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

[deisik]

I just wanted to clarify the bet, so that everything is 100% clear from the start

Good, what are your terms?

I bet my entire balance as martingale presumes, so if I lose it, which is inevitable according to you, you win. If I don't lose it, I win and you lose your bet in the agreed amount. That seems pretty fair and square to me. And since I implicitly excluded Wolf.bet leaving the choice of a casino to you, this discussion no longer belongs here

[DarkStar_]

I just wanted to clarify the bet, so that everything is 100% clear from the start

Good, what are your terms?

I bet my entire balance as martingale presumes, so if I lose it, which is inevitable according to you, you win. If I don't lose it, I win and you lose your bet in agreed amount. That seems pretty fair and square to me. Since I implicitly excluded Wolf.bet, leaving the choice to you, this discussion no longer belongs here

I've never stated that it's inevitable. I've been talking in expected value and probability, and not about your specific luck at any site. A dice bet against a 1% house edge with 1.1x multiplier has a 90% win probability. My entire argument has been that using martingale and trying to extend your martingale loss streak as long as possible against a 2x multiplier is a less optimal way to play, or that it offers a lower probability of making a profit. Using martingale might only decrease your win probability by 1% or less, which is why I have no interest in betting against someone wanting to experimentally determine the results. (instead of a 90% chance of winning 10%, you might lower it to 89%. That's clearly worse, but it's still only an 11% chance that my side wins).

Wolfbet offers DOGE and you said that them adding default strategies benefits gamblers, so I don't see why they are implicitly excluded.

Simply said, here is my claim:
A single all-in bet at 1.1x has a higher probability of winning 10% profit than any martingale streak at 2x multiplier (doubling bet size on loss) and enough bankroll to survive a loss streak at 20 or greater (you can increase the number of consecutive losses the bankroll can sustain if you'd like).

Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

[deisik]

Wolfbet offers DOGE and you said that them adding default strategies benefits gamblers, so I don't see why they are implicitly excluded

I never said that

And I couldn't possibly say that because I'm not even familiar with their default strategies. I saw them in the list, that's true, but I didn't look into them. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. As I got it, they added something like a scripting language which allows to fine tune very specific martingale setups like the one described in the Martingale Revisited thread, but yet more advanced. And this is the killer feature from my point of view, not Wolf.bet default martingale strategies. Regardless, it should be obvious that I won't be using any preset strategy

Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

I don't know as this has nothing to do with my point

[DarkStar_]

Wolfbet offers DOGE and you said that them adding default strategies benefits gamblers, so I don't see why they are implicitly excluded

I never said that

And I couldn't say that because I'm not even familiar with their default strategies. I saw them in the list, that's true, but I didn't look into them. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. As I got it, they added something like a scripting language which allows to fine tune very specific martingale setups like the one described in the Martingale Revisited thread, but yet more advanced. And this is the killer feature from my point of view, not Wolf.bet default strategies. Regardless, it should be obvious that I won't be using a preset strategy

Quote: (emphasis mine)

This do really less up the hassle on setting up things..A very nice add up Wolf.bet team!

I'm a little surprised myself. Many casinos are actually trying to prevent people from utilizing martingale in a productive way by, for example, setting the minimum bet size to an amount which makes martingale an exercise in stupidity and futility. Wolf.bet seems to be turning the tables in favor of gamblers, and I'm utterly interested to see how other kids on the block are going to react, whether they will follow the lead or continue to lose their user base

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies, and the user you quoted discusses how it makes it simpler and less of a hassle to set those strategies up. You explicitly mention martingale and how Wolfbet's lack of restrictions benefits players. At no point did you mention that you needed a very specific, no preset strategy to ruin a casino. I think the vast majority of readers would agree that it was never mentioned, explicitly or implicitly.

What is your exact strategy then?

[deisik]

Wolfbet offers DOGE and you said that them adding default strategies benefits gamblers, so I don't see why they are implicitly excluded

I never said that

And I couldn't say that because I'm not even familiar with their default strategies. I saw them in the list, that's true, but I didn't look into them. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. As I got it, they added something like a scripting language which allows to fine tune very specific martingale setups like the one described in the Martingale Revisited thread, but yet more advanced. And this is the killer feature from my point of view, not Wolf.bet default strategies. Regardless, it should be obvious that I won't be using a preset strategy

Quote: (emphasis mine)

This do really less up the hassle on setting up things..A very nice add up Wolf.bet team!

I'm a little surprised myself. Many casinos are actually trying to prevent people from utilizing martingale in a productive way by, for example, setting the minimum bet size to an amount which makes martingale an exercise in stupidity and futility. Wolf.bet seems to be turning the tables in favor of gamblers, and I'm utterly interested to see how other kids on the block are going to react, whether they will follow the lead or continue to lose their user base

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies

This is not my screenshot. I don't even know whether D'Alembert and Paroli have anything to do with martingale. And technically, you can't even claim that I said that Wolf.bet is turning the tables in favor of gamblers. So what's your point?

What is your exact strategy then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782

[DarkStar_]

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies

This is not my screenshot

No, but you quoted it. Presumably you'd be aware of it's existence given that you responded to someone who posted it. (Alternatively, I'm sorry for assuming that you're not a signature spammer who doesn't read the posts they reply to).

What is your exact strategy then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782

So 0.00000001 DOGE, 2.6757x payout (37% win chance). What other settings? Why are you so unwilling to clearly lay everything out?

[deisik]

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies

This is not my screenshot

No, but you quoted it. Presumably you'd be aware of it's existence given that you responded to someone who posted it. (Alternatively, I'm sorry for assuming that you're not a signature spammer who doesn't read the posts they reply to)

And?

What is your exact strategy then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782

So 0.00000001 DOGE, 2.6757x payout (37% win chance). What other settings? Why are you so unwilling to clearly lay everything out?

Are you kidding me?

Do you seriously assume I have any inclination to talk to you at all? To set things straight, I'm replying to you here only because this is the official thread of Wolf.bet (read, I kinda have to, of my own accord). In any other thread I would have long ignored your replies altogether

[DarkStar_]

The screenshot you quoted lists the default strategies

This is not my screenshot

No, but you quoted it. Presumably you'd be aware of it's existence given that you responded to someone who posted it. (Alternatively, I'm sorry for assuming that you're not a signature spammer who doesn't read the posts they reply to)

And?

Okay, I apologize for assuming that you'd be aware of something that you explicitly quoted. :shrug:

What is your exact strategy then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782

So 0.00000001 DOGE, 2.6757x payout (37% win chance). What other settings? Why are you so unwilling to clearly lay everything out?

Are you kidding me?

That was what I got from that thread.

Do you seriously assume I have any inclination to talk to you at all? To set things straight, I'm replying to you here only because this is the official thread of Wolf.bet (read, I kinda have to). In any other thread I would have long ignored your replies altogether

No one's forcing you to respond. You stated something misleading and inaccurate (potentially to the detriment of others) and have had every opportunity to justify your position, and yet you refuse. Don't be surprised when people correct your false statements. Had you stated earlier "here's the strategy I use, here's the math behind it, as you can clearly see it gives the player +EV and lets them ruin the house, you're very incorrect and don't know what you're talking about", we wouldn't be this many replies in.

[TwitchySeal]

Your thread started out rational for a second there if we ignore the 'edge if only by chance alone' part.

[RHavar]

So it's possible to use a very carefully crafted martingale strategy to make it less unfavorable for the player to achieve a certain result. (e.g. instead of a 49.5% chance of doubling, you can lift it to a possible max of 49.65%). The way this works is by lowering your expected wager amount, while keeping aiming at your desired profit.


Although, I think you can invert this -- and say: Why does the casino punish users for using the normal UI for placing a bet? If it's possible to use a carefully crafted strategy to double your money with 49.65% chance, why if I use the normal bet form do I only get a 49.5% chance?


(I guess this comes down to my argument that flat-house-edges for different payouts are easy to understand but the wrong thing to do for players. Both my previous projects bustabit(v1) and moneypot didn't use fixed house edges, but I think it was misunderstood and under appreciated  )

[SquallLeonhart]

Great upgrade on the autobet features as it includes some ready to use strategies. Players do not need to set up the strategy manually.
I have never seen any sites with such features before so I think wolf.bet is the first one to implement this feature.
Most other sites are using 3rd party dicebot or players need to create their own script in order to use such strategies.
I think other sites will follow it in the near future if it will be a succeed feature that be used by many players.
Any news or clues that wolf.bet will add more games in the near future?

It is really cool for wolf.bet to make something that gets this much attention, these are the features that any casino that should add (not just this exact feature, just any feature that gets this much attention) because in the end you are talking about them and you are making them more interesting for other people. Sure there are methods that people feel more comfortable, and there are methods where you could get lucky for a while. But, nobody in the whole world could make me believe that there is a way to make money in the long term.

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

[rexxarofmoknathal]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

[davinchi]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

What some of the addicted gamblers who are trying to achieve (and fail miserably) and say that "some guy they know does it" (which is a lie by that guy as well) maaaybe they could just play a little, they do not have to gamble too much but just a little.

For example, how much would you need for living? Let's say 100 bucks a day? So, you do martingale for 1 dollars, ideally you make 100 in a row but we know that is not going to happen, you put in money there and continue to gamble for 1 dollar per bet and if you win you got it, if you lose you double and in the end if for 100 dollar profit there is no 10-20 times loss you will end up with your 100 dollars.

Some days you may end up losing a lot of money, some days you may win and in the end if winning days outpace the losing days, you will be in profit. However what they fail to realize is that, when you lose, you lose big, and it is hard to recover.

[startsts]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?   

[sarah viIo]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?  

I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.

[startsts]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?  

I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.

It seems you dont understand what I mean! I mean even if it would 0% house edge you would lose anyway,  martingale is just a bad strategy

[Bitinity]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?  

I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.

It is not impossible because there are some sites offer 0% house edge for promotional purpose but it does not give you any guarantee of winning. Indeed you have a bit higher winning chance on each bet but in the long term you will find bad lose streak on 0% house edge dice game since every single bet is independent.

[virasog]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?  

I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.

It is not impossible because there are some sites offer 0% house edge for promotional purpose but it does not give you any guarantee of winning. Indeed you have a bit higher winning chance on each bet but in the long term you will find bad lose streak on 0% house edge dice game since every single bet is independent.

Some newbies who are recently started playing gambling think that with zero percent house edge they have more chances to win but this is not actually the case. Even with 0% house edge the casino will still win and the player will lose. Also some casino falsely claim that they offer 0% house edge but in reality they do not.

[deisik]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily

How many times have you seen 23 losses in a row on a 2x payout yourself?

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

[Panxuan341]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily,  some players said they had even 30 red.   Ok, without house edge it would be 29 red.  So you would win?  

I think it's impossible to get 0% house edge, every I play in dice game, it's just not probability to get green because we don't know how much lost strike every payout we play.

It seems you dont understand what I mean! I mean even if it would 0% house edge you would lose anyway,  martingale is just a bad strategy

they will never not take advantage, because one of the advantages of the house edge, without that I agree the possibility to get a victory will be smaller