Betting strategy question

[gunhell16]

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 BTC11) = +BTC1.04

Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup

The x 12 that will be paid on the amount you bet is quite tempting to try. That's why it seems scary to try, especially if you bet a large amount of 1 bitcoin.

I just don't know if anyone has tried such a game, has anyone? This kind of game is only for brave gamblers who are ready to lose big money.

[pawel7777]

...

The x 12 that will be paid on the amount you bet is quite tempting to try. That's why it seems scary to try, especially if you bet a large amount of 1 bitcoin.

I just don't know if anyone has tried such a game, has anyone? This kind of game is only for brave gamblers who are ready to lose big money.

Nah, you got it a bit wrong, that 1 btc mentioned is just an example for the purpose of calculating the EV for such bet.

In this exercise, the stake s flexible and that's actually the main question of this thread - how to determine the right amount of the wager, expressed as a percent of your available bankroll (if you decided to take it in the first place).

[dezoel]

For the sake of interest, I bought lotteries several times, but this is boring, I have never won, and only lost money, it was no avail. There are those who are constantly playing with the hope of winning Jack Pot, but it looks like an illusion, because there are very few winners and, to be honest, I even doubt that the choice of the winner will without the intervention of the organizers of this lottery. Therefore, I do not see the point of participating in lotteries.

Lottery is not something you buy tickets so you could win, it is something you buy tickets so you are not missing out. Why? Well if you have just one ticket per draw, that means you at least have a chance and it is a much much bigger chance than zero, the difference between 1 ticket and 100 tickets is smaller than having zero or one.

I know that it is not going to end up being the great thing that we all hope for and we may win, I know we will lose 99.99999% of the time, but at least you got a ticket. That is why many buy tickets, even if just one, because it would give you a chance that you could end up with winning something much better in the long run, a possibility.

[nullama]

~snip~
Lottery is not something you buy tickets so you could win, it is something you buy tickets so you are not missing out. Why? Well if you have just one ticket per draw, that means you at least have a chance and it is a much much bigger chance than zero, the difference between 1 ticket and 100 tickets is smaller than having zero or one.

I know that it is not going to end up being the great thing that we all hope for and we may win, I know we will lose 99.99999% of the time, but at least you got a ticket. That is why many buy tickets, even if just one, because it would give you a chance that you could end up with winning something much better in the long run, a possibility.

If the probability of something is more than zero, but extremely small, then you might as well consider it zero.

For example, the probability of you walking through a wall is very small but it is not zero given how quantum mechanics work. Would you try to walk through every wall you encounter? probably not.

But I get your point, it's having the hope of something big happening to you in exchange of a small price.

That's also why some people continue solo mining, trying to grab a block even though it is really unlikely.

[Reatim]

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 BTC11) = +BTC1.04

Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup

The x 12 that will be paid on the amount you bet is quite tempting to try. That's why it seems scary to try, especially if you bet a large amount of 1 bitcoin.

I just don't know if anyone has tried such a game, has anyone? This kind of game is only for brave gamblers who are ready to lose big money.

No I did not , but seeking for that high return in gambling is a trap or a suicide for me , I would rather play and win x2 than expecting x12.

but lets hear others that have tried that because this may sound interesting for me  lol.
that is something many gamblers would love to try i believe.

[pawel7777]

...
No I did not , but seeking for that high return in gambling is a trap or a suicide for me , I would rather play and win x2 than expecting x12.
...

So you wouldn't take it because the pay rate is too high?? And if it was lowered from x12 to x2 then it'd be all good for you? I hope not, but if that's truly your logic, you should stay away from gambling in general, because it's just not for you.

What you should be looking at is the expected value of the bet - the relation of probability of winning and the pay-out rate and then consider the appropriate stake if you decide the bet is worth taking.

[KTChampions]

1. Of course I will make such a bet.
2. Taking into account the fact that the mathematical expectation is extremely high and such opportunities are rare, I would make a bet that is 10 times higher than the recommended values (2.5% of the deposit) - 25%.

What is the meaning of the topic? It is obvious that such a bet should be made.

[pawel7777]

1. Of course I will make such a bet.
2. Taking into account the fact that the mathematical expectation is extremely high and such opportunities are rare, I would make a bet that is 10 times higher than the recommended values (2.5% of the deposit) - 25%.

What is the meaning of the topic? It is obvious that such a bet should be made.

Nope, it's not obvious at all. Considering you can only roll it once and the chance of losing is 83% - there's also a logic behind not taking such bet. But the major question would be: what's the best method for determining the optimal wager size?

So far most people would just state the portion of the their bankroll that they'd be willing to put at stake but without presenting any logic behind that.

How did you come up with the "recommended values" of 2.5% deposit? And isn't 25% a bit too high for a bet with only 17% chance of winning? If not, then why not just go all in, since such chance could never happen again and assuming that 100% of bankroll is the amount you can afford to lose?

[KTChampions]

1. Of course I will make such a bet.
2. Taking into account the fact that the mathematical expectation is extremely high and such opportunities are rare, I would make a bet that is 10 times higher than the recommended values (2.5% of the deposit) - 25%.

What is the meaning of the topic? It is obvious that such a bet should be made.

Nope, it's not obvious at all. Considering you can only roll it once and the chance of losing is 83% - there's also a logic behind not taking such bet. But the major question would be: what's the best method for determining the optimal wager size?

So far most people would just state the portion of the their bankroll that they'd be willing to put at stake but without presenting any logic behind that.

How did you come up with the "recommended values" of 2.5% deposit? And isn't 25% a bit too high for a bet with only 17% chance of winning? If not, then why not just go all in, since such chance could never happen again and assuming that 100% of bankroll is the amount you can afford to lose?

Of course, this is obvious to any gambler. A bet with a 17% chance of winning is a normal bet, there is nothing unusual about it. If the odds were 1 in 1000 or 10000 then it wouldn't make sense to bet oversized, but with a 17% chance it's obvious.

As for the question about the optimal size of the bet, it is meaningless in this case (single event). If this was a repeatable event, then one could speculate about the optimum that would allow increasing the deposit with the best speed, while giving the greatest guarantees against a loss streak and losing the entire deposit.

2.5% is a subjective value, I know that many traders use it. 25% is a good amount, because if you put less, it will be a shame for the lost profit. Betting more in my opinion is wrong as it is already getting close to an all-in which should be avoided.

[tokeweed]

...

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.

Again, what did we learn from such an exercise?  What could one bet teach us if we took it?  Could EV really be realized with just one bet then nothing?  Nope..  That's why I'm saying it's missing the whole point of what Expected Value really is.  The question in your exercise should be asking if we should bet the spot everytime even if we lose, which the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Here's an explanation about EV with a couple of good examples.

https://upswingpoker.com/expected-value-ev-poker/

[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.

Again, what did we learn from such an exercise?  What could one bet teach us if we took it?  Could EV really be realized with just one bet then nothing?  Nope..  That's why I'm saying it's missing the whole point of what Expected Value really is.  The question in your exercise should be asking if we should bet the spot everytime even if we lose, which the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Here's an explanation about EV with a couple of good examples.

https://upswingpoker.com/expected-value-ev-poker/

Memory loss? You've already replied to that post and now you're just repeating yourself bringing nothing new to discussion.

I replied to you here:

...
In your extreme example of EV above, sure you should take it, that's a once in a life time spot.  Lol.  But let's be real here...

The question was not whether you'd take that bet or not, I know you would. Just as I know you wouldn't take a bet of $1 on a coin toss if the potential winning was $0.10.
The question is WHY you would/wouldn't take such bets if it's not for their positive/negative EV? If you refuse to use the term and calculation of EV for one-time bets, then how do you assess whether a one-time bet is worth taking or not and what do you call it?

Estimating EV for a single bet helps you make decision on whether the bet is worth taking or not. I used two extreme examples above (of high and low EV bets) to prove a point. In making such decision, you will be trying to assess the EV value, whether you want to admit it or not. Even if you won't perform an actual EV calculation, you will still try to roughly assess on whether it's a good deal or not, which really no different.

Sure, EV for recurring bets will give you much clearer picture of expected long-term outcome (assuming unlimited bets and unlimited bankroll), but to discard the use of EV in any other situation is just dumb.

Here's an example of use of EV calculation for deciding on particular business decision: Link

You can apply that to any event where you can define the probability and an outcome result (incl. bets).

[tokeweed]

...

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.

Again, what did we learn from such an exercise?  What could one bet teach us if we took it?  Could EV really be realized with just one bet then nothing?  Nope..  That's why I'm saying it's missing the whole point of what Expected Value really is.  The question in your exercise should be asking if we should bet the spot everytime even if we lose, which the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Here's an explanation about EV with a couple of good examples.

https://upswingpoker.com/expected-value-ev-poker/

Memory loss? You've already replied to that post and now you're just repeating yourself bringing nothing new to discussion.

I replied to you here:

...
In your extreme example of EV above, sure you should take it, that's a once in a life time spot.  Lol.  But let's be real here...

The question was not whether you'd take that bet or not, I know you would. Just as I know you wouldn't take a bet of $1 on a coin toss if the potential winning was $0.10.
The question is WHY you would/wouldn't take such bets if it's not for their positive/negative EV? If you refuse to use the term and calculation of EV for one-time bets, then how do you assess whether a one-time bet is worth taking or not and what do you call it?

Estimating EV for a single bet helps you make decision on whether the bet is worth taking or not. I used two extreme examples above (of high and low EV bets) to prove a point. In making such decision, you will be trying to assess the EV value, whether you want to admit it or not. Even if you won't perform an actual EV calculation, you will still try to roughly assess on whether it's a good deal or not, which really no different.

Sure, EV for recurring bets will give you much clearer picture of expected long-term outcome (assuming unlimited bets and unlimited bankroll), but to discard the use of EV in any other situation is just dumb.

Here's an example of use of EV calculation for deciding on particular business decision: Link

You can apply that to any event where you can define the probability and an outcome result (incl. bets).

Again, I'm just saying that the premise in the OP saying to 'bet once then nothing' sets the noobs the wrong idea about EV.  Sure it's the right spot to take but then what?  What if the bet loses?  What's the explanation that it was the right spot to take...  Where's the realizing EV part?

Ok..  Maybe I jumped the gun too fast by saying the premise is wrong.  It's more like it's incomplete.  As you may already know, EV is only realized over a large sample.  So yeah..

[pawel7777]

Again, I'm just saying that the premise in the OP saying to 'bet once then nothing' sets the noobs the wrong idea about EV.  Sure it's the right spot to take but then what?  What if the bet loses?  What's the explanation that it was the right spot to take...  Where's the realizing EV part?

Ok..  Maybe I jumped the gun too fast by saying the premise is wrong.  It's more like it's incomplete.  As you may already know, EV is only realized over a large sample.  So yeah..

No worries. I do understand where you're coming from. It's just that EV have a different weight depending on circumstances: for a set up when you have unlimited bet attempts and unlimited bankroll - you'd be happy to go for it even if the EV was +0.000001 because you're guaranteed to make a profit (excluding the time factor). But for one-time event, or even for situation when you have limited bankroll and can only place X number of bets - that's where things get complicated, and that's what this thread is about.

[Saint-loup]

Again, I'm just saying that the premise in the OP saying to 'bet once then nothing' sets the noobs the wrong idea about EV.  Sure it's the right spot to take but then what?  What if the bet loses?  What's the explanation that it was the right spot to take...  Where's the realizing EV part?

Ok..  Maybe I jumped the gun too fast by saying the premise is wrong.  It's more like it's incomplete.  As you may already know, EV is only realized over a large sample.  So yeah..

No worries. I do understand where you're coming from. It's just that EV have a different weight depending on circumstances: for a set up when you have unlimited bet attempts and unlimited bankroll - you'd be happy to go for it even if the EV was +0.000001 because you're guaranteed to make a profit (excluding the time factor). But for one-time event, or even for situation when you have limited bankroll and can only place X number of bets - that's where things get complicated, and that's what this thread is about.

Yes that's why you should understand that many people here, mostly none/small gamblers, see that as a trap or a bad deal at least. Because they've certainly experienced bankruptcy of their bank roll in the past by gambling on high odds bets or by playing slots with high volatility, without taking care of the risk management of their bankroll. It's not easy to do at all to be honest, even when you are quite experienced in gambling. Because losing streaks are not predictable unfortunately.  

[Ben Barubal]

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 BTC11) = +BTC1.04

Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup

   My question to you is, do you trust the site that you are saying that? Have you tried it yet? Maybe like others here who can agree with my thoughts, other gamblers can do that in the crypto space if it's legitimate, that's why most people still doubt it.

Because if we look at it, what can be won is quite attractive, that's the truth, but on the other hand, it's still scary if you bet a lot on it. Those are the only possible things that can happen.

[EarnOnVictor]

...

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.

Again, what did we learn from such an exercise?  What could one bet teach us if we took it?  Could EV really be realized with just one bet then nothing?  Nope..  That's why I'm saying it's missing the whole point of what Expected Value really is.  The question in your exercise should be asking if we should bet the spot everytime even if we lose, which the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Here's an explanation about EV with a couple of good examples.

https://upswingpoker.com/expected-value-ev-poker/

I believe that both of you are still driving at the same point, only that @pawel7777 did not complete what he/she tries explaining. There are several reasons why one would want to gamble when the EV is high and worth it, but in such a case, it might take several attempts that won't still be successful unless the casino is fair and luck is on your side. It is not easy to say you want to use just $1 to win $1M just like that, one could still be trying in over 1 million times and still wins nothing.

[pawel7777]

...
   My question to you is, do you trust the site that you are saying that? Have you tried it yet? Maybe like others here who can agree with my thoughts, other gamblers can do that in the crypto space if it's legitimate, that's why most people still doubt it.

Yes, I trust the site completely and have tried it many times. I believe it is legitimate and many other gamblers have had positive experiences with it. They only offer EV+ bets and no one has ever lost a penny there. Highly recommended.

Seriously, what the hell are you even talking about? This is a hypothetical scenario as per the very first line of the OP. Put some effort into reading and stop spamming. Please.

[ethereumhunter]

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 BTC11) = +BTC1.04

Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup

   My question to you is, do you trust the site that you are saying that? Have you tried it yet? Maybe like others here who can agree with my thoughts, other gamblers can do that in the crypto space if it's legitimate, that's why most people still doubt it.

Because if we look at it, what can be won is quite attractive, that's the truth, but on the other hand, it's still scary if you bet a lot on it. Those are the only possible things that can happen.

People who trust the site will keep playing and trying to win it. They will still use strategy, formula, or whatever to win it because they see they still have a chance to win it even though it's not easy.

Such calculations are a common thing that many gamblers have made but unfortunately, the calculations will not always come true due to the luck factor. The prize money gamblers can win is very attractive and keeps gamblers coming back for more.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

There was one certain time around 2021 when some sports prediction codes were shared among gamblers, but after the game, there were a lot of winnings, and the betting site cancelled the game due to the many winnings. As of then, I knew of a guy who won about $17k; I can't remember how much he staked then, but the game was cancelled.

So with that situation, I just feel some casinos may show similar behavior, but perhaps if it is a casino I trust and have been using for a long time, it will only stake 30% of my available funds. The estimated value is good, and the percentage loss is so high.

30% is what I can afford to lose, but had the roll been repetitive, I would just split BTC0.25 into 5 places and play it 5 times.

[Betwrong]

~ Such calculations are a common thing that many gamblers have made but unfortunately, the calculations will not always come true due to the luck factor. The prize money gamblers can win is very attractive and keeps gamblers coming back for more.

Those calculations are correct, and I would call them scientific ones in the sense that the more experiments conducted, the more obvious it becomes that it's a positive EV game. But the thing is that by the condition in the OP we can bet only once, and thus we have 83% chance of losing and we have no opportunity to recover the loss in the future taking advantage of the fact that it's an EV+ game. In such a case betting more than you can easily afford to lose is not a wise move.