Betting strategy question

[klidex]

Hypothetical scenario:

You can bet on a single dye roll (choosing a number between 1-6), but if you win you get paid x12 of your stake (instead of x6).
So the Expected Value is positive (see example below), but you'd still have 83% chance of losing.

1 - will you take that bet?
2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?

Again, this is a single, non-repetitive bet.

-----------------------

Simulation for BTC1 bet:

EV = (83% x -BTC1) + (17% x BTC12) = +BTC1.21

I would definitely take that bet, and I doubt anyone with a bare minimum gambling knowledge wouldn't.
Regardiing the best size I would keep it the same size disregarding how much more I will be paid out, because It Is a single bet event.

All gambling fans will definitely accept all forms of betting even though they know that there is an 83% percentage of losing.
However, in fact all gambling bets do have a greater percentage of losing and only a small chance of winning, even if luck is on your side.
Even though a gambler has gambling knowledge, when they are playing or betting they experience a slight defeat, this knowledge is very rarely used. Because yes, there is only high emotion and greed, so it makes them forget and continue playing without thinking about defeat.

Bottom question I guess is concerned with the legitimacy. Ofcourse there will always be risk;small or big, in gambling. But getting an odd of winning more than 40% I guess is already big so what more with the given computation of OP. Most of the people here would be interested with such offer but if this won't be paying on casino's end, then this will just be a waste of time. If the offer is a bit unrealistic, think or doubt already. A gambling casino won't allow its players to win most of the because it will only yield to bankruptcy unless that casino to offer such thing qould find a way to generate profit inspite of giving such odd to the players.

Yes, it's true that a larger percentage will indeed attract gamblers to bet, but a larger percentage also doesn't guarantee a win.
After all, a casino owner or casino dealer doesn't want to experience losses, so percentages can't be used as a benchmark.
Whether it's big or small, the percentage all has the same risk and even though we have the right calculations, we as gamblers who bet don't know what the end result will be and keep betting without thinking about the risks that will be received.

[coolcoinz]

I would definitely take that bet, and I doubt anyone with a bare minimum gambling knowledge wouldn't.
Regardiing the best size I would keep it the same size disregarding how much more I will be paid out, because It Is a single bet event.

Exactly. You can expect at least a 1 roll out of 6 to be your number, but with the x12 payout you can technically miss 10 times and still win money. Usually in every game of chance your odds are much lower and it's much harder to make a profit. Like in typical dice you have to score each time with a 50% chance to make money. If you score every second bet you still lose. Here you can score 1 out of 10 with 16,5% chance and make money - it's pretty good.

[Cling18]

For me to be placing a bet it is assumed that i have understand the full insights about the risk involved, the higher the risk the higher the winning regardless of how much you stake, but it will make more meaning if you can stake with a smaller amount with higher risk and winning, if the place you a double of your winning then they already have the calculations to be 90% sure of what they are giving as offer for you, but you ain't sure about yours, this makes it high risk but on a rare occasions some gamblers prove smart and win them after taking the risk.

It's all or nothing so I believe that it will still be worth it. Despite the high risk, it's still a good thing to try your luck once. There might be a smaller chance of winning but I like it better than betting continuously and trying our luck unendlessly because we might only end up again chasing all our losses. Gambling has risks but it will be an advantage if we'll choose the risk that we could take.

[Sandra_hakeem]

For me to be placing a bet it is assumed that i have understand the full insights about the risk involved, the higher the risk the higher the winning regardless of how much you stake, but it will make more meaning if you can stake with a smaller amount with higher risk and winning, if the place you a double of your winning then they already have the calculations to be 90% sure of what they are giving as offer for you, but you ain't sure about yours, this makes it high risk but on a rare occasions some gamblers prove smart and win them after taking the risk.

I think it's rather " the higher the stakes, the higher the gains -- that's if it cuts ... What's this RISK you're talking about?? I'd love some specificities on that -- cus I feel that wagering on any game is risky already, so what's the risk? I'm even seeing it more risky when you're staking high on a single game point with a good odd... E.g, wagering 1k dolls on a single 9 odd or something, It sometimes seems to be the easiest way to win on it and it's Also the riskiest....it's that simple. I feel it differs based on individual differences as another gambler would prefer a combo on that.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[Casdinyard]

I think people will still take up this offer, considering that regular dice rolls only ever give you up to 6x wins for your stskr at the same probability. I myself eill take this one time bet because at thr end of the day, 17% is still a good enough probability to win good things. Altogether, I think what you could to make it harder for people to decide is to change the die from a 6-faced one to perhaps s 12, maybe even a 20-sided die to lower the probabilities of ever winning at the expense of a higher prize pot. Impl8cating these parameter will surely change the decisions of some of the people here.

[Zackgeno96]

You can come up with any strategy you want. Keep in mind that every strategy in the gambling world has been tried for a long time. You can of course be successful with a certain strategy, but there is no guarantee and it is usually a matter of time before you lose too much. You also need a backup plan or some bank roll management. Few players can stick to that. I know that Betting exchanges have also tested a lot with correct scores to lay.

[l3pox]

The best strategy is opening your own casino and being the house because as we know the house never loses

Jokes apart. I like the idea of focusing on principles
Emotional control
And bankroll management are must haves

[pawel7777]

What I'm trying to say is what would be the point of asking for such an exercise if you're just allowed to bet once then nothing?  It would be pointless talking about EV if you're just allowed to bet once.

This is just a simplified, easy-to-understand example of a potential real-life scenario, such as e.g. a sports bet with miscalculated odds (as mentioned in the discussion somewhere above), where you don't have any guarantee that a similar opportunity would happen ever again.

EV in gambling is the amount of money won a certain bet makes on average.  'On average' is a key phrase here as it means it isn't just making one bet.  It's about taking these +EV spots as much as possible and coming out ahead in the long run.  And it shouldn't be from a small sample size either, it should be from a large sample size to even things out and minimize variance from the equation.

It should be a repetitive bet over a large sample to achieve this...

EV = (83% x -BTC1) + (17% x BTC11) = +BTC1.04

The EV formula presented is widely used in many areas, not only in gambling (i.e. as a business decision-making tool), and does not only work when you have an unlimited number of attempts and does not represent a guaranteed outcome.

But yeah, if you want to see +BTC1.04 average profit on each bet, you'd need to be able to place an unlimited number of bets. But that's not what this thread is about.

[Silberman]

I would definitely take that bet, and I doubt anyone with a bare minimum gambling knowledge wouldn't.
Regardiing the best size I would keep it the same size disregarding how much more I will be paid out, because It Is a single bet event.

Exactly. You can expect at least a 1 roll out of 6 to be your number, but with the x12 payout you can technically miss 10 times and still win money. Usually in every game of chance your odds are much lower and it's much harder to make a profit. Like in typical dice you have to score each time with a 50% chance to make money. If you score every second bet you still lose. Here you can score 1 out of 10 with 16,5% chance and make money - it's pretty good.

This simple scenario presented by the OP shows us how little many people know about probabilities, and there are studies which corroborate this, after all even if the odds of the dice landing on the number in which we placed our bet are still the same, once the payout doubles it is worth to always take the bet as you are now the one playing with an advantage, and yet there are many people that would not take that bet as anything below a 100% win rate seems to be too risky for them.

[pawel7777]

This simple scenario presented by the OP shows us how little many people know about probabilities, and there are studies which corroborate this, after all even if the odds of the dice landing on the number in which we placed our bet are still the same, once the payout doubles it is worth to always take the bet as you are now the one playing with an advantage, and yet there are many people that would not take that bet as anything below a 100% win rate seems to be too risky for them.

Well, as per the scenario laid out in the OP, you can only roll the dye once. The probability of winning is therefore only 17% and of losing 83%. So there's also a logic behind not taking such bet.

[alegotardo]

1 - will you take that bet?
2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?

Yes, I would accept it as long as the amount contributed is obviously within what I would expect to lose.

Usually I prefer to place bets where the winnings are smaller, I like to play more often, with less risk, losing my money more slowly and being able to enjoy the game for a longer time.
But, I confess that it ends up getting quite boring and boring after a while.
So, a riskier bet is always good to speed up our adrenaline and who knows, maybe provide us with a pleasant surprise.
The percentage varies, I usually play this type of game when I still have about 30% of the resources I usually allocate to games during the current month.

In sports games, which are my favorites, I tend to bet a high amount eventually in favor of a very unlikely outcome, which, if it comes to fruition, ends up paying a considerably higher amount.
They are similar scenarios, in different types of bets.

[Eternad]

I would definitely take that bet, and I doubt anyone with a bare minimum gambling knowledge wouldn't.
Regardiing the best size I would keep it the same size disregarding how much more I will be paid out, because It Is a single bet event.

Exactly. You can expect at least a 1 roll out of 6 to be your number, but with the x12 payout you can technically miss 10 times and still win money. Usually in every game of chance your odds are much lower and it's much harder to make a profit. Like in typical dice you have to score each time with a 50% chance to make money. If you score every second bet you still lose. Here you can score 1 out of 10 with 16,5% chance and make money - it's pretty good.

This simple scenario presented by the OP shows us how little many people know about probabilities, and there are studies which corroborate this, after all even if the odds of the dice landing on the number in which we placed our bet are still the same, once the payout doubles it is worth to always take the bet as you are now the one playing with an advantage, and yet there are many people that would not take that bet as anything below a 100% win rate seems to be too risky for them.

Are you really reading the scenario clearly before you post this opinion? I believe you and the other guy that you quoted for second the motion on there opinion are those guys that typically join a promotion without reading the ToS and later do a complain if they didn’t win.

The chance of winning is only 16.67% on the bet with a 1 chance of rolling the dice only. This is a very low winning percentage for that payout because it just double the supposed to be payout for that hard to win bet. You guys is making an assumption that you can roll in unlimited amount without reading the rules provided by the OP.

[fennic]

So according to me that what is your strategy it has I think 60 to 70% odds that you will loose and if you want to loose than do it cause these 30% odds can get you huge profits with these settings. So I will say that you should try this betting strategy and also go for the best and better betting platform that is not a scam. So in this way you will be able to go for your destiny.

[Chikito]

You can come up with any strategy you want. Keep in mind that every strategy in the gambling world has been tried for a long time. You can of course be successful with a certain strategy, but there is no guarantee and it is usually a matter of time before you lose too much. You also need a backup plan or some bank roll management. Few players can stick to that. I know that Betting exchanges have also tested a lot with correct scores to lay.

There is numerous formula and strategy out there that can be used, I tried several formulas and worked, but what makes me reluctant and lazy to use again is the average result is the same with or without using it. I will play enjoy and relax when entering the website without any complicated math rather than must have to calculate it again in my small bet, just click simple play, you lose, or you won.

[michellee]

You can come up with any strategy you want. Keep in mind that every strategy in the gambling world has been tried for a long time. You can of course be successful with a certain strategy, but there is no guarantee and it is usually a matter of time before you lose too much. You also need a backup plan or some bank roll management. Few players can stick to that. I know that Betting exchanges have also tested a lot with correct scores to lay.

From the strategy that you found, maybe you need to modify it so that you can use it successfully because maybe several people have used that strategy. Hence, the casino already knows about it and changes the algorithm. A backup plan is necessary to immediately change your previous plan if it doesn't work for some time. But you shouldn't have too much hope of successfully using that strategy because the casinos will know about it. So it's better to enjoy the time you gamble, use strategy sparingly, and don't be greedy if you have made a profit and stop immediately before everything changes.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

1 - will you take that bet?

Of course.

2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?

Again, this is a single, non-repetitive bet.

I wouldn't break my rule of betting money I couldn't care less about losing, but I would bet more than usual. Even if it's clearly EV+, because it's a single bet, we're relying on variance for the outcome, and that outcome can be a loss.

[tokeweed]

What I'm trying to say is what would be the point of asking for such an exercise if you're just allowed to bet once then nothing?  It would be pointless talking about EV if you're just allowed to bet once.

This is just a simplified, easy-to-understand example of a potential real-life scenario, such as e.g. a sports bet with miscalculated odds (as mentioned in the discussion somewhere above), where you don't have any guarantee that a similar opportunity would happen ever again.

EV in gambling is the amount of money won a certain bet makes on average.  'On average' is a key phrase here as it means it isn't just making one bet.  It's about taking these +EV spots as much as possible and coming out ahead in the long run.  And it shouldn't be from a small sample size either, it should be from a large sample size to even things out and minimize variance from the equation.

It should be a repetitive bet over a large sample to achieve this...

EV = (83% x -BTC1) + (17% x BTC11) = +BTC1.04

The EV formula presented is widely used in many areas, not only in gambling (i.e. as a business decision-making tool), and does not only work when you have an unlimited number of attempts and does not represent a guaranteed outcome.

But yeah, if you want to see +BTC1.04 average profit on each bet, you'd need to be able to place an unlimited number of bets. But that's not what this thread is about.

But then why call the whole exercise a sort of argument for EV when it's just one bet then nothing.  Sure people should take the bet and sure it's +EV, but does one bet prove the theory in practice?  No, it should be a series of +EV bets done with a large sample.  In your example, if it's just one bet then there's more chances hero would lose in practice making arguing for EV useless.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if it's a +EV bet but allowed only to take once then what's the point of EV?  One bet means nothing EVwise unless proven over a large sample.

[pawel7777]

...

I guess what I'm trying to say is if it's a +EV bet but allowed only to take once then what's the point of EV?  One bet means nothing EVwise unless proven over a large sample.

That's nonsense and I don't think you believe it.
Let's see:

You can roll a dye once for $1 but if you win you get $1 million. You would take that bet, wouldn't you? And you would take it because of its massive, positive Expected Value. You can refuse to use the term "EV" for non-recurring bets and replace it with any other term if you wish (what would it be?), but it is what it is.

[Saint-loup]

Just an update for those interested. I knew there must've been some formula for determining bet size and I wasn't wrong. The good old Kelly Criterion could be helpful here (something I completely forgot about) and the formula goes:

f = p-(q/b)

f - is the fraction of the current bankroll to wager.
p - is the probability of a win.
q - is the probability of a loss (q=1-p).
b - is the proportion of the bet gained with a win

So in this case:

f = 0.17 - (0.83/11) = 9.5% of the bankroll

That's much lower than I expected. And of course, applying Kelly Strategy is not a guarantee of making a profit, and the strategy is designed to do better than other strategies in the long run, so not necessarily the best way of determining a single, non-occurring bet.

Thank you for reminding me this Kelly strategy and thank you very much for all your educated and interesting posts. For me you are certainly the most interesting member to follow in this section currently. Besides that, I agree with you the amount of the bankroll seems to be very small for me for such high EV, even with only 1/6 chances to win. I wonder if many members are using this Kelly criterion when then bet though. But I think I will reconsider my bankroll management now.

[serjent05]

1 - will you take that bet?

Of course.

2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?

Again, this is a single, non-repetitive bet.

I wouldn't break my rule of betting money I couldn't care less about losing, but I would bet more than usual. Even if it's clearly EV+, because it's a single bet, we're relying on variance for the outcome, and that outcome can be a loss.

I think many people not in this forum will take this opportunity to bet on a higher reward same chance of winning.  Just make an example, millions of people are addicted to the lottery even though they have a 1 /millions chance to win.  As long as we know the consequences I think it won't be an issue if we lose in this one-time bet.

...

I guess what I'm trying to say is if it's a +EV bet but allowed only to take once then what's the point of EV?  One bet means nothing EVwise unless proven over a large sample.

That's nonsense and I don't think you believe it.
Let's see:

You can roll a dye once for $1 but if you win you get $1 million. You would take that bet, wouldn't you? And you would take it because of its massive, positive Expected Value. You can refuse to use the term "EV" for non-recurring bets and replace it with any other term if you wish (what would it be?), but it is what it is.

I highly agree, in all honesty, majority of people don't care about EVs may it + or -, what they have in their eyes is the price.  If the price is huge no matter what is the chance, they will bet on it.  After all, the bet wouldn't make them any poorer but the win will be a life changer for them (given in your example)