House Edge vs. Luck - the Last Stand

[deisik]

As you can see, this player made over 1 million dice bets, and his total profit is 0.31624212 BTC. And looking at his total wagered amount, over 845 BTC, I don't think this guy was betting 1 satoshi ever

I'm curious if you are aware that your stats actually prove my point

The dude wagered over 845 bitcoins, took home some measly 0.31624212 BTC (in relative terms), which is less than 0.04% of the wagered amount, and was obviously using "some kind of sophisticated betting strategy" (read, martingale). If you followed my martingale thread over there, you would know that with more or less safe martingale settings I managed to earn times my initial amount and with a way higher wagered amount to profit ratio (close to astounding 50%):



But I'm not saying that I was betting randomly with half of my balance at stake at once (which would kill me in the blink of an eye)

[Betwrong]

As you can see, this player made over 1 million dice bets, and his total profit is 0.31624212 BTC. And looking at his total wagered amount, over 845 BTC, I don't think this guy was betting 1 satoshi ever

I'm curious if you are aware that your stats actually prove my point

The dude wagered over 845 bitcoins, took home some measly 0.31624212 BTC (in relative terms), which is less than 0.04% of the wagered amount, and was obviously using "some kind of sophisticated betting strategy" (read, martingale). If you followed my martingale thread over there, you would know that with more or less safe martingale settings I managed to earn times my initial amount and with a way higher wagered amount to profit ratio (close to astounding 50%):



But I'm not saying that I was betting randomly with half of my balance at stake at once (which would kill me in the blink of an eye)

However funny it may seem, but I think it's your stats that are proving my point.

You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not ), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck.

[deisik]

You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not ), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck

I wonder whether you intentionally or accidentally now come to discard your own premises. But let me help you refresh your memory and quote your earlier post:

Then how would you explain that some people are in overall profit after making millions of bets on dice sites? Do you think all of them are using some kind of sophisticated betting strategy, something like that "Martingale-DOGE" one of yours?

So I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have indeed been using a pretty sophisticated betting strategy

Moreover, I was in fact taking advantage of that famous "Martingale-DOGE" strategy of mine. And you know what? You can ride it too. To reiterate, you can beat the house edge by drawing on the raw power of pure, undiluted randomness, and turning it against the house itself. It is a fact, and whether you believe it or not doesn't change anything in this regard

Basically, you need two things, which is patience and knowledge (well, and the house remaining "provably fair" in the process). But if you are betting randomly, off the top of your head and without much thought or consideration, the first posts in this topic show abundantly clear how things are going to play out for you in the long run

[MFahad]

As you can see, this player made over 1 million dice bets, and his total profit is 0.31624212 BTC. And looking at his total wagered amount, over 845 BTC, I don't think this guy was betting 1 satoshi ever

I'm curious if you are aware that your stats actually prove my point

The dude wagered over 845 bitcoins, took home some measly 0.31624212 BTC (in relative terms), which is less than 0.04% of the wagered amount, and was obviously using "some kind of sophisticated betting strategy" (read, martingale). If you followed my martingale thread over there, you would know that with more or less safe martingale settings I managed to earn times my initial amount and with a way higher wagered amount to profit ratio (close to astounding 50%):



But I'm not saying that I was betting randomly with half of my balance at stake at once (which would kill me in the blink of an eye)

However funny it may seem, but I think it's your stats that are proving my point.

You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not ), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck.

It depends what were the odds selected in those bets with martingale game play. If the very low odds were selected, then he was not busted even he placed 30 millions bet. If on the other hand the odds were high, the house edge won't let you win after so many games.
Also you can see that loses are much more than the wins.

[Questat]

Thanks for making such experiment and shared it with us here.

Actually I don't have to do such kind of experiment as I have already convince myself that I'll never win in dice especially in the long run.
The longer you bet, the more you chances of winning will decrease since they have the edge in every bet and the more they'll win if you bet using a fix amount per bet, that is why sometimes I will double and gets aggressive and hope that I'll be lucky, then I will stop, and then just consider a fresh bankroll once I gamble again and forget about my past result.

[deisik]

It depends what were the odds selected in those bets with martingale game play. If the very low odds were selected, then he was not busted even he placed 30 millions bet

Let's just call it a variety of Gambler's Fallacy (and you probably meant very high odds like 99%)

Also you can see that loses are much more than the wins

That's definitely a telltale sign that some highly sophisticated and complex strategy was at work behind these stats!

In actuality, though, the explanation for this discrepancy is extremely simple. There are more losses simply because throughout all of my 31M rolls I was using odds in the range of 37 to 42 percent. In other words, if I were using higher odds, i.e. over 50%, there would be more wins than losses. With no house edge and at 50% win chance exactly, there will be as many wins as losses on average. This ratio doesn't tell anything on its own (other than an average win chance)

[batang_bitcoin]

there are strategies that can be used to recover losses like the martingale strategy.

I can't prove this that it's a good strategy to recover. I do agree with 20kevin that it's a way to lose even quicker. But if you can prove it on your own and you have recovered much with this strategy, you are one of those few that's really using this strategy for your own good

It is a matter of understanding variance, and how you can profit off it

Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.

As for the luck, IMO there's really no point to determine when it is effective for those ton of bets you've made because it will come unexpectedly but there's one sure thing for us, the house edge remains no matter what.

Luck gets completely averaged out over thousands of bets (in fact, more like millions of bets), and that is exactly the point of running so many tests to determine when it will happen, or rather start out to, for 999 players out of 1000. There can be extreme outliers, but in real life before you hit one you will have lost your balance many times unless you bet small. However, in the latter case your winnings will be as small compared to the balance, so your only reward will be witnessing such an outlier for real eventually (like in a decade of nonstop rolling or so)

I can't argue with that because you have tried it.

[iamsheikhadil]

It basically means on a scale of 1-100 of natural number, for every 2-100 that you roll, you will have your money back 100% and for every 1 you roll, you will have 99% of your money back. Basically there's no profit, only loss. Luck can save me from hitting that 1 for so long but still, once I'll hit it for sure.

Now you will say if I get 100% of money back if I win and 99% if I lose with no chance of profit, then why should I play? Well, here's the thing, the casino doesn't consider me as the only player bankroll but the net balance of all people who are gambling. So if I win big, some player is ought to lose. In the long run things get balanced out and casino wins.

[naikturun]

I don't think that's the way to do it.
playing dice like that is indeed the host will win.
know from every 6 crosshairs you will only have a chance of under 20% if there are 6 players betting for each round and there are only big or small choices then it's odd or even?
how many do you think each person will win, let's say 2 out of 6 wins and 4 the rest lose automatically the host will take the rest.
to be honest, I was a dealer in a game in an online game, we bet using gold in the game.
I calculate the capital I have and put a bet limit for each round.
EX: i have 1000k gold, and i create room that max with 10 player, and max bet each round is 10k.
if they 10 make 10k bet that mean 100k/round and you will be survive with 10 round, but guess what?? u wont lose. trust me.
probability u won is bigger than them all, lets say u lose to 4 player in a round, u still win from another 6 player.
that why i say host will always win.

[Darker45]

there are strategies that can be used to recover losses like the martingale strategy.

I can't prove this that it's a good strategy to recover. I do agree with 20kevin that it's a way to lose even quicker. But if you can prove it on your own and you have recovered much with this strategy, you are one of those few that's really using this strategy for your own good

It is a matter of understanding variance, and how you can profit off it

Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.

Others with bottomless wallets can prove it. Otherwise, this Martingale strategy is just an impatient and poor attempt to recover your base loss. I have used it and will definitely use it again but there will surely be a certain limit. You simply cannot chase that few Sats forever and up to the point of betting 1 full BTC. That would be extremely ludicrous. 

[Tipstar]

The larger number of rolls you make, the more your luck would be pacified, whether it was a good luck or a bad one.

If you bet enough number of times, a fixed amount on the x2 multiplier, stats for you would be 49.5% win and 50.5% lose exactly for any number of bets there after (on 1% house edge).

[Debonaire217]

I quite believe in your conjecture about house edge dominating your funds in the long run, though it is quite fascinating to figure out how they could formulate these complex algorithms to always turn the table into their fortune for gamblers who play long term. Basically, if you are generating random numbers for an outcome of each game, how could you shape the path of a gambler that is playing day by day and end up for the house to always win? Or else, there really is an online gambling casino that is fair. Meaning to say that gambling will basically be based on your luck and some just figure out that they are losing in long term gambling.

[Betwrong]

You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not ), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck

I wonder whether you intentionally or accidentally now come to discard your own premises. But let me help you refresh your memory and quote your earlier post:

Then how would you explain that some people are in overall profit after making millions of bets on dice sites? Do you think all of them are using some kind of sophisticated betting strategy, something like that "Martingale-DOGE" one of yours?

Wait, there's probably a misunderstanding here. The post you quoted was a reply to this post of yours:

~ I actually show real-life stats proving that after 100k bets luck, as the only force opposing the house edge, becomes utterly irrelevant and inconsequential. Simply put, 1 billion bets, whether made by a single player or by a crowd of countless players, is a massive overkill in this regard

And I thought you meant that no amount of luck could help you to beat the house edge after 100k bets(I still think you meant exactly that).

Now, if you are saying that you invented a strategy that can not only beat the house edge, but also make the luck factor irrelevant, I'm not going to argue with you until I can prove that your strategy fails(Which I can't do. I tried your strategy and I won some Doge with it, and I had an impression that I could wait a billion years until it fails). The only drawback of your Martingale-DOGE strategy is that you can't win a more or less significant amount with it, but other than that it works(Again, to a certain extent. I'm sure it would fail eventually. But how much time it would take for that, a thousand years, a million, a billion?).

I don't want to be that person saying to humanity: "Whatever you do, you will fail eventually! When the heat death of the universe occurs, you certainly will."

[deisik]

Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.

Others with bottomless wallets can prove it

With Dogecoin, you can easily turn a very limited balance (say, 100 dollars) into a virtually unlimited one

Otherwise, this Martingale strategy is just an impatient and poor attempt to recover your base loss. I have used it and will definitely use it again but there will surely be a certain limit. You simply cannot chase that few Sats forever and up to the point of betting 1 full BTC. That would be extremely ludicrous

If I got you correctly, you refer to the variety of martingale described in the Wiki article (let's call it plain vanilla martingale). If so, then I agree with you, it is as ludicrous as utterly useless. But this is not the only way to implement it. Personally, I set it up in a way that allowed me not only to get back what I had cumulatively lost at the end of the losing streak but also earn as much. More specifically, I was continually increasing the multiplier as my balance grew, so eventually I ended up with a payout over 130%, i.e. at each winning roll I took home more than twice the total amount lost in the preceding rolls

[stadus]

So the conclusion is that the house edge turns into a dominating force somewhere after 10k, while luck stops being a factor right there. It doesn't mean that we can't be in profit after 100k rolls, but it will be a statistical outlier, i.e. an extremely rare event

For your experiment yes, but not most of the time, I can always think no matter what kind of experiment we will do, the house edge will always win.
In this simple experiment, this only showed how hard to beat the house despite of its very low house edge, because the word "EDGE" is sometimes neglected but it has a big effect on why we lose in the long run.

For that reason, I can't consider dice as a game that I would focus to play in the long run, so I've focus more on sports betting than any other games with house edge.

[Darker45]

Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.

Others with bottomless wallets can prove it

With Dogecoin, you can easily turn a very limited balance (say, 100 dollars) into a virtually unlimited one

If you just want to prove something, that's good to go. But if you are playing for the money and the fun, which are the two things that gamblers are usually after, that would simply be a waste of time. For that 100 bucks to turn into an unlimited funding, you will have to play autobet and opt for ∞ while placing as little as 0.0000001 DOGE for the first roll.

Otherwise, this Martingale strategy is just an impatient and poor attempt to recover your base loss. I have used it and will definitely use it again but there will surely be a certain limit. You simply cannot chase that few Sats forever and up to the point of betting 1 full BTC. That would be extremely ludicrous

If I got you correctly, you refer to the variety of martingale described in the Wiki article (let's call it plain vanilla martingale). If so, then I agree with you, it is as ludicrous as utterly useless. But this is not the only way to implement it. Personally, I set it up in a way that allowed me not only to get back what I had cumulatively lost at the end of the losing streak but also earn as much. More specifically, I was continually increasing the multiplier as my balance grew, so eventually I ended up with a payout over 130%, i.e. at each winning roll I took home more than twice the total amount lost in the preceding rolls

I am referring to the Martingale as it is, the classic Martingale and not one of its variations.

I'm sorry I don't quite get you there. Which multiplier are you increasing aside from the 100% increase of bet every single loss?

[deisik]

You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not ), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck

I wonder whether you intentionally or accidentally now come to discard your own premises. But let me help you refresh your memory and quote your earlier post:

Then how would you explain that some people are in overall profit after making millions of bets on dice sites? Do you think all of them are using some kind of sophisticated betting strategy, something like that "Martingale-DOGE" one of yours?

Wait, there's probably a misunderstanding here. The post you quoted was a reply to this post of yours:

~ I actually show real-life stats proving that after 100k bets luck, as the only force opposing the house edge, becomes utterly irrelevant and inconsequential. Simply put, 1 billion bets, whether made by a single player or by a crowd of countless players, is a massive overkill in this regard

And I thought you meant that no amount of luck could help you to beat the house edge after 100k bets(I still think you meant exactly that)

If there's a misunderstanding, it looks like it is on your account

But I can tell you exactly where its source lies or where it comes from. First off, let me say that I indeed mean just that, i.e. no amount of luck is going to help you beat the house (over millions of rolls). That's basically the key point of this entire thread. However, when you are using some strategy (irrespective of whether it is working or not), you are supposedly no longer relying on luck, per definition. Naturally, the vast majority of such strategies are no more than a variety of the infamous Gambler's Fallacy. If you are using such a strategy, your success continues to depend on luck, so all said and done in the first posts of this topic still fully applies to your gambling journey (read, you are set to lose eventually)

Then, if you are using a strategy which is not relying on luck, you can no longer say that luck determines the fate of your balance as it gets eliminated from the equation. This logic cannot be challenged. So the whole question under these assumptions comes down to whether such a strategy exists for real. And as my experience proves, moreover, even as your experience seems to prove, there is such a strategy, the one you dubbed Martingale-DOGE. As you can see, there is no contradiction in my words and line of reasoning. If we are talking about a working strategy that is actually able to overcome or work around the house edge, luck or its absence is no longer a factor (which you seem to understand intuitively)

[batang_bitcoin]

there are strategies that can be used to recover losses like the martingale strategy.

I can't prove this that it's a good strategy to recover. I do agree with 20kevin that it's a way to lose even quicker. But if you can prove it on your own and you have recovered much with this strategy, you are one of those few that's really using this strategy for your own good

It is a matter of understanding variance, and how you can profit off it

Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.

Others with bottomless wallets can prove it. Otherwise, this Martingale strategy is just an impatient and poor attempt to recover your base loss. I have used it and will definitely use it again but there will surely be a certain limit. You simply cannot chase that few Sats forever and up to the point of betting 1 full BTC. That would be extremely ludicrous. 

Nice, we have you to prove that this is effective on your end. I knew it that there will be others that can say that for this strategy. But, I don't really think that I'll get back to this strategy and try it again so that I can prove it to others too.
It's already enough that it's working to you and to others that will say that it worked for them with specific limits.

[leea-1334]

The problem is not that people do not understand this fact. The problem is people believe they can beat the facts. We all know gambling is favored towards the house in a big way. First is the house edge, second is the limits on bets (which limits martingale tactics for example).

Then,,, you have to deal also with normal emotion of chasing losses or believing in streaks.

[deisik]

But if you are playing for the money and the fun, which are the two things that gamblers are usually after, that would simply be a waste of time. For that 100 bucks to turn into an unlimited funding, you will have to play autobet and opt for ∞ while placing as little as 0.0000001 DOGE for the first roll

It is actually more like 0.00000001 DOGE

But never mind, since I got both fun and money at the end of the day. It was actually quite exhilarating to see my balance swelling up a few times (more like over 10 times) even if I had to start with the lowest possible amount as my base bet. Although I would definitely go for faster betting speeds to get even more kick out of it. In simple terms, I don't consider it a waste of time. In fact, I think it provided me with quite valuable knowledge, experience and insight which can be meaningfully as well as purposefully transferred to other areas of life

I am referring to the Martingale as it is, the classic Martingale and not one of its variations

It's your call, but this is not how I used it and would advise anyone to use it

I'm sorry I don't quite get you there. Which multiplier are you increasing aside from the 100% increase of bet every single loss?

This multiplier is not what you think it is. It is what you get when you divide your win by your stake (plus one for the stake itself). It is also called a payout. So I kept on increasing the multiplier as my balance grew heavier and as soon as it allowed me to notch it up one step at a time while keeping the length of the max losing streak intact. In other words, I didn't and technically even couldn't increase it on the go, i.e. when I was running any given autobet session