, 91.93270561466116) >>> p=11; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (91.1086956521739, 91.16267199197111) >>> p=12; (99 / ((127+p)/127.0), (1 - 0.505**7) ** p * 100) (90.45323741007194, 90.39908821513419) Edit: By an amazing coincidence the expected loss per game is exactly 1% of the amount you expect to risk, which is 7.21 BTC per "game":
So that's weird. The martingale risks an average 7.21 per game, whereas the large bet risks 127. 127 / 7.21 = 17.6. So the martingale risks 17 times less, on average. So why does running it just 12 times give a lower chance of success? That seems wrong to me. Maybe it's because failing the 12'th martingale leaves you with the 11 you won from the first 11 successes, whereas failing the single large bet leaves you with nothing. Passionate calculations What would be interesting to know is the percentage of the amount of BTC risked where doing the martingale has the same expected loss than playing the whole amount in one shot |
|
|
|
For really long term, gold.
For short term, bitcoin.
Funnily enough, I would say the opposite. Bitcoin is better for really long term investing imo(buy and hold) and gold is alright for short term fear in the financial world. It's kinda weird. I think my short and long term opinion will change with time and how things go. Now I'd say long term gold, short term btc. But if in two years bitcoin is widespread, it would probably be the opposite. If you believe in Bitcoin you will think it will appreciate in value in long term, you may want to sell it after a huge paper profit in a few years but you shouldn't own any if you don't think you are a positive expectation in the long run The Gold market is heavily manipulated, Gold is a scarce ressource that has been used as a store of value for thousands of years and is valuable for its proprieties as well so it will appreciate tremendously when the western financial crisis unfold |
|
|
|
I think you can add most countries in the world,Argentina are not alone the economies are all drowning in debt, all they can do is print  Not all; countries with natural ressources, hard workers, low taxes, and small governmnt will come out on top and they are........? Some have one quality, some two or three but probably none has it all; the more they have the best they will fair USA has some natural ressources and part of its population is hard working but they have a HUGE government to support and they are burning the night oil printing The states have a lot of positive but huge negatives and unsustainable liabilities that will sadly undermine all the potential greatness; it used to be the land of the opportunity, freedom and free market and it became something else The fall of the USD will hurt most of the world but when the dust settles, China and other strong economies will come out on top; they will be the USA that used to be In the 50's one good salary was enough to support a whole family, a full time nanny without any debts; in the 70's americans were going in Europe and lived like kings; now two good salaries are usually not enough to live really confortably |
|
|
|
Hard to say which way bitcoin will go.
Remember, during the last crisis, even gold and oil went down quite a bit.
Gold has been going up during the years leading to the house crisis, what was a bit surprising to some was to see the USD going up as well What do you mean by the USD going up - the USD index, i.e. dollar going up against other major currencies? Yes So, as long as USDX is not going down, treasuries are ok (i.e. the debt can keep on growing) as well as the U.S. economy, right? Hypothetically. This could mean everyone is killing their currency faster than the USA. However, countries with the exchange rate being lowered are now at an advantage. As they export goods, they can pay their employees more, and 80% of the time the purchasing power of the currency stays the same, unless something REALLY goes to crap. If they start paying their employees more, that would cause inflation, and the purchasing power of the currency will not stay the same, especially if this process takes on (future expectations on inflation would invariably kick in). Inflation is the increase of the money supply, the increase of prices is a consequence of inflation and salaries are a price If there was another major global financial crisis like we recently saw I think it would be almost certain that money would flow into bitcoin and we would see large gains in value. When the capital flows shift in a flight to safety things like bitcoin and gold are very attractive.
Roosevelt had already expropriated gold in the USA during the Great Depression. So I would be very cautious about precious metals as a safe haven in case of a serious financial crisis. They might not try to take it away from you this time, but could make it illegal to trade, for example (or take to other not so drastic measures). Gold is manipulated and can be regulated like everything else : interest rates, wages, human capital, real estate, natural ressources companies ect. |
|
|
|
i still can't get over how many people were thinking the coins would go for below market...  The result of the auction had to be positive because it showed whales were interested in Bitcoin and it was good press as well Its July? And no $10 coins? How can this be, the prophet was wrong?? Many people have been wrong on Bitcoin and many people are still wrong but we are getting there |
|
|
|
I am sure in good time the real winners will come out. At least the losers will mention what they bid and did not win, but I'm pretty sure the winners will want the limelight, considering how all the major financial news sources are reporting on it.
The price didn't go to 644$ randomnly  The auction winners may be able to turn a paper profit soon but they probably have an other plan in head |
|
|
|
Yeah, I thought that was a little odd too. It wasn't me taking his coins after all. It's the dark side of the gambler's fallacy. Some people think they are 'due' and if it doesn't happen they think someone is to blame. In general you can never eliminate the variance completely unless you turn it into a carnival game. Perhaps if you do it again you can raise the house edge and reward the investors who stay in for the long haul and don't run when there is a big downturn. With a bigger HE there is also less variance. But if you can't kick yourself for not having a 2% HE, as the threat never goes away. Look at Blackjack. I know that if you use basic strategy you can get under 1% house edge with most games, but many people don't use basic strategy. But more importantly people don't play their bankroll through one time, they gamble repeatedly with their winnings. Nevada statewide made 11.87% of the money put down on it's 2,703 blackjack tables winning $1.084 billion in the last 12 months. But even with that kind of advantage, you still have whales that turn individual casinos upside down once in a while. You can eliminate variance; in some states the state owned lottery redistribute 20-40% of the sums played for scratch tickets and there is a fixed number of winning tickets : for exemple one small win per 30 tickets and one big win per 300tickets |
|
|
|
les plafonds tiennent assez longtemps ... alors que les creux sont plus volatiles (1 jours max ... jusqu'à 3 jours si on a de la chance).
une vrai valeur, ce bitcoin !
644$ sur Bitstamp ça fait plaisir! On est revenu très haut; 700$ ne parait pas si loin et on pourrait voir le marché s'exciter et le prix gonfler quand on commence à se rapprocher de 1000$ Ca va être une fin d'année intéressante |
|
|
|
Well at the least the Algerians are giving the Germans a run for their money Wouldn't say they are off yet although that Algerian or was it a German offside would have made them the lead Still an interesting game though looking at the halftime highlights  Teams don't arrive at this stage by pure luck; actually we have seen the outsiders win or almost win from the beginning of this World Cup; for exemple, Nigeria played very well against France |
|
|
|
RIP JD. you were my inspiration  I will miss JD a lot. However, their departure does give you a real opportunity, especially since you allow investment. I think some things like the 1/2/3% pools may intimidate people, but at the same time, if they are baffled by something like that (which you do explain) you probably don't want them as investors on your site anyway. Good Luck! 1/2/3% is confusing thus bad even if the idea is smart; the main problem is the trust; getting deposits of hundreds of BTC is not easy is you are not enough trusted dooglus and his team were apparently trusted because they were known by the ones in the know |
|
|
|
I would bet on Algeria, the safest bet in your life The Algerian team is not bad but it will be more than hard to beat the German team that should eat them alive then eat the French Betting on Argentina to take it all |
|
|
|
I think you can add most countries in the world,Argentina are not alone the economies are all drowning in debt, all they can do is print Not all; countries with natural ressources, hard workers, low taxes, and small governmnt will come out on top and they are........? Some have one quality, some two or three but probably none has it all; the more they have the best they will fair USA has some natural ressources and part of its population is hard working but they have a HUGE government to support |
|
|
|
Bloody hell, France take the lead near the end. I'll be gutted if Nigeria go out down to one goal, especially having had a goal disallowed. Come on Nigeria, attack!
Was a tough one for Nigeria - they were doing so well! But at the end France is much better team then Nigeria so they won good 2 - 0  France was dominating only for 10minutes when they scored with a lucky head and then they very luckily got a second goal my prediction for today match is France will win this match in last minutes ! i think after end of match score will be 1 by France and o by Nigeria . but today i want Nigeria will win this match because team is performing well today!
Good guess |
|
|
|
It would be nice if PD make deposit no need confirmation but withdraw are needed 1 confirmation like the old time  What's the problem in allowing instant deposits if you need many confirmations to withdraw? Is there any possible negative consequences? Still I suppose wiaitng for 1 confirmation isnt too bad but being allowed to play straight away was great. Yes there are. Coz then some bots deposit, and bet all in if they win they wait for 1 confirm to cashout , if they lose they double spend that deposit , and it never gets confrirmed. So pd loses that deposit. This is what happened in early June to make Stunna changed his mind to only credit the deposits after 1 confirmation. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg7208887#msg7208887Was this coming from those accounts with random character names making a single bet of .1 (or however much it was if there were more that weren't on the high rollers list)?
Not too sure. Quite possibly. If I'm thinking along the right lines I think the attack have gone like this: 1. User 'deposits' by sending a payment to an address 2. User bets with that deposits 3. a) If it wins, let the deposit confirm b) If it loses, attempt a double spend to an alternate address that's owned by the user 4. Rinse and repeat, to win. Would this be the right idea Stunna? Pretty much the idea behind it The risk is very low to allow whitelisted accounts or accounts that bet a lot to get instant deposits BTW did anyone noticed more betting on PD since JD closed? |
|
|
|
BTW, how much BTC is there that cannot be sent to an emergency address or will not be sent soon to users that cannot access their account because of F2A?
I've not counted that up. I don't have a list of accounts which are having trouble with 2FA, I just use the ticket system. I trust that the affected users will remind me when it's time. I checked the top 20 outstanding balances yesterday and was happy to see that 19 of them have emergency withdrawal addresses specified, so that's a good sign. Oh so you probably won't be "stuck" with that many BTC left after all if you use the dangerous tool of the emergency address; maybe you can only send to those who made a payment with the emergency address or received a substantial amount on it within the last month or two so you know the investor probably still have access to the address Then the rest of the money could be send to an escrow as explained in my previous post |
|
|
|
Shouldn't you answer with A QUESTION and start a sentence
with a capital letter?
I'm sorry, isn't the internet a free country? I have to pay some 70$/month for it, you call that free? Will it be free&fast everywhere with google loon http://www.google.com/loon/?Who in the right mind would use google services? Everyone who enjoy free innovative great services, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Today I became a FULL MEMBER. I have changed my sig to reflect my change..Thank you everyone!
You became a Full Member June 24 and you don't have to tell us but thanks Should be a Senior Member 58/14=4,.. so 5 times 2weeks 10weeks so September 2 |
|
|
|
What a save by Nigerian goalkeeper Enyeama!
It was right on him though Nigeria is playing well; they were @ 8 to win which was juicy when you see they are playing as well as the French at the moment |
|
|
|
Wohooo!!! We are goin up!!! PREPARE 660 TRAINS PLEASE !!!! Of course we are going to 660$ but if we go down it is going to hurt many people that will have bought with margin |
|
|
|
I don't believe a man who has gained 3M USD would ask an advice about investments on forum I second that motion I disagree as it may be part of its due diligence on the matter since bitcointalk obviously has some very good Bitcoin experts |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
