What's in the game, after all?

[coinfinger]

There are gamblers who got addicted because they do not have good psychology where they cannot control their own greed. Lack of discipline is also the cause of greediness and addiction. Gamblers who stuck in addiction think that they can easily escape that kind of situation but they are wrong because it takes time, effort and confidence. I'm just a mere gambler who seeking enojoyment in playing different gambling games, I also have limitation in order to control myself.

I consider that having the discipline and controlling ourselves are the things that we need to have. Without these things, gambling can be addicting, and it is hard to escape from gambling if we don't have a strong mind. If we can prevent from addicting, that would be the benefit for you because you don't have to spend all the money on gambling. I also a gambler, but I know how to treat gambling, and I don't want to become addicted to gambling.

But the question being asked here is what we all feel so fun about gambling that we are doing it again and again despite knowing that we are going to loose in the end. Like for example smoking or drinking gives you pleasure and you feel great when you do it, but with gambling what is that which keeps us keep doing it again and again? I would say that is the financial factor related to gambling because we all are here online for money, let's be honest and gambling seems like an easy option to earn money.

While talking of fun, sports betting can be really fun if you watch sports because you watch them and then you get a chance to cash your feeling which actually gives goosebumps first time you do it, just recall the moment when you did it first time .

[1714026986]

1714026986

[1714026986]

1714026986

[bearexin]

people like them will just stop gambling if they learned from their mistakes but there will be some people who will become stupid for a moment and will try their luck again in gambling hoping that they will win on it.

Look losing money does not mean you made a mistake and winning in gambling does not mean you are intelligent and very smart. It's just that you made some choices today that made you successful and some made you look worse, I mean betting under or over 50% on dice does not make you smart or idiot but learning that in long term the house holds the edge is what smart people do.

I don't see that as a "fail" but I think its pure greediness. They don't want them to learn from it because they only have one goal and it is to win. They aren't learning from their mistakes because they want to win. They are getting eaten by greed. They will just stop and learn when they realize their fault or they don't have money to use to gamble.

Call it greed or anything but it is hard to imagine that we loose money in gambling and don't feel like getting it back. I mean look at traders whom we regard so high they also make loss and recover it, yes going mad for your loss and rushing for profits is bad but otherwise it's human nature to get back what we lost be it gambling or in life.

[fullhdpixel]

There are other types of games in relation to gambling. Rolling dice might not be the most entertaining one. Some types of gambling games that could entertain a gambler is betting on something, like in horse racing. The anticipation is what drives them to be thrilled. Other type of games include card games, some with few mechanics, but is still based on luck.

What I see that can also entertain a user is the interaction he gets on gambling. Chat rooms and such also adds to the entertainment and enjoyment they feel.

Agree because most of the sports betting is fun pretty much for everyone because they can engage in the game and get their mind into it, while with dice gambling it's not so engaging but as I said, still pretty much fun.

I can assure you, rolling dice is not as boring as seems at least for me. Look for me money is everything and I am not Warren Buffet who doesn't have to think about money so every time I roll dice, I have a feeling like lets win and that is all the fun I am talking about. Hence as per my experience, there is something about money in gambling, after all.

[Diced90]

But the question being asked here is what we all feel so fun about gambling that we are doing it again and again despite knowing that we are going to loose in the end. Like for example smoking or drinking gives you pleasure and you feel great when you do it, but with gambling what is that which keeps us keep doing it again and again? I would say that is the financial factor related to gambling because we all are here online for money, let's be honest and gambling seems like an easy option to earn money.

While talking of fun, sports betting can be really fun if you watch sports because you watch them and then you get a chance to cash your feeling which actually gives goosebumps first time you do it, just recall the moment when you did it first time .

The thing is, you're not necessarily going to lose against the house, even in the long run.

The vast majority of games have a house edge of between 1 and 5%. Because of this, around 45% of people can be expected to beat the house, even in the long run.

Depending on whether you're able to cut you're losses while you're ahead, or not. That's a pretty good odds for many people.

Issues only arise when people get greedy. And boy, are we all greedy mofos!

[deisik]

What do people actually feel when gambling with motives other than purely financial? What do they get out of it? My take is that they are feeling in control of their fate, even if only for very brief moments. Simply put, that they are not losers, and luck is on their side, at least sometimes. Indeed, we all know that this feeling is fleeting and false overall, but it is so nice and pleasant that we are ready to pay for it, up to a point where we get addicted to it

I don't think it's realistic to say that when you gamble you are in control of your fate, the fact is you are not unless you are a high caliber gambler, the dice or the card and the house edge is in control of the game and it's your choice which is based on guess and luck will get you the outcome, you are not really in control because you are hoping to win

That's not what I mean

Feeling in control and being in control are different things, and I made that distinction clear in my post. Most of us are fully aware that we are far from being in control of virtually anything in real life, let alone pure chance. It just happens that gambling gives us what we would feel if we really were. When we win, we feel like winners and conquerors, right?. For fuck's sake, we are the winners over the fate with luck by our side at those moments even if they are as fleeting as April sunshine

[XCANA]

Actually I am playing some dice also in which skills are doesn't matter and the only one matter is there is your luck. Yes! Your luck because in dice it is just a matter of luck in which the number that you bet may show when the dice finished on rolling, in which it is not necessary that you need some skills just to win, unlike on poker or baccarat in which you really need some skills in order for you to read what the cards of the other enemies in order to set up a plan on how you guys will destroy them right?

I love dice games and have been playing them from inception. What I personally observe from playing dice is: they aren't professional in nature as it depends on luck Basically. Also, the rate at which the game fall apart from the gamer choice to  win. This has been more reason why I like poker games than dice games. Although, with all the games win or lose is the end result.

[deisik]

The vast majority of games have a house edge of between 1 and 5%. Because of this, around 45% of people can be expected to beat the house, even in the long run.

Depending on whether you're able to cut you're losses while you're ahead, or not. That's a pretty good odds for many people

In the long run people are set to lose

"In the long run" means making a huge amount of bets, and this is where the house edge starts to massively overwhelm luck and chance. It simply can't be any other way as otherwise casinos would be quickly ruined, which is apparently not the case in real life

Put differently, you can only win if you are lucky, while that means being short-term and running away as soon as you win big. If you don't win big shortly and continue gambling, losses will be adding up. So when you finally hit a lucky streak, it will be nowhere near enough to offset the total loss accumulated over time

[ethereumhunter]

I consider that having the discipline and controlling ourselves are the things that we need to have. Without these things, gambling can be addicting, and it is hard to escape from gambling if we don't have a strong mind. If we can prevent from addicting, that would be the benefit for you because you don't have to spend all the money on gambling. I also a gambler, but I know how to treat gambling, and I don't want to become addicted to gambling.

But the question being asked here is what we all feel so fun about gambling that we are doing it again and again despite knowing that we are going to loose in the end. Like for example smoking or drinking gives you pleasure and you feel great when you do it, but with gambling what is that which keeps us keep doing it again and again? I would say that is the financial factor related to gambling because we all are here online for money, let's be honest and gambling seems like an easy option to earn money.

While talking of fun, sports betting can be really fun if you watch sports because you watch them and then you get a chance to cash your feeling which actually gives goosebumps first time you do it, just recall the moment when you did it first time .

I guess that not all of us can feel so fun about gambling because we use gambling for any reason, and many of us use gambling to make money. Maybe some of us can feel so fun, but for the other people, gambling can make them curious about winning the games.

Sports betting is also a gambling game, but that will depend on how they treat sports betting. If they use sports betting as a way to make money, then they can get two things from sports betting, which is fun and the chance to make money.

[Betwrong]

~
The sad truth is that even if 10 billion people roll 10 billion times each, all of them will be losing because we are dealing here with one dynamic, i.e. the effect of the house edge, massively overriding another dynamic, i.e. a natural tendency of random events to have statistical outliers (what your point comes down to). In other words, you would need like 10 billion billion people rolling under 1 million times each to find that extremely lucky one

That's where our POVs differ, you think that we need "10 billion billion people", and I think 1.6 billion would be enough for that. But where did that huge number of yours come from? I mean, was it random? Why not quadrillion of quadrillions then?

Why do I think that 1.6 billion people is enough for something extremely improbable could happen to some of them is because there are people winning from gambling for years in a row. I think they are statistical outliers. But what do you think? That there are no such people, or what?

[deisik]

Why do I think that 1.6 billion people is enough for something extremely improbable could happen to some of them is because there are people winning from gambling for years in a row. I think they are statistical outliers. But what do you think? That there are no such people, or what?

There are statistical outliers as this is what random comes down too

However, with outliers you can't get where "that huge number of yours comes from" because they are outliers, i.e. something which you can't expect or calculate the probability of since otherwise they wouldn't be outliers. But in this case it is irrelevant because you take into account only one factor, i.e. the number of people but discard the other factor which is as important, and which is the number of rolls they make

If 2 billion people make 50 rolls each, it is not improbable that someone will see 50 greens in a row on a 2x multiplier. But if they make at least 100k rolls each the chances of even a few of them winning big and staying that way start to evaporate due to the house edge beating random en masse. In other words, your billion and a half people shouldn't make many bets if you want your theory proved correct. But that is definitely not what is meant by "the long run"

[TheGreatPython]

Dice might not be the most entertaining game, however it can be the game that gives the most profits.

Yes because dice have the lowest betting limits so more strategies can be applied and easier to make more rolls and test your strategy and along with that most dice games have low house edge when compared to sports betting or casinos while talking of casinos, I hate SLOTS!

Apart from the profits, it is a game that it is understood easily by anyone.

Well, it is true but for gambler I guess whatever they bet on they usually have good knowledge about it, I mean someone who loves soccer will not bet on cricket and vice-versa

[Betwrong]

Why do I think that 1.6 billion people is enough for something extremely improbable could happen to some of them is because there are people winning from gambling for years in a row. I think they are statistical outliers. But what do you think? That there are no such people, or what?

There are statistical outliers as this is what random comes down too

However, with outliers you can't get where "that huge number of yours comes from" because they are outliers, i.e. something which you can't expect or calculate the probability of since otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

Then, imo, we shouldn't say that we need "10 billion billion people" for them(outliers) to happen, because it can take only a 1,000 people, right? They are outliers, after all, they can happen any time to anyone.

Although it's true to some extent, I don't think we can afford this way of thinking, if we want to survive in this world. I think we should try to evaluate the probability of everything, and that's what statistics is there for. At first we have no idea about what is more dangerous, terrorists or drunk drivers. And then we turn to statistics for guidance.



It appears that we are 47 times less likely to die from a terrorist attack than from a road injury. We take that into consideration, and then behave accordingly when on the road. Also, we don't poison our mind with fearing of dying from a terrorist attack when going to a rock band concert.

From another stats



we can see that there are enough people(and guns) in the US for two people being shot dead by toddlers within a year.

If we had similar stats for gambling, we could evaluate whether 1.6 billion gamblers around the world were enough for several of them to be winning, say, 20 years in a row. But without those data, we can rely only on bits and pieces from media reports, unfortunately.

[deisik]

Why do I think that 1.6 billion people is enough for something extremely improbable could happen to some of them is because there are people winning from gambling for years in a row. I think they are statistical outliers. But what do you think? That there are no such people, or what?

There are statistical outliers as this is what random comes down too

However, with outliers you can't get where "that huge number of yours comes from" because they are outliers, i.e. something which you can't expect or calculate the probability of since otherwise they wouldn't be outliers.

Then, imo, we shouldn't say that we need "10 billion billion people" for them(outliers) to happen, because it can take only a 1,000 people, right? They are outliers, after all, they can happen any time to anyone

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that

All in all, you are still looking at only one side of the coin. But there is another side, and that is the house edge and its impact on randomness. Your stats are correct, and toddlers shooting down a couple people every year prove that extreme cases do happen. But why do they happen? In short, they happen because there is nothing that works against them in a prohibitive manner. These are random events at large, unleashed and unrestricted. But with gambling, the house edge in less than no time offsets the randomness of the game, and the longer you play the better it does its job (from the casino's point of view). In other words, it totally removes the factor of randomness from the equation after a certain number of bets (say, after 1 million bets)

So out of 1.6 billion people someone can be winning big, but only if that lucky guy doesn't play too often (read, luck can be on his side). But if all these masses of people were playing all the time, in terms of probabilities, it would be like a single gambler making all this incredible amount of bets. So how would he fare? I guess the house edge would quickly beat him into misery. And all these people too

[Best Dreams]

There are other types of games in relation to gambling. Rolling dice might not be the most entertaining one. Some types of gambling games that could entertain a gambler is betting on something, like in horse racing. The anticipation is what drives them to be thrilled. Other type of games include card games, some with few mechanics, but is still based on luck.

What I see that can also entertain a user is the interaction he gets on gambling. Chat rooms and such also adds to the entertainment and enjoyment they feel.

Yes you may have fun here as well, chat rooms are good , you will meet new people, new friends, that can share their strategies in the game as well it can be helpful , it can be helpful if you will gain that, having a mentor is good in the game.

I guess the *bad thing* you are referring to is the addiction. Well, many first time lottery player for example, likely won't get addicted in their first games. So, one would wonder what could cause a lottery player to get addicted? Maybe sound, greed, cute images, colors,. etc? I think some "fun/pleasurable" things attached to the lottery definitely could cause someone to become a regular player despite not winning or improving.

Addiction will only happen if and only if the gambler is very greedy, well it is given that sometimes we are being like that, and we cannot stop ourselves but we must! that is the root of the addiction, it can lead to that if you only be happy and have fun in gambling then being greedy will take out in the game.

I also do agree people get addicted when they make gambling as their whole time job so we should play gambling but in the limit. When you get the time and become boring then try to start gambling. After one-time tr one should take a break and stop for a while. In the very beginning, a gambler should have control over their emotions and never get addicted to gambling.

[MWesterweele]

I also do agree people get addicted when they make gambling as their whole time job so we should play gambling but in the limit. When you get the time and become boring then try to start gambling. After one-time tr one should take a break and stop for a while. In the very beginning, a gambler should have control over their emotions and never get addicted to gambling.

I agree being addicted in gambling is because of greedy,  we cant blame them but we can be a better than them by having a goal and time management when do gambling. In real life many people become addictive in anything because they want to satisfy their needs, also in gambling so if you limit yourself and do it for entertainment then no need to be worry.

In the long run people are set to lose

"In the long run" means making a huge amount of bets, and this is where the house edge starts to massively overwhelm luck and chance. It simply can't be any other way as otherwise casinos would be quickly ruined, which is apparently not the case in real life

Put differently, you can only win if you are lucky, while that means being short-term and running away as soon as you win big. If you don't win big shortly and continue gambling, losses will be adding up. So when you finally hit a lucky streak, it will be nowhere near enough to offset the total loss accumulated over time

Not only be lucky, I think the more impressive one is, when you have acknowledge the skills also as well as the luck, I do not believe in pure luck in gambling, I also believe in skills that can be use throughout the game.

[Betwrong]

~ Your stats are correct, and toddlers shooting down a couple people every year prove that extreme cases do happen. But why do they happen? In short, they happen because there is nothing that works against them in a prohibitive manner.

I beg to differ, because the age of a toddler(a child 12 to 36 months old, by definition) is something that definitely works against that happening. Toddlers usually don't walk around shooting people. Another counteracting factor is that people who own guns normally don't keep them within the reach of little children.

These are random events at large, unleashed and unrestricted. But with gambling, the house edge in less than no time offsets the randomness of the game, and the longer you play the better it does its job (from the casino's point of view). In other words, it totally removes the factor of randomness from the equation after a certain number of bets (say, after 1 million bets)

That's what I'm striving to find out, is it 1 million, 1 billion or 1 trillion bets. Even a rough estimate would be great.

So out of 1.6 billion people someone can be winning big, but only if that lucky guy doesn't play too often (read, luck can be on his side). But if all these masses of people were playing all the time, in terms of probabilities, it would be like a single gambler making all this incredible amount of bets. So how would he fare? I guess the house edge would quickly beat him into misery. And all these people too

In my opinion, this single gambler would lose 10% of his/her bankroll, max. Do you think otherwise?

[deisik]

~ Your stats are correct, and toddlers shooting down a couple people every year prove that extreme cases do happen. But why do they happen? In short, they happen because there is nothing that works against them in a prohibitive manner.

I beg to differ, because the age of a toddler(a child 12 to 36 months old, by definition) is something that definitely works against that happening. Toddlers usually don't walk around shooting people. Another counteracting factor is that people who own guns normally don't keep them within the reach of little children

It is a difference that makes the difference

And there is a difference between working against something in general and in a prohibitive manner. Indeed toddlers are not supposed to go all postal and shoot people around. However, the higher the population, and more specifically, the higher the number of parents with guns and toddlers, the higher are the chances of some particularly rogue and evil toddler finally pulling the trigger

The sad truth is, the counteracting factors which should work against this unhappy occurrence don't work against the law of large numbers itself. This is not the case with gambling where the tables are turned around as the higher the number of rolls, the less impact luck has. Really, if it were not so, all casinos would eventually be out of business with more people gambling, while in reality it is the polar opposite of that

These are random events at large, unleashed and unrestricted. But with gambling, the house edge in less than no time offsets the randomness of the game, and the longer you play the better it does its job (from the casino's point of view). In other words, it totally removes the factor of randomness from the equation after a certain number of bets (say, after 1 million bets)

That's what I'm striving to find out, is it 1 million, 1 billion or 1 trillion bets. Even a rough estimate would be great

In fact, I've been thinking about that

And I think I have found a way that could help you understand the matter better. You seem to be fond of PD and have some doges, right? So here's a simple test which you can run and see the overwhelming effect of the house edge in action. Start an autobet session with, say, 10k rolls on a 2x multiplier with a minimum bet amount, but without increasing or decreasing the bet size as you progress along

With 10k rolls you will be able to see how little luck matters and how powerful the house edge becomes in offsetting it completely after so many, or rather so few, rolls. The point is, with probably just as few as 1M bets that every human being on earth makes, luck becomes inconsequential and irrelevant altogether. There is no way there can be a few people still being in huge profit (or just in profit) after so many bets (provided they aim high all that time)

So out of 1.6 billion people someone can be winning big, but only if that lucky guy doesn't play too often (read, luck can be on his side). But if all these masses of people were playing all the time, in terms of probabilities, it would be like a single gambler making all this incredible amount of bets. So how would he fare? I guess the house edge would quickly beat him into misery. And all these people too

In my opinion, this single gambler would lose 10% of his/her bankroll, max. Do you think otherwise?

If they are going for big wins (i.e. not using martingale in the safest mode possible), with 1M bets they will lose all, and probably not just once

[Betwrong]

~ This is not the case with gambling where the tables are turned around as the higher the number of rolls, the less impact luck has. Really, if it were not so, all casinos would eventually be out of business with more people gambling, while in reality it is the polar opposite of that

But don't you think that in reality what casinos want to take from gamblers is just a small part of the money they gamble with, not all those money? We can even evaluate how big that part is since it is more or less equal to the house edge. It's 1% for PD, and it can be more than 10% for some land based casinos, but, I think, it's less than 10% on average. If people were only losing to casinos, no one would play there, and people would switch to other "games" where they could win something(or at least some of them could win something). That's why I think that casinos such as PD, with lower house edge, will always be popular, people don't want to lose all the time, they also want to enjoy winning.

~
And I think I have found a way that could help you understand the matter better. You seem to be fond of PD and have some doges, right? So here's a simple test which you can run and see the overwhelming effect of the house edge in action. Start an autobet session with, say, 10k rolls on a 2x multiplier with a minimum bet amount, but without increasing or decreasing the bet size as you progress along

With 10k rolls you will be able to see how little luck matters and how powerful the house edge becomes in offsetting it completely after so many, or rather so few, rolls.

I did what you said. Below are the results:



As you can see, I was even in profit after 7k rolls



But in the end I was in loss, 46 sats. Overall I lost less than was expected. I expected to lose 1%(PD's HE) of the wagered amount, which would be equal to 100 sats. (Well, not sats, but the smallest units of Dogecoin, I don't know how are they called).

[deisik]

~ This is not the case with gambling where the tables are turned around as the higher the number of rolls, the less impact luck has. Really, if it were not so, all casinos would eventually be out of business with more people gambling, while in reality it is the polar opposite of that

But don't you think that in reality what casinos want to take from gamblers is just a small part of the money they gamble with, not all those money? We can even evaluate how big that part is since it is more or less equal to the house edge. It's 1% for PD, and it can be more than 10% for some land based casinos, but, I think, it's less than 10% on average

You seem to miss a very important factor here

Namely, that gambling is not trading, with the implication being that once you lose your balance, there is no way back. And this is what happens, sooner or later, especially when you are going for big wins. But once you are out of money, it is a gameover for you. Indeed, you can deposit more, and then even more, but it is just a matter of time till you lose again, and then again. And while it may look like 10% on average, this will only be the case when you bet small, i.e. with a tiny percentage of your account balance. But then you can't win big

But in the end I was in loss, 46 sats. Overall I lost less than was expected. I expected to lose 1%(PD's HE) of the wagered amount, which would be equal to 100 sats

I'm running some tests now and will report here when I'm done (it will take a while)

[Betwrong]

~ This is not the case with gambling where the tables are turned around as the higher the number of rolls, the less impact luck has. Really, if it were not so, all casinos would eventually be out of business with more people gambling, while in reality it is the polar opposite of that

But don't you think that in reality what casinos want to take from gamblers is just a small part of the money they gamble with, not all those money? We can even evaluate how big that part is since it is more or less equal to the house edge. It's 1% for PD, and it can be more than 10% for some land based casinos, but, I think, it's less than 10% on average

You seem to miss a very important factor here

Namely, that gambling is not trading, with the implication being that once you lose your balance, there is no way back. And this is what happens, sooner or later, especially when you are going for big wins. But once you are out of money, it is a gameover for you. Indeed, you can deposit more, and then even more, but it is just a matter of time till you lose again, and then again. And while it may look like 10% on average, this will only be the case when you bet small, i.e. with a tiny percentage of your account balance. But then you can't win big

I agree that this is what happens to most of the gamblers, and that the main reason for that is the house edge. But it doesn't happen to all of the gamblers around. Although I think that many of successful gambling stories are fake, I believe some of them can be true. And it's not that surprising when several people, from 1.6 billion gamblers, have been winning consistently for years, while it's one in a hundred million chance of that happening.(sorry, I don't know what is the real chance of it)

But in the end I was in loss, 46 sats. Overall I lost less than was expected. I expected to lose 1%(PD's HE) of the wagered amount, which would be equal to 100 sats

I'm running some tests now and will report here when I'm done (it will take a while)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that, while making those 10k bets, I was losing more than 200 sats(let's call them "sats" for the convenience, ok?) at some point, somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 bets. (maybe it can be important to know for your tests. Can't wait for the results, btw).