🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰

[ahmadakbari]

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

Statistically, variance should also be the same as long as the bets are truly random, but practically, it may be different due to various physical factors involved which make the outcomes not so random

We don't know the bets outcomes. As long as we don't the outcomes we cannot say which one is more profitable. So it is expected that both have similar outcomes.

[1715290922]

1715290922

[1715290922]

1715290922

[1715290922]

1715290922

[1715290922]

1715290922

[1715290922]

1715290922

[deisik]

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

[ahmadakbari]

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

You are right about losing streaks. There is no doubt probability of losing 15 times consecutively is much lower when you wager on 1.01x and that's why I said:

Usually, winners of the contests are those gamblers who wager on small odds with high probabilities. As the total wagring amount determine the winners, in this way they can play for a long time and increase their wagring volume. They try to play with low risk and lose as little as possible.

Mathematically, your chance of winning is same in both cases. But betting on big odds can cause you lose earlier. As you see in the posts I quoted, I believe that betting on small odds is better for increasing your wageing volume. But it doesn't mean that increase your chance in long term.

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

[shoreno]

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ?  short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls  so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer  . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets  .  i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

[deisik]

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

You are right about losing streaks. There is no doubt probability of losing 15 times consecutively is much lower when you wager on 1.01x

Okay, I will try a different approach to convey what I'm particularly curious about

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high. On the other hand, if you bet on 9900x, the length of your losing streak on average can be like 1000 (I don't really know, it's just a hunch and a number to show what I mean). But neither average tells us anything about outliers. Is the frequency of outliers normalized to some common denominator (i.e. variance or deviation from the mean) going to be the same for these two multipliers? That's what interests me so much

[ahmadakbari]

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high.

Every thing is possible. I myself lost 3 times in a row while the odds was 1.01x.

Is the frequency of outliers normalized to some common denominator (i.e. variance or deviation from the mean) going to be the same for these two multipliers? That's what interests me so much

The number you roll does not depend on the odds and probablity of winning. In the long term, we have statistical distribution.

[deisik]

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high.

Every thing is possible. I myself lost 3 times in a row while the odds was 1.01x

That's called an outlier

Well, 3 times in a row on 1.01x may not be what a real outlier would look like (since something like 10 and more would be one such) but if such things are happening more often on 1.01x than on 9900x (normalized to some metric to allow for valid comparison of the frequencies) or vice versa, that would make a dramatic difference. From what I read about other people's experiences and what I come to think myself, the higher the multiplier (payout), the more you are exposing yourself to the impact of outliers

[veleten]

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

15 reds on 1.01x is almost impossible , even 5 in a row is extra rare , think the most I had  was 4 in a row ever
as for the variance , 1.01x gives you the worst , the best is 2x
I think there was a topic here on bitcointalk to try and gauge the best strategy in dice , you can google it
think it was the just dice's owner , dooglus who came up with the math
p.s. here is the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=939776.20

[deisik]

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

I ask you a question.
Assume that you want to bet 10 Satoshi 10 million times. Which one is more profitable? 10 million times on 1.01x or 10 million times on 2x or 10 million times on 9900x?
In all three cases you wager 1 Bitcoin totally.
Do you agree that in all three cases you are expected to lose 0.01 bitcoin?

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

15 reds on 1.01x is almost impossible , even 5 in a row is extra rare , think the most I had  was 4 in a row ever
as for the variance , 1.01x gives you the worst , the best is 2x

Well, there is more to it (but thanks for the link, I will look into it)

Just 5 losses on 1.01x is a rare event, when 15 would be an extreme outlier no one has probably witnessed ever in the whole gambling history of the world (though who knows). But that's the whole thing about outliers that they are outliers, i.e. something which shouldn't happen but nevertheless does happen in real life, no matter what (read, statistically improbable is not the same thing as statistically impossible)

Further, if we calculate the odds of this highly unlikely event (like 15 losses on 1.01x) and then calculate back the losing streak for the 9900x multiplier, we would seemingly have two losing streaks very different in length though still having the same odds. But does it mean that such an outlier on 9900x will in fact be as likely as on 1.01x? Remember, these are outliers, i.e. they are not required to follow any rules per definition (otherwise it is not an outlier)

[veleten]

if you wonder wherever any of the multipliers are better than others , then no - every single multiplier gives you exactly 99% return on your bets
if you want to find a particular multiplier that suits your bank and play style , then yes - some tend to lose faster 
you can use this tool ( or any other similar) to calculate the chances of a streak to happen :
https://dicesites.com/tools
by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

[WolfBet]

Here is today's top 10, congratulations everyone!

[BTCevo]

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ?  short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls  so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer  . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets  .  i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

This is somehow right but most people tend to play longer but of course with smaller bankroll. But if you have bigger amount and do not want to play longer you can use higher multiplier so any win or any profit will let you stop at the moment. But still most people can't tolerate to get profit. Most of them will be greedy enough to continue and losing their balance in the end. Btw if you do not have big bankroll you can adjust the amount that you want to bet so it will stay longer

[MrCrank]

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ?  short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls  so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer  . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets  .  i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

This is somehow right but most people tend to play longer but of course with smaller bankroll. But if you have bigger amount and do not want to play longer you can use higher multiplier so any win or any profit will let you stop at the moment. But still most people can't tolerate to get profit. Most of them will be greedy enough to continue and losing their balance in the end. Btw if you do not have big bankroll you can adjust the amount that you want to bet so it will stay longer

Agreed with you.
But can catch lady luck also can 20 times wins in row. I have lot of experience in gambling. This is luck only.
I will try wolf.bet soon

[Haunebu]

by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

It is pointless betting on such low multipliers in my opinion since every roll is independent and it is possible to lose 3 or 4 times in a row even with such a small multiplier which is why x2 is always my preferred multiplier.

Going all in to try and earn some money in the short term is what I prefer when it comes to gambling and sports betting for that matter and I have earned decent profits over time in this manner.

[deisik]

by the way , due to the house edge the minimum chance to win is 98% , so the multiplier is set to 1.0102 , only a few sites allow it to be set lower ( bitvest.io comes to mind )
the chances to get 5 reds in a row playing 1.0102x are once in 300.000.000 bets on average
the problem is that when you get 3 reds in a row while martingaling , you have to multiply your initial bet by 101*101*101 to even return your initial bet
for 3 reds it means that you got to have a 0.01+ btc bank to cover this streak , for 4 reds it is 1 btc +

It is pointless betting on such low multipliers in my opinion since every roll is independent and it is possible to lose 3 or 4 times in a row even with such a small multiplier which is why x2 is always my preferred multiplier

I definitely see your train of thought

But if we are to follow this logic through, then there is no limit on how long a losing streak can be, no matter the multiplier, as the odds remain the same, right? So if you lost 4 times in a row on 1.01x, you can then lose time and time again, which is statistically totally true, by the way

To correctly understand probabilities, we should never forget that they only refer to future events as probabilities don't exist with respect to past events since the latter already happened, i.e. their probability is strictly 100%. You can't unhappen something like it never happened. There are no snapshots to return to if something goes wrong

[davinchi]

What you guys are missing out is that 1% is the median expected loss because of the house edge but when you gamble yourself as just one person then you can literally lose all of your money before the expected result, for example betting on 990x and expecting you will have 1 win out of 990 but you could end up losing all your money before the 990th bet, that is literally a thing.

Hence, there is no way of knowing what will happen, you can hit 990x 3 times in under 990 bets, you can hit zero but in the end you are just one individual so what happens to you is not the outcome for the house which has thousands of people bet on it every month for god knows how many bitcoins. So, calculating the "average expected loss" makes no sense when calculating just one persons bets.

[WolfBet]

Congratulations everyone winning today Btw guys, did anyone noticed something different when logging into wolf.bet today?  

[rexxarofmoknathal]

I feel that the wagered amount of the top three players is insane considering the BTC value and the supposedly expected bull run. Anyways these guys seem to have done well, still by winning a little extra.
Though gambling for me with more than a fraction of BTC is what I consider risky but that's because I know my limit, unlike these guys whose limit seems to be more generous than what I can allow myself to play out. Nice and smooth guys, well played!

[serjent05]

Congratulations everyone winning today Btw guys, did anyone noticed something different when logging into wolf.bet today?  

There is a notification about this:

New Features2019-10-08
Portuguese Language Version of WOLF.BET
Live stats chart v2.0

Is this site really having a 1000 usd race every single day? Anyone here can confirm withdrawing larger amounts from here?

They have, and players are happily competing for the spot.  There is no problem on withdrawing funds, I have done several times without any issue.

[darewaller]

So, in short term, betting on small odds is better. Because it causes you to play for a longer time (especially when you have not a big bankroll)
In long term, there is no difference. (Those gamblers who play for long term usually have big bankrolls and can afford to lose even more than 20 times in a row)

you said short term ?  short terms means you play for a short period of time so your supposed to bet on higher odds so that you can win or loss quickly but betting in smaller odds is indeed good for smaller bankrolls  so that you can minimize your chance of loosing but itll make you also play longer  . loosing 20 times in a row can be acceptable or not depending on your bets  .  i can play longer but i dont have a big bankroll , its only a matter of bankroll management .

Short term and long term is not the amount if you ask me, its the time and the wagered amount. Just to give an example if you gamble with 1k satoshi for a whole day on all automatic you will still get at most 1-2 btc (or maybe more I don't really know the speed) but if you gamble 100 satoshi for 1 month you will gamble a lot more. Which is why I personally think its the wagered time instead of wagered amount.

You can gamble 10 btc all at once and win or lose the same amount, that is just once and you won't find out the average loss expectancy that way, however if you bet 1 million times with 100 satoshi over a month period then you will get to the 1% house edge average for sure. You won't also lose much and still have a high wagered amount that would help you out.