Don't play SatoshiDice

[Meizirkki]

I also won some 27btc with martingale strategy before my luck left me and took 12btc with it

[Nolo]

Surely OP is just trolling.   No one can really be that stupid, can they?

Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at statistics.

Absolutely, but OP was implying that SatoshiDice is a scam.  It isn't a scam.  It is fair with a house edge.  You know the odds going into it.  Some people win, most people lose. 

[kokojie]

I won about 100 BTC on satoshidice so far. The house edge doesn't mean you won't win, it's just that out of 100 people, 50% will walk away losers, 48% will walk away winners, and
2% goes to the house. You just hope to be the 48%.

[dooglus]

I won about 100 BTC on satoshidice so far. The house edge doesn't mean you won't win, it's just that out of 100 people, 50% will walk away losers, 48% will walk away winners, and
2% goes to the house. You just hope to be the 48%.

That is exactly why I don't like the expression "98% breakeven odds".  It leads people to believe what you just said.

The 2% house edge doesn't mean that 48% of people will be winners.  It means that in the long term everyone will lose 2% of everything they bet.  ie. there is 0% chance that you will break even if you play long enough.  In the short term, the percentage of people who will be winners depends on what game they're playing.  For example if 100 people play "lessthan 64000" once each then the vast majority of them will be small winners.  And a few will be big losers.  And if the same 100 people play "lessthan 1" once each then it's very likely that all 100 of them will lose their bet.  Whatever the house edge is.

In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading.

[Nolo]

In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading.

I agree with that.  I've thought that since the first time I saw that statement. 

[fcmatt]

I won about 100 BTC on satoshidice so far. The house edge doesn't mean you won't win, it's just that out of 100 people, 50% will walk away losers, 48% will walk away winners, and
2% goes to the house. You just hope to be the 48%.

That is exactly why I don't like the expression "98% breakeven odds".  It leads people to believe what you just said.

The 2% house edge doesn't mean that 48% of people will be winners.  It means that in the long term everyone will lose 2% of everything they bet.  ie. there is 0% chance that you will break even if you play long enough.  In the short term, the percentage of people who will be winners depends on what game they're playing.  For example if 100 people play "lessthan 64000" once each then the vast majority of them will be small winners.  And a few will be big losers.  And if the same 100 people play "lessthan 1" once each then it's very likely that all 100 of them will lose their bet.  Whatever the house edge is.

In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading.

hm. this is odd. someone with actual math skills on this forum. ban him! ;-)

i guess that is why gambling sites are successful. everyone thinks they are somehow special and not like those "other guys".

the more you play the more likely you will be in the red. it is as simple as that.
the best defense is not to play.
the people preaching on about the martingale strategy just make me chuckle. once again they think they are "special".

[sgravina]

In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading.

I agree with that.  I've thought that since the first time I saw that statement. 

I never noticed that statement.  It is wrong.  You don't have a 98% chance of breaking even.  In fact the probability of breaking even is very low.

The 98% is your most likely return on a collection of bets.  You also have a very high chance of returning 90% or 110%.  A small chance of returning 52% or 148%.  Your most likely return on a collection of bets is a bell curve centered on 98%.

I've quit satoshi dice.  Haven't touched it in over a month.  The one thing the numbers don't reflect is the gamblers physiology.  If your up you bet till you lose.  If you lose you try to win it back.  Both effects cause further loss.  That's how it worked with me.

Sam

[sgravina]

Go here: http://src.satoshidice.com/rev2/

And click on the "Leaderboard" tab. You'll see the people who have played the most, and whether they have won or lost, and how much. Many lose, many win. It is gambling after all, and there is a small house edge, so the average player will lose net-net, but some win alot and some lose alot, and that's how gambling works

Interesting, but I think I'd rather see the leaderboard sorted by net profit, not by amount staked.  Better still, make the column headings clickable so I can sort by whatever field I want to.

Great idea, leaderboard is now sorted by net profit (you might need to hard refresh).

If your going to show the leader board that way you should also have a loser board that shows the biggest losers.  That is more balanced.  The leader board shows lots of winners but the loser board would warn you of an equally possible outcome.

[enmaku]

Back before I started blogging mostly about Bitcoin, I had a short series on all the "systems" crazy people come to my hometown of Las Vegas with and why none of them really work. I covered Martingale betting, why it doesn't work in the long-term despite often working in the very short term and how it's similar to some of the larger-scale economic games that the banker assholes always seem to be playing.

It was a fun series to write - I might just bring it back between Bitcoin posts

In all seriousness, though, I work in the gaming industry and we do refer to it as a "idiot tax" or a "math tax" quite often - though there is a preferred description when speaking to those outside the industry: It's entertainment, plain and simple. You'd pay money to go to the movies, you'd pay money to play a video game, there's an element of excitement involved and depending on the amounts bet and your particular financial situation it can be a lot of fun to gamble. Despite knowing how poor my odds are, I occasionally play craps or feed a few dollars into a slot machine just because it's fun. I fully expect to lose my money, but that's ok because I'm paying for my entertainment and I'm aware of that choice - anything I win is a bonus.

Sadly there are some for whom that style of play isn't enough - as with any activity there is a dark compulsive side to betting and it's easy to go too far so if you've got a compulsive streak I would agree with the OP, don't play SatoshiDice or participate in any sort of gambling if you're the type who will lose your house over it. Everyone else I'm pretty sure is aware they're being set up to lose and can make their own decisions about their own entertainment.

[dooglus]

[...]if you've got a compulsive streak I would agree with the OP, don't play SatoshiDice or participate in any sort of gambling if you're the type who will lose your house over it.

Another way of putting it:

Don't gamble; but if you're going to gamble, play satoshi dice because at least that way you'll lose more slowly.

[dooglus]

Back before I started blogging mostly about Bitcoin, I had a short series on all the "systems" crazy people come to my hometown of Las Vegas with and why none of them really work.

I somehow managed to miss that series, and your entire blog until now.

I subscribed to the RSS feed, and tried to visit the "Everybody’s Got a System: Arbitrage Betting" article that's listed in the RSS feed.  It gave me an error:

FeedBurner could not deliver this feed to you because of the specific problem listed below:
Feed Address: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CodingInMySleep/~3/LYfTV8GYkcw/

HTTP Error (Code) and Message: (404) null

Then I find the series on your blog, via http://codinginmysleep.com/series/everybodys-got-a-system/ - but it's not listed there either.  That page only shows 2 posts in the series.

[odolvlobo]

[...]if you've got a compulsive streak I would agree with the OP, don't play SatoshiDice or participate in any sort of gambling if you're the type who will lose your house over it.

Another way of putting it:

Don't gamble; but if you're going to gamble, play satoshi dice because at least that way you'll lose more slowly.

I don't agree. I like to gamble. It's fun. I think of it as expensive entertainment. My favorite casino game is craps. The others are boring, except BlackJack, which takes too much work. I like poker too, but I suck so I stay away.

Anyway, I would say don't gamble unless you are ok with losing all your money.

[Littleshop]

I won about 100 BTC on satoshidice so far. The house edge doesn't mean you won't win, it's just that out of 100 people, 50% will walk away losers, 48% will walk away winners, and
2% goes to the house. You just hope to be the 48%.

That is exactly why I don't like the expression "98% breakeven odds".  It leads people to believe what you just said.

The 2% house edge doesn't mean that 48% of people will be winners.  It means that in the long term everyone will lose 2% of everything they bet.  ie. there is 0% chance that you will break even if you play long enough.  In the short term, the percentage of people who will be winners depends on what game they're playing.  For example if 100 people play "lessthan 64000" once each then the vast majority of them will be small winners.  And a few will be big losers.  And if the same 100 people play "lessthan 1" once each then it's very likely that all 100 of them will lose their bet.  Whatever the house edge is.

In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading.

The correct terminology is:
 "98% payout ratio"

[dooglus]

The correct terminology is:
 "98% payout ratio"

Not "98% payout percentage"?  98% is a percentage, not a ratio.  98:100 or 49:50 is the corresponding ratio.

I think casinos usually use the term RTP (return to player), so "98% RTP" would be better.

http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/gambling-return-to-player

[enmaku]

Back before I started blogging mostly about Bitcoin, I had a short series on all the "systems" crazy people come to my hometown of Las Vegas with and why none of them really work.

I somehow managed to miss that series, and your entire blog until now.

I subscribed to the RSS feed, and tried to visit the "Everybody’s Got a System: Arbitrage Betting" article that's listed in the RSS feed.  It gave me an error:

FeedBurner could not deliver this feed to you because of the specific problem listed below:
Feed Address: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CodingInMySleep/~3/LYfTV8GYkcw/

HTTP Error (Code) and Message: (404) null

Then I find the series on your blog, via http://codinginmysleep.com/series/everybodys-got-a-system/ - but it's not listed there either.  That page only shows 2 posts in the series.

That's really odd... I couldn't tell you why feedburner choked on that one or even if it still does, here's the proper URL:

http://codinginmysleep.com/everybodys-got-a-system-arbitrage-betting/

As for it not showing up under the series URL, well, that was my bad - I just forgot to tell WordPress it belonged to a series

I've fixed what's under my control at least, I'm looking into the feedburner thing. Thanks for the info and the subscribe!

[Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza]

I like to gamble as well. My favorite gambling game is kicking benches.

[Nolo]

I like to gamble as well. My favorite gambling game is kicking benches.

I've lost so much on those benches lol