Cross-gambling

[Come-from-Beyond]

An idea came to my mind. Let's assume that I play SatoshiDice and BTCDice simultaneously using Martingale strategy. I bet on BTCDice and if I win I repeat a new cycle. If I lose I try to martingale on SatoshiDice.
The question: Is there any tactics that creates disbalance in earnings of the mentioned services? Or in the long run each of them gets their house edge anyway?

[1714769419]

1714769419

[1714769419]

1714769419

[koin]

Or in the long run each of them gets their house edge anyway?[/i]

not all services may be equal.  there is an independent archive of satoshidice's hash.keys made and at any time anyone can use that (plus the blockchain) to verify all wagers were paid out fairly from the very beginning through the last secret revealed (i.e., the previous day).

if there is a major win, and a payout isn't made, with satoshidice the person on the hook is a well known, active member of the bitcoin community.  i.e., the likelihood exists that the site manages its maximum bet levels so that its reserves can pay out every one of them in a timely manner.

also, at this particular moment btcdice shows:

TEMPORARILY DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE

and all bets are being returned, though not immediately.

but other than superstition, switching from one service to the other won't make you more lucky or less lucky, ... random is random.  each outcome is independent from any prior outcome.

[SRoulette]

An idea came to my mind. Let's assume that I play SatoshiDice and BTCDice simultaneously using Martingale strategy. I bet on BTCDice and if I win I repeat a new cycle. If I lose I try to martingale on SatoshiDice.
The question: Is there any tactics that creates disbalance in earnings of the mentioned services? Or in the long run each of them gets their house edge anyway?

I appreciate what you are suggesting.

Say you martingale our Clone Dice 058 which has a multiplier of x2.2098 up to the maximum bet of 1.3 BTC (currently) hoping to collect its jacpot of 0.38848992 BTC before moving to satoshidice for bets larger than 1.3 BTC in order  to continue martingaling.

Then yes, Satoshi Dice could suffer steady losses if this became a pattern and all players played in this fashion as it is those string of losses before the big win that makes the casino break even. If another casino is absorbing the small player losses while another takes the brunt of players betting large to recover their total bets made this round.

Code:

SR   | SD
-----+-------
0.16 | 0
0.32 | 0
0.65 | 0
1.30 | 0
0    | 2.6

As with traditional martingale systems you only win your initial bet, so when players lose up to a sites max bet then swap they are effectively increasing their start bet for the martingale which increases risk and reward.

Where people go wrong is the classic gamblers fallacy, they assume than the longer the losing streak (when betting even odds) the more likely you are to win.

[dooglus]

Then yes, Satoshi Dice could suffer steady losses if this became a pattern and all players played in this fashion

I disagree with this completely.

SD can (and currently do) suffer steady losses, but not because people are using a different site for the small martingale bets.  That would make no difference to the expected house edge at SD.  It would reduce the amount of throughput, so reduce the expected winnings, but in no way could it damage their expected house edge.

as it is those string of losses before the big win that makes the casino break even. If another casino is absorbing the small player losses while another takes the brunt of players betting large to recover their total bets made this round.

No, what makes the casino profitable is that every bet they offer has slightly worse payouts than the true odds of winning the bet.  The 1-in-2 bet should pay out 2x, but only pays out 1.99x.

Suppose someone plays 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 bets at your site before moving on to SD if they lose all 3, and then play 2.4, etc. at SD.  That looks exactly the same to SD as someone starting at 2.4 BTC and using the (losing!) martingale strategy.  It makes no difference to them that the player has played on your site first, in the same way they don't care what you had for breakfast.

[SRoulette]

Suppose someone plays 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 bets at your site before moving on to SD if they lose all 3, and then play 2.4, etc. at SD.  That looks exactly the same to SD as someone starting at 2.4 BTC and using the (losing!) martingale strategy.  It makes no difference to them that the player has played on your site first, in the same way they don't care what you had for breakfast.

We failed to appreciate when running our simulations is how it looks to each site individually instead of how it compares to each other., please see our clarification below.
In the scenario described, the house with the lower bet range profits proportionally higher than the site with the greater, given the scenario where we are dealing with a single and very aggressive martingaler with an unlimited bank.

Two factors control the chance of martingale failure the bet range and  the house edge.

The bigger the bet range, the more room the martingaler has to recover their losses.
A player starting from one table to another for the higher bets will take away from said table until their system fails.

[nelisky]

I've been holding myself down not to post a shameless plug here, but on diceoncrack you can play multiple variations of the Martingale system (along with other goodies). We've had a bunch of down runs where the house was running negative, and you can severely offset the odds in your favor by placing the right bet with the right exit point, but there are two things to consider, no matter the strategy you use:

- The odds are slightly skewed in the house's favor, so in the long run the house always wins (or so I hope ). How long is the long run? That depends a lot, and some players will be able to take profit, although invariably others will suffer a loss (the house is a player on every bet, too).
- There are no fool-proof systems for winning, unless we coded things wrong. You might get lucky, or you might play the 'almost sure to win' games, but potential gains are much lower then.

Right now we seem to be fluctuating across break even all the time, but if you consider the house edge is really low, that is far from unexpected.

[SRoulette]

I've been holding myself down not to post a shameless plug here

Why the wait , your game and its implementation is excellent.

[nelisky]

I've been holding myself down not to post a shameless plug here

Why the wait , your game and its implementation is excellent.

Well, the OP clearly asked for methods to make betting more efficient and likely to result in profit for the bettor. I don't think I'm ready to disclose that, and as such am a bit off topic

But thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it!

[SRoulette]

I've been holding myself down not to post a shameless plug here

Why the wait , your game and its implementation is excellent.

Well, the OP clearly asked for methods to make betting more efficient and likely to result in profit for the bettor. I don't think I'm ready to disclose that, and as such am a bit off topic

But thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it!

Excellent point, back on topic!

Op, the best way to leverage an advantage in our humble opinion is look for games with high progressive jackpots already built up and factor these into your martingale strategy.
Secondly, some games will offer a better house edge but with a lower maximum bet cap, it would be wise to start on these before shifting to games with higher house average.

It really does come down to grinding the stats as hard as possible and calculating the most efficient path to $$$.

Is there a way to ensure one site will steadily loose over the other ? if all these things are equal: house edge, player numbers, bet volume, all martingalers, etc (which they never are):
In a small sample size yes this can very easily be the case.
Played long enough and given that the casino has the sufficient bank and bet volume then no.

What you can observe is that one casino will consistently rake less profit proportionally if their bet range is larger than the other casinos. It could possibly be to their detriment if the volume of high bets is to low.

This is balanced out by the simple fact that a larger bet range and if applicable lower house edge attracts a larger base of clients.

[dooglus]

one casino will consistently rake less profit proportionally if their bet range is larger than the other casinos

I still disagree.  Expected profit is proportional to house edge (if we ignore progressive jackpots) and nothing to do with bet range.

Changing the bet range can change the variance, but the expected profit is always going to be the house edge times the amount wagered.

If you have a house edge of 1%, and I wager 1000 BTC, you can expect to keep 10 BTC of it, no matter how I split up the 1000 BTC into smaller bets.

I'm sorry I don't have time now to address your post in more detail.  What you say about progressive pots is interesting.  I suppose it's possible that there are some games out there where the progressive pot is big enough that it's 'worth' playing for the player, mathematically speaking.  I know the SatoshiDice progressive game used to be like that, for a very short time until the rules were changed.

[mem]

one casino will consistently rake less profit proportionally if their bet range is larger than the other casinos

I still disagree.  Expected profit is proportional to house edge (if we ignore progressive jackpots) and nothing to do with bet range.

Changing the bet range can change the variance, but the expected profit is always going to be the house edge times the amount wagered.

If you have a house edge of 1%, and I wager 1000 BTC, you can expect to keep 10 BTC of it, no matter how I split up the 1000 BTC into smaller bets.

I'm sorry I don't have time now to address your post in more detail.  What you say about progressive pots is interesting.  I suppose it's possible that there are some games out there where the progressive pot is big enough that it's 'worth' playing for the player, mathematically speaking.  I know the SatoshiDice progressive game used to be like that, for a very short time until the rules were changed.

As someone who loves to run martingale simulations I can tell you bet range is a controlling factor in how much a house earns percentage wise (when dealing with a single player).
There seems to be a tipping point where the range becomes large enough for martingalers to reduce the casinos expected rake.

All this being said, I still have not figured out a way to win every time