Yeah, the first time I saw these autobetting options on a dice site, I thought the operators were dumb or something... but apparently it makes sense.

I've explained it to people, however dumb, if they do not completely believe in magic.

Now if there is someone who actually holds the belief that after a 10000 fair coin tosses that have all been tails, it is more probable that the next one is heads... I'd like to hear if there are any. I promise you won't be bashed for it or anything, these things are not intuitive to too many people.

Thank you! And yes, that much I know... but I might be getting something wrong there; those you mentioned are standard, right? I don't know where I could give that much stuff on to the stack to use ROLL for example, can I give many different items at once to be held on the stack as separate pieces of data? I guess it's just the lack of examples on how to use that stuff. No collections yet? Anyway, thanks a lot. I will keep looking, maybe I'll get something.

It is late and all but I think I could not find these answers on my own that well. I took a look at the tx scripting possibilities and some fun things popped into my mind, but as of now I think it's not possible to get a chunk of data and compare the first 3 bytes of the data to the next 3 bytes, for example.

Am I correct in that and also in that it could be done with the disabled features such as splicing?
Are those features planned to be used on the mainnet later on?

That would allow for some cool things, to me at least... but the wiki page is kind of difficult to navigate. Is there a clearer presentation somewhere, like a simplified version with the functions and some visual aid? There is a possibility for an additional stack, what else... a manual would be nice. I guess the flow control instructions should be simple enough, for one, but I really can't figure out what kind of input it needs and from where. Some examples would go a long way.

I am sure some pretty things have been done with it, I would be interested in seeing a collection and some interesting scripts people have devised, even if with the disabled features.

Thanks for anyone who can answer.

While I am waiting you to answer - I'd like you to, I have to point out that you seem to be thinking of "statistics" as some kind of a mystical power that will "balance things out". Statistics have no will. Statistics will behave in a certain manner though - you will see that 1000 losses is not very probable. But it is a 50-50 chance, that streak of 1000 losses, be it "0000000...." is just as probable as "10110011100011..." or any other sequence of wins/losses. Of course those cases where you both lose AND win some of the bets are more numerous, there are almost 2^1000 that kind of sequences, and only one sequence where you lose all bets. None of this means, that after a streak of  999 losses, the final, 1000th one will be more probably a win. Both are of equal probability. I would like to hear you simply answer yes or no to the question I posed, disregarding additional arguments, if I may ask you to do that.

The statistics will not balance it out. Before you are to lose 1000 times in a row, you would be in a situation where you have lost 999 times in a row. Why did that happen then? Losing 1000 times in a row is just 50 % less probable, exactly the same probability again that the usual one coin flip goes heads or tails.

Your theory is flawed, to illustrate you this in the easiest way I can - trust me this is for the best of your understanding too - can you answer the following question: Imagine I was with you and I threw a fair coin 100 thousand times. Incredibly, every time it was tails. Would it be better to bet on heads the next time?

A yes/no will do.

This is a nice thread, will be helping others when I have the time. Winning one of those cool things would be even better than buying one.

It does not offer any protection. If the game works like it should, and it will or it would be bankrupt by now, the events are distinct. You lose 5 times in a row before betting big; so what? The next events do not depend on those, you still have the same chance to lose.

Let's imagine you throw a coin 10 times and get 10 heads; on the 11th, is it more probable that you get heads or that you will get tails?

Exactly this. You will find trustworthy people there.

Please let's not confuse newbies anymore with the bitcoin/buttcoin stuff, they are different.

Does that really matter, martingale will never work in real life where you have limited funds and limited maximum bets. If you want better than negative expected value then you must have unlimited funds and no limit. If you have those, you might just as well raise your bet by a hundredfold each time you lose.

These two enterprising gentlemen indeed seem to have vaguely similar business models. Such a delight to my eye these threads; these men I tell you, are not any ordinary scammers but real confidence artists of utmost sophistication. I will be happy to invest my money to support their careers. How did they come up with all this? I mean I've been on these forums for a long time and I thought Pirate was laughable at best but this is just... pathetic.

Maybe the forum moderation policy should be rethough. This is getting ridiculous.
Edit: This is ridiculous.

Anyway, this is such a nasty little game - I like the idea. If I had bitcoin handy now I would have tried it. I will at some point, though. I think that the people early on in the thread misunderstood the game, thinking it's only about which address get the most bitcoins. That would of course be pretty pointless and kind of a catastrophic game... with the increasing fee it's just really cool.

How is that? He is only giving more money to the winning side, whatever side it will be. Losers will be losing money as they would anyway but the winning side gets that much more. I think your claim is pointless unless you can justify it somehow, but you can't. Your English is just fine though.

I revised the rules and made them more clear to attract more players. If you feel that the game has a significant flaw for you, please speak out! I want to create a fair game for all.

Thank you.

Thanks, it is much appreciated!

I also edited the original post for some clarity and I do feel the game is vary fair now. It indeed is provably fair if everyone decides to keep their exact numbers secret until the end, but it is not a problem if not. I think the biggest bets would be hashed anyway.

It is fair now, isn't it? Well, I can not rule out the possibility that I might cheat by looking at the plaintext bets but I want to continue this and keep this exciting and more importantly (I think), most bets will be hashed.

So you just select how many numbers you want, pay the amount of mBTC and post you numbers here in the thread - SHA256 hashed with a secret string only you know. Then at the end of the round, when no new participants are let in, you reveal the string that contains your numbers and produces the pre-published hash.

Starting posts: 203
Bitcoin address: 1yLVMtLHS4XAQtCrpZxGaXBmEbqwhv9p1

Thank you.

But you can take the house edge into account by not doubling your bets, but making them, say, 2.2 times higher each time you lose.

Do you think there is some limit to that? Like, any retarded people can be stripped of their money because, well, they're stupid?