(Bustabit) How often do long streaks of red come?

[o_e_l_e_o]

But that necessarily means the probability of hitting 9 heads in that series of 10 flips has always been 1/2 all the time.

No, it doesn't. The 1 in 2 chance of the final 10th flip being heads says absolutely nothing about what has come before. The chance for the 10th flip would be 1 in 2 regardless of if we had just flipped 9 heads, or 9 tails, or literally any combination of heads or tails. The odds that those 9 flips in a row would all be heads would have been 1 in 512 (0.5⁹) before we started flipping, but now they have happened so the odds are irrelevant.

You keep making this statement that I am applying probabilities to events in the past when that is the exact opposite of what I am doing. I am specifically excluding past events from the calculation of probabilities for future events.

We do seem to be going round in circles here.

[1715050340]

1715050340

[1715050340]

1715050340

[deisik]

But that necessarily means the probability of hitting 9 heads in that series of 10 flips has always been 1/2 all the time

No, it doesn't. The 1 in 2 chance of the final 10th flip being heads says absolutely nothing about what has come before

Indeed it has nothing to do with what has come before

However, that is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying earlier, i.e. "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less". Really, how can it become more likely if previous outcomes are in no way determining future ones? I'm just rephrasing what follows from your own words

Anyway, I think you should stop oscillating between these two mutually exclusive points of view, don't you think? And I already explained where your reasoning fails and why you are, or should be, confused. In simple terms, because there is neither more nor less likely in respect to events that have already occurred

[iamsheikhadil]

But that necessarily means the probability of hitting 9 heads in that series of 10 flips has always been 1/2 all the time.

No, it doesn't. The 1 in 2 chance of the final 10th flip being heads says absolutely nothing about what has come before. The chance for the 10th flip would be 1 in 2 regardless of if we had just flipped 9 heads, or 9 tails, or literally any combination of heads or tails. The odds that those 9 flips in a row would all be heads would have been 1 in 512 (0.5⁹) before we started flipping, but now they have happened so the odds are irrelevant.

You keep making this statement that I am applying probabilities to events in the past when that is the exact opposite of what I am doing. I am specifically excluding past events from the calculation of probabilities for future events.

We do seem to be going round in circles here.

I kinda agree but if we actually see every bet independent, shouldn't we say it's actually 1/2 since for every bet the odds are half only. It could have been 9 heads over 9 tails and then the chances of hitting 9 heads is 1/2 as well.

[DarkDays]

The round is randomness, why you still thinkin about after red must be green?

Too many people seem to believe that past results are an indicator of future occurrences.

This is exactly why anybody that doesn't have at least a basic understanding of probability or mathematics should absolutely stay away from any type of gambling.

Otherwise, they're just going to get rekt eventually. Know your game BEFORE you play, not AFTER.

[hosseinimr93]

However, that is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying earlier, i.e. "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less". Really, how can it become more likely if previous outcomes are in no way determining future ones? I'm just rephrasing what follows from your own words

I ask you a simple question.
Which one is more likely? Losing 10 bets in a row or losing 5 bets in a row?

Assume that you are going to make 10 bets and your purpose is to win at least one of them.
Before the game starts, you are allowed to try your luck 10 times.
You lose 5 first bets. Now you have lost 5 of your bets and you can try your luck only 5 times. It's clear that your chance has been decreased. Because you are no longer allowed to make 10 bets. You are allowed to make only 5 bets.

As the game goes and you lose the bets, you get closer to completing 10 losing streak.

[o_e_l_e_o]

However, that is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying earlier, i.e. "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less". Really, how can it become more likely if previous outcomes are in no way determining future ones?

Because you have fewer flips remaining! This is a very basic concept that you are struggling to grasp.

You and I both have a fair coin, and we are both going to flip it 10 times in a row. Every flip has a 1 in 2 chance of being heads. After 30 seconds, you have flip 8 heads in a row. I'm slower at flipping than you, so I've only flipped 3 heads in a row. Who is more likely to flip 10 heads in a row? You or me?

-snip-

Thank you! I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall here.

As I said before, any single flip has the same chance of being heads as any other single flip, but a series of 10 flips all being heads becomes more likely as you flip 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. heads because there are fewer flips remaining. This is simply a fact. I don't understand how we can still be arguing it.

[deisik]

However, that is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying earlier, i.e. "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less". Really, how can it become more likely if previous outcomes are in no way determining future ones? I'm just rephrasing what follows from your own words

I ask you a simple question.
Which one is more likely? Losing 10 bets in a row or losing 5 bets in a row?

This is not a simple question

What bets are you talking about, flipping a coin, rolling dice or spinning a roulette? What do you mean exactly by winning or losing here? Without defining all these specific conditions, your question is meaningless on its own as there can be every possible answer like losing 10 bets in a row less likely than losing 5 bets in a row

[Yamifoud]

The round is randomness, why you still thinkin about after red must be green?

Too many people seem to believe that past results are an indicator of future occurrences.

This is exactly why anybody that doesn't have at least a basic understanding of probability or mathematics should absolutely stay away from any type of gambling.

Otherwise, they're just going to get rekt eventually. Know your game BEFORE you play, not AFTER.

That is a common mistake for new gamblers ( that bolded one). That they actually believe that gambling could be some of sort mathematics calculations, making winning patterns and use in gambling is not actually it works but some gamblers did it.

Definitely, here in gambling there is no 10/10 winning streak and it might happen that 0/10( that is near to possibility). This is means that luck is much needed in gambling to win not that mathematical calculation.

[tbterryboy]

I can't understand what do you mean exactly, streaks of red when? Anything above 1.00 is green (1.01 is already profit) and I have never seen 1.00 (immediate crush) to be shown in a row for 15 times and higher, haven't even seen it 2-3 times in a row personally. Will be glad if you make your question more detailed. If you are going to build some strategy, look at bustabit's Leaderboard and check profiles of users you would love to see and there you'll see statistics of them, how much they bet, when, what was the result and etc.
Good luck but in overall strategy isn't very beneficial, luck is luck. You can't get luck by strategy but you can get it by accident.

I was reading through and was wondering the same and you probably said almost what I would. I would just like to add the fact that if you are talking about loosing streak on a expected cashout at 2.00 odds then I can tell you that you may even have bigger streaks than 15 because it's similar to dice and I have seen streaks of 13-14 often at primedice and had a streak of 9 myself not so long ago.

For years, people are researching about how to overcome the continuous losing streaks and unfortunately no one is coming up with any possible solution. It shows, it cannot have any solution but it is the solution for houses to beat us when try to beat them through martingale.

[fullhdpixel]

I have played Bust-a-bit when I was new in cryptocurrency and the worst that I had come across so far was 5 streak in a row. I usually stop playing for a few rounds when this occurs. I tried figuring out when it usually occurs but I guess this is random since each run is generated by a random algorithm.

Can you please be more specific, 5 loosing streak at what odds? Because, bust-a-bit is not a dice game so can't assume you mean at 49.5%. If you mean immediate crash that is at 1.0 then I have to admit you have been really unlucky. For me I never got more than 2 at max.

martingale doesn't work long-run which everyone is already aware of. Have tried this several times before and if you will keep repeating it for the long run you will end up bankrupt.

Indeed and talk of any strategy they cannot turn the odds in your favor, some strategies tend to be slow starters and explode like martingale does while some explode initially and gets smaller as it goes on - an example would be something like betting on 10% win chance.

[alani123]

I can't understand what do you mean exactly, streaks of red when? Anything above 1.00 is green (1.01 is already profit) and I have never seen 1.00 (immediate crush) to be shown in a row for 15 times and higher, haven't even seen it 2-3 times in a row personally. Will be glad if you make your question more detailed. If you are going to build some strategy, look at bustabit's Leaderboard and check profiles of users you would love to see and there you'll see statistics of them, how much they bet, when, what was the result and etc.
Good luck but in overall strategy isn't very beneficial, luck is luck. You can't get luck by strategy but you can get it by accident.

I was reading through and was wondering the same and you probably said almost what I would. I would just like to add the fact that if you are talking about loosing streak on a expected cashout at 2.00 odds then I can tell you that you may even have bigger streaks than 15 because it's similar to dice and I have seen streaks of 13-14 often at primedice and had a streak of 9 myself not so long ago.

For years, people are researching about how to overcome the continuous losing streaks and unfortunately no one is coming up with any possible solution. It shows, it cannot have any solution but it is the solution for houses to beat us when try to beat them through martingale.

Just how martingale only works if you have unlimited funds, j think that for the sake of clarity we should never involve the law of averages with gambling. Exlecially for the newbies, it must be made clear that their possibilities of their wagers are not connected. Everything else is just fluff.

[janggernaut]

I have played Bust-a-bit when I was new in cryptocurrency and the worst that I had come across so far was 5 streak in a row. I usually stop playing for a few rounds when this occurs. I tried figuring out when it usually occurs but I guess this is random since each run is generated by a random algorithm.

Can you please be more specific, 5 loosing streak at what odds? Because, bust-a-bit is not a dice game so can't assume you mean at 49.5%. If you mean immediate crash that is at 1.0 then I have to admit you have been really unlucky. For me I never got more than 2 at max.

martingale doesn't work long-run which everyone is already aware of. Have tried this several times before and if you will keep repeating it for the long run you will end up bankrupt.

Indeed and talk of any strategy they cannot turn the odds in your favor, some strategies tend to be slow starters and explode like martingale does while some explode initially and gets smaller as it goes on - an example would be something like betting on 10% win chance.

i've ever got 4 streak losses at 1.1x multipler. And more than 10 at 2x multipler in long run. Get 5 streak losses is very normal happened on bustabit.

[KrisAlex18]

Does anyone have any idea how often let's say 15-20 red streak come and go? Would like people who have somewhat of an idea, thanks!

We can't precisely predict when does 15-20 red streak come and go, because that is gambling we can not predict the accurate result or outcome of every game, we will only hope for our luck on that day, but there are some ways to know what would be the output of the game, based on what I had read before a man won in the lotto because he observed and analyze the process of the draw lots, he is a statistician, so by doing some statics of the lotto for four months, he came up with the correct output. He is now a millionaire because of that. You can make statistics In every gambling that uses a machine to operate the game because the same process will be applied to start the game. The machines are already program to start the game with the same process, so if you will make ways and if you are going to do some research, then probably you will win the game. Gambling is better if you win the game, so for you to win the game, you should do some research and analyze the process of the game. It is better if you are going to make a way to win than to wait for you to win.

[deisik]

However, that is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying earlier, i.e. "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less". Really, how can it become more likely if previous outcomes are in no way determining future ones?

Because you have fewer flips remaining!

And so what?

If there are fewer flips remaining, how does it make these fewer flips more dependent on your previous flips if there is any dependence at all (because there is none, which you seem to agree with)? As I can see, well, as you can see, your frustration is in fact directed not so much at me but rather at yourself

Basically, you are trying to apply an abstract idea, that of odds in a series of events like coin flipping to a real life situation (that is, coin flipping, huh), and arrive at impossible inferences (which you dare not speak out loud) like previous rolls or flips affecting the remaining ones. But I understand your cognitive collapse

[o_e_l_e_o]

But I understand your cognitive collapse

Just lol. Lets just insult me rather than address your misunderstanding?

Please answer this question:

You and I both have a fair coin, and we are both going to flip it 10 times in a row. Every flip has a 1 in 2 chance of being heads. After 30 seconds, you have flipped 8 heads in a row. I'm slower at flipping than you, so I've only flipped 3 heads in a row. Who is more likely to flip 10 heads in a row? You or me?

[deisik]

But I understand your cognitive collapse

Just lol. Lets just insult me rather than address your misunderstanding?

I never meant it that way

Please answer this question:

You and I both have a fair coin, and we are both going to flip it 10 times in a row. Every flip has a 1 in 2 chance of being heads. After 30 seconds, you have flipped 8 heads in a row. I'm slower at flipping than you, so I've only flipped 3 heads in a row. Who is more likely to flip 10 heads in a row? You or me?

I intentionally decided not to answer this question

Because you are complicating matters beyond what is necessary here (30 seconds, two players instead of one, etc). Regardless, let's just say you are only adding another layer of complexity which doesn't add anything in terms of clarity and understanding. Everything is the same as before as far as the original example is concerned, i.e. the fact that I flipped a coin 8 heads in a row doesn't make it more likely that I'm going to continue flipping heads (provided the coin is fair, of course, and my flips are entirely random, i.e. no skill is involved)

Put differently, my chances of flipping heads in the remaining 2 flips haven't and couldn't have changed since both you and I proceed from the assumption that flips are independent of each other. So these chances remain the same as they were before you or I started the series (whatever they might be), apart from being a purely abstract construct (if we talk about a series of events). It is this seeming connection which leaves you susceptible to the Gambler's Fallacy reversed. In other words, your new example is as meaningless as the first one since it can be reduced to the latter

[o_e_l_e_o]

the fact that I flipped a coin 8 heads in a row doesn't make it more likely that I'm going to continue flipping heads

I have never claimed otherwise.

Put differently, my chances of flipping heads in the remaining 2 flips haven't and couldn't have changed

As above.

I'm not asking about individual flips. I'm asking about completing the series of 10 flips. There are three possible answers to my question:

You, having already flipped 8 heads in a row, are more likely to reach 10 heads in a row.
Me, having already flipped 3 heads in a row, are more likely to reach 10 heads in a row.
We are both just as likely to reach 10 heads in a row.

Please pick one.

[deisik]

the fact that I flipped a coin 8 heads in a row doesn't make it more likely that I'm going to continue flipping heads

I have never claimed otherwise

But this is what directly follows from your assertion that "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less"

I'm not asking about individual flips. I'm asking about completing the series of 10 flips. There are three possible answers to my question:

You, having already flipped 8 heads in a row, are more likely to reach 10 heads in a row.
Me, having already flipped 3 heads in a row, are more likely to reach 10 heads in a row.
We are both just as likely to reach 10 heads in a row

Let me rephrase your question

So, did you stop beating your wife every morning? Yes/No. This question is meaningless if you don't have a wife, obviously, but it is as meaningless if you had a wife and never beat her (barring the situation when you actually have a spouse and beat her regularly). But even the latter condition is itself somewhat suspicious and dubious as it assumes the possibility that you were physically able to beat your wife as it might in fact be the other way around, i.e. your wife beating you, regularly or otherwise

Your question (a set of questions) is of the same type, so forcing me to reply to it (pick up one of the replies), you are as well forcing me to involuntarily admit the fact that "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less" in more specific terms and changed ones (heads instead of losses, flips instead of rolls). But it doesn't in the least change or challenge the underlying idea, that you can't speak of past events in terms of probabilities. All in all, you discard a factor of time which is quintessential to the idea of probabilities

[o_e_l_e_o]

But this is what directly follows from your assertion that "as you progress along a run of losses, reaching 10 losses in a row becomes more likely, not less"

Which is a statement of fact.

You seem unable to separate the probability of individual flips from the probability of a series of flips as a whole. The probability of any one flip doesn't change. The probability of the series changes are you progress along that series. Those are both simply facts.

You can argue semantics about the way I have phrased the question or heads, tails, flips, rolls, wins, losses, etc., as much as you want, but it is entirely irrelevant. Since you have refused to answer my question, let me answer it for you:

If you have flipped 8 heads in a row, then you have 2 flips left in your series of 10. You have a 0.5² (1 in 4) chance of reaching 10 heads in a row.
If I have flipped 3 heads in a row, then I have 7 flips left in my series of 10. I have a 0.5⁷ (1 in 128) chance of reaching 10 heads in a row.
As you have progressed further along a run of heads, you are more likely than me to reach 10 heads in a row.

None of this depends on a "factor of time" or pays any attention whatsoever to "past events in terms of probabilities". This answer looks exclusively at flips which are yet to happen - 2 in your case and 7 in mine.

If you want to argue against my math then feel free. If you want to argue semantics for no reason then I'm out.

[hosseinimr93]

@deisik

Assume that there's a football match between team A and Team B. Both teams are exactly equal in strength and the chance of winning is exactly 50% for each of them
After first half ends, all players forget what happened in the first half. So what happened in the first half has no effect on the second half.

Team A lose the first half.
Now the second half is going to be started.
All players have forgotten what happened in the first half.

Do you agree that Team A has a smaller chance to win the game but both teams have equal chance for winning the second half?

Let's come back to the flip game.

First half = 5 first flips
Second half = 5 second flips
Game = 10 flips

You are going to flip a coin 10 times and you will win the game if you win at least one of 10 flips.
You lose the first 5 flips. Do you agree that your chance to win the game has decreased comparing to the time you hadn't flipped any coin?
I am not talking about the next flip. I am talking about the game which is winning one flip out of 10 and you have already tried your luck 5 times.