del

[RHavar]

Even though if you roll 20 heads in a row, it is more likely that the 21st will be tails. Of course next time it might be 21 heads in a row, but its all random.

It's not just the individual outcome that is random, but the cluster too, so even though if you have 20 heads in a row, it is morel likely that the 21st will be tails, it is not true always.

By betting tails after the 20th, you might win once, but you might lose another time. But it gives a bigger certainty anyway than just naked betting randomly.

[...] is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future [...]

[ndnh]

Nope, you just don't get it. What you are talking about is precisely termed as gambler's fallacy. (above post makes it pretty more than clear)

Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?

LOL, you did. xD

No I was explaining that the official explanation of the fallacy is short sided, its more to it just than the independent outcomes. Because the cluster is randomized too, so weather the odds are set to any amount, the distribution tends to follow the variance.

Or in other words , except a few black swans, the distribution is also contained to a local variance and it can be exploited to control risk better.

Example: if you flip a coin 100 times, the odds of being tails 10 times is 0.09765625% and yet the 11th roll  is less likely to be tails, but not impossible.So eventually the heads have to come, so we can say that the local probability can vary wehereas the overally probability remains constant. Now this is no way a guarantee, because somehow the 12 consecutive tails have to come too, but then the local probabilities just reshuffle, randomly.

This is a common mathematical phenomena. I think its called local probability distribution:
http://pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/flairs06.pdf

Which is also called gambler's fallacy.

But apply it in this case. With this strategy too the risk is 1.9% more than the reward.

Hey its random anyway, but you have to understand that based on odds, somebody can come out a net winner even after 100,000 rolls. It all depends on the local distribution , how it gets shuffled.

And those who are losers, at least lose less than they normally would with other strategies.

You are talking about a distribution with trillions of trillions of trillions...... of rolls tending towards infinity. The concept you are talking of doesn't apply here. The sample size even if you make a trillion rolls is too small and not representative


I do appreciate the effort. Anyway, you will learn some new stuff.

[scriptman]

I can't believe your charging for the demo

This is a sales thread  after all....

You're a cheeky monkey

[actmyname]

I don't think people understand the gambler's fallacy.

Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.

However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.

But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.

If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.

[gecox22]

I don't think people understand the gambler's fallacy.

Even if you flip a coin and get tails 100 times, the next coin flip has a 50% chance to be tails and a 50% chance to be heads. Not anything different.

However, from the BEGINNING, there is a 3.9443045261050590270586428264139e-31% chance to roll tails 101 times.

But your very next bet has no relation with your previous bets.

If the winning chance is 50%, it will always be 50%. No more, no less.

This is correct, Even though the odds of the flip never change the provability of getting tails that 101 times is lower than say rolling once. But the odds is still 50/50 no matter how many time you flip the coin. I would love to see the betters face though after receiving 100 roles of heads when he has been betting on tails the entire time.

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

So your betting strategy is basically the definition of gamblers fallacy?  How would you expect us not to mention it?  There is no way you studied stats and came up with this, I studied stats for 1 year and I can tell you this is pretty much what you learn on day 1, "Are the events independent on one another or not"

In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.

If you'd care to read my posts before replying it would be better.

I didnt deny that the rolls are independent of another, but overall they are confined to a cluster that is dictated by the local probabilities.

After 10 heads the tails has a higher probability of occuring (locally). Yes this is true.

However if the overall cluster is reshuffled, to give room to 11,12,13... heads in a row, then obviously that will happen eventually too.

So we must look for a exploitation in the cluster until it is intact , but that is impossible to predict because that is random too, it can reshuffle anytime.

So yes you need to be lucky too, I dont give any edge here, i`m just trying to exploit a pattern until it exists, after its gone we can lose too, so it is gamble.

I can't believe your charging for the demo

This is a sales thread  after all....

You're a cheeky monkey

That was not my intention at all, i just didnt found a free file hosting service.

Here i found one, so now you can download it for free and see for yourself.

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?

No, and i never said I will give any edge, I just said that this strategy can help gamble in a "safer" way.

You are talking about a distribution with trillions of trillions of trillions...... of rolls tending towards infinity. The concept you are talking of doesn't apply here. The sample size even if you make a trillion rolls is too small and not representative

I do appreciate the effort. Anyway, you will learn some new stuff.

Ok but we wont have trillions of bets, so we can already separate lucky people from unlucky in a  few thousand ones.

I dont view luck as you do. I think luck can built a pattern, after all many many quadrillions of tiny atoms moving randomly make up our nice planet, and we do have a trend on here.

So i think trends can rise out of randomness that are temporary too.

[maku]

Is it really a 'strategy'? It seems more like an automated gambling where you bet thousands of times and expect to win more than 50% of bets.
As you said: "because it might involve betting 5000 times in a row". There is not really any sophisticated strategy involved in dice, only raw math...

[darkangel11]

And what if there are not enough same rolls? Let's say I decide to change the bet after 5 same rolls (5x or 5y), start betting and end up with a pattern like 1x 3y 4x 1y 1x and so on. I could end up gambling whole day and never really getting to use the strategy but losing all my money if I choose wrong.

[Tauja]

Of coure, Low risk, low rewards
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this
Fo me strategi for betting so simple just bet.bet and bet again
And be patience to play in gambling

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

And what if there are not enough same rolls? Let's say I decide to change the bet after 5 same rolls (5x or 5y), start betting and end up with a pattern like 1x 3y 4x 1y 1x and so on. I could end up gambling whole day and never really getting to use the strategy but losing all my money if I choose wrong.

That is why choose the appropriate trigger for your number of bets. Also you bet only 100 satoshi on normal bets, so you lose what 100,000 satoshi max?

Still better than losing tons of money.


If you bet 100 bets , then the trigger should be 7-8 consecutives because higher than that is not likely to happen, and so on. Use my simulator to check how many consecutives happen in different bet numbers.

[pjsonowal]

see there is no particular strategy that will work all the time...you have to keep changing strategies to be a winner.....keeping on with one strategy is a waste of time..frm my point of view

[Betwrong]

I am a pretty old gambler, and I know how gambling works, you play against the odds of the house. Yet, there is still a possibility to win in the long term, all based on luck of course, but with a good gambling strategy , atleast we can manage the risk.

So this is all based on luck, i`m not claiming that you will win guaranteed, because that is impossible, but if you add some basic risk management to the equation, you can play much safer!

Here is what I thought:

This strategy only works for dice/coin flipping type games where you got a 50% winrate.


So there aren't many gambling strategies out there, let's analyze them each:

1) Martingale
The problem with martingale is that the profits increase linearly, but the risk increases exponentially with every bet, so martingale really empties your account fast, and the profit is not worth the risk, even though it gives the illusion of loss-protection in the short term, but the risk is not worth it

2) Naked betting
So this strategy is when you just bet the same amount, or varying amounts, without any type of pattern, each dice roll. This strategy is more safe than the martingale believe it or not, it might have a less win rate, but it doesn't empties out your account, plus you could win more.
The problem here is that, usually there is a small percent that 1 player could win at all in the end, and you have no way of knowing.


3) Variance hunter (my strategy)

Ok so we know the problems with the 2 above strategies, so I thought i make my own observations. My strategy plays off the variance, and it exploits the consecutive rolls. Now don't lecture me about the Gambler's fallacy problem , because I know that, I`ve studied mathematical statistics many years, plus I`m not claiming you will get any edge with this strategy, because you won't. The only advantage you will get by using my strategy is that you can manage your risk and have a low risk , low reward type gambling experience!

Ok so here it is:

Requirements:

• You need a gambling game with 50% winrate  (dice,coin flip game), this is a must, but the payout ratio is obviously gonna be <x1 due to house edge, so that doesn't matter. Ex:  50% winrate with 0.98x payout rate = 2% house edge game
• The lower the house edge is the better , and the house edge must be constant, it doesnt work in varying house edge casinos
• The casino must be provably fair, and must use real random numbers or atleast pseudo-random with ultra-high entropy
• The casino should have an API system, because this system is hard to do manually, you will probably need a programmer to do this, because it might involve betting 5000 times in a row
• The casino should have a low minimum betting amount, the lower the better
• The casino should not have any betting size restrictions, you should be able to bet 5-10% of your balance in a bet
• The casino should be very fast to roll, and not have any restrictions on rolling because you will probably have to bet many thousands of times

The strategy:

-You will bet on 1 outcome the minimum betting size, until X amount of consecutive events happen, then switch to the other outcome, that X should be set according to how many bets you will going to play (more on this later)

Ex.: bet on heads 1 satoshi, and after 10 consecutive heads happen, then switch to tails.
The same if you bet on heads and 10 consecutive tails happen, then you stay at heads, so you only look at what happened consecutively X times, and switch to the opposite outcome next bet.

-After the X amount of consecutive bets happened, you switch to the other bet, and increase the betting size to Y% of the balance, presumably < 10% / bet to have moderate risk, but more on this later.

-After the Y% bet happened, regardless of you won or lost, you resume to bet the minimum amount , until another consecutive event row happens.

EXAMPLE SETUP:

This is what I use personally:

I use Satoshidice and it has a 1.9% house edge and it has nice API platform so you can make a gambling bot. Since satoshidice doesnt have changeable outcomes, I use a slightly modified version of my strategy, which is essentially the same but it's easier to do. Instead of waiting for heads/tails to switch, I just look at consecutive wins or losses. So I bet 100 satoshi, the minimum , until I get X consecutive losses, then I increase the bet on the next roll.

I usually gamble 0.5 BTC balance.
Bet size: 100 satoshi
Trigger: after 20 consecutive losses I increase the bet to 8% of my balance so that is 0.04BTC
Risk %:  8% of my balance after the 20 consecutive events, then reset to base bet size of 100 satoshi.

RESULT:

You will most likely end up either at -1-10% or win the risked %. In rare cases you will lose more than 20%, it is possible but not that probable.
So it is more like a small reward 7-8% gain/session, with the same risk, and a long term betting strategy.

BETTING SIMULATOR

Well I made a simulator for my strategy that simulates the exact strategy I described above, and I share it with you. If you want the source code too, then PM me.



Download link: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=62215764482435873397
SHA 256 hash: 22ca3bb65893eb4b9637bd4aea6cacacfa3ea7be27a989310e9efd32b599908a       (https://md5file.com/calculator)
Virus Scan: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/22ca3bb65893eb4b9637bd4aea6cacacfa3ea7be27a989310e9efd32b599908a/analysis/1443089362/


What do you think guys?

Disclaimer: Use this strategy at your own risk, the strategy doesn't guarantee anything, gambling is risky anyway. I`m not responsible for any of your losses if you lose.

Ok, since you've asked, here's my opinion on your strategy.

after 20 consecutive losses I increase the bet to 8% of my balance so that is 0.04BTC

As you know you can lose 2-3 times after that increasing, which is 0.08-0.12BTC and to get that amount back will take lots of time and what is more important lots of risk too. Most likely you'll lose everything trying to recover. Of course you can win with that strategy if you are lucky, but you can also win betting 0.5 BTC just one time on 0.98x payout.

[Erza]

Of coure, Low risk, low rewards
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this

Yeah that is so true, but sometimes people with a great luck can hit jackpot and win big and of course this is exception, mostly people will earn like that way but you need some good balance for you to sustain your loss or you will never hit it back again

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

after 20 consecutive losses I increase the bet to 8% of my balance so that is 0.04BTC

As you know you can lose 2-3 times after that increasing, which is 0.08-0.12BTC and to get that amount back will take lots of time and what is more important lots of risk too. Most likely you'll lose everything trying to recover. Of course you can win with that strategy if you are lucky, but you can also win betting 0.5 BTC just one time on 0.98x payout.

You only increase it to 8% of the balance for 1 bet, after that resume it to the minimum bet size, regardless if you won or lost.

We are "hunting" the consecutive switches.

Of coure, Low risk, low rewards
High risk high return
But i'm not sure about this

Yeah that is so true, but sometimes people with a great luck can hit jackpot and win big and of course this is exception, mostly people will earn like that way but you need some good balance for you to sustain your loss or you will never hit it back again

Yes but this strategy is for low risk people who would like to win smaller but safer.

If you want to win big, then use SatoshiDice for example, bet 1 BTC and set the win rate to 0.2%, your multiplier will be 490.

So with a 0.2% probability you could win 490 BTC with 1 BTC betted

[Phildo]

So your betting strategy is basically the definition of gamblers fallacy?  How would you expect us not to mention it?  There is no way you studied stats and came up with this, I studied stats for 1 year and I can tell you this is pretty much what you learn on day 1, "Are the events independent on one another or not"

In your case, they are not, so you are doing nothing with stats at all.

If you'd care to read my posts before replying it would be better.

I didnt deny that the rolls are independent of another, but overall they are confined to a cluster that is dictated by the local probabilities.

After 10 heads the tails has a higher probability of occuring (locally). Yes this is true.

However if the overall cluster is reshuffled, to give room to 11,12,13... heads in a row, then obviously that will happen eventually too.

So we must look for a exploitation in the cluster until it is intact , but that is impossible to predict because that is random too, it can reshuffle anytime.

So yes you need to be lucky too, I dont give any edge here, i`m just trying to exploit a pattern until it exists, after its gone we can lose too, so it is gamble.

I can't believe your charging for the demo

This is a sales thread  after all....

You're a cheeky monkey

That was not my intention at all, i just didnt found a free file hosting service.

Here i found one, so now you can download it for free and see for yourself.

THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.

The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.

If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.

[ndnh]

Do you believe your strategy is positive EV?

No, and i never said I will give any edge, I just said that this strategy can help gamble in a "safer" way.

You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)

You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)



Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.

I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.

The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.

If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.

You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)

You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)



Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.

I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)

I understand what you are saying guys but you fail to see the perspective.

Let's look at "life". All life expectancy is negative because everybody will die eventually.

So by your logic nobody can be a billionaire in his lifetime because his life has a negative expectancy, but that is obviously not the case.

So you can have local positive expectancy, while the overall one is negative.

I tend to see probability as a collective of local ones, so the total negative expectancy of a gambling game, is composed of local positive expectancies + local negative expectancies, where the local negative dominates, but that doesnt mean that the positive cannot happen.


Take the inverse for example, if you win 1000 times in a row in a 50% probability dice game:
- did you played agains  overall negative expectancy: Yes because the payout ratio was < 1x
- did you had a local positive expectancy: Yes, because you won 1000 in a row. Otherwise you could not have the trend. It was lucky, but it was still a trend.

So if you can jump on a local positive expectancy train, you can win locally, but if you "force" your luck, you will eventually lose.

[Phildo]

THis is not true, this is the gambler's fallacy.

The odds of a fair coin being head or tails is 50/50, every time, no matter what the previous x flips were.

If you ALREADY flipped 10 heads, NOW the odds of getting 11 in a row are 50/50 because you ALREADY did the hard part of getting 11 in a row, getting 10 in a row.

You are stating the EV is not positive and is the same. (correct)

You are stating ROI % that implies a positive EV (contradictory and incorrect)



Suppose you make 1,000,000,000,000 rolls and got all heads, for the next head assuming the game to be a fair one, the odds are 50%, and for the tails the odds are 50%.

I think you are taking it in a way where in a probability distribution of say 1000 rolls, ~500 are heads and ~500 are tails, and if you get 100 heads, the next flip would most likely land a tail. This concept DOES NOT apply in this case. Because the distribution you are talking about is INFINITE. Even if the probability distribution happens to be evenly distributed (is it?) say in centillions (tending towards infinity to be stated properly) of hash combinations, it still gives you an astronomically insignificant effect (1/infinity tending to 0)

I understand what you are saying guys but you fail to see the perspective.

Let's look at "life". All life expectancy is negative because everybody will die eventually.

So by your logic nobody can be a billionaire in his lifetime because his life has a negative expectancy, but that is obviously not the case.

So you can have local positive expectancy, while the overall one is negative.

I tend to see probability as a collective of local ones, so the total negative expectancy of a gambling game, is composed of local positive expectancies + local negative expectancies, where the local negative dominates, but that doesnt mean that the positive cannot happen.


Take the inverse for example, if you win 1000 times in a row in a 50% probability dice game:
- did you played agains  overall negative expectancy: Yes because the payout ratio was < 1x
- did you had a local positive expectancy: Yes, because you won 1000 in a row. Otherwise you could not have the trend. It was lucky, but it was still a trend.

So if you can jump on a local positive expectancy train, you can win locally, but if you "force" your luck, you will eventually lose.

I didn't say no one could be a billionaire, I didn't say that you couldn't flip 1 million heads in a row. I said that if you flipped 10 heads in a row, the odds the next one being heads is 50/50. In your nonsense you said that tails was more likely on the 11th roll. That is flat out wrong. If you don't want people to call you on your bullshit don't post bullshit.

There is no way to PREDICT trends among independent events. You can look back and find them, but you cannot predict them because each roll is independent and has nothing to do with previous rolls/flips.

[greatr]

i dont think that theres a strategy that would bring any one enough profits to risk