Never underestimate the power of compounding..$2k to $16 million

[Emeraldo]

In my opinion, your calculations don't stand up to the test of mathematical probability theory. 🤷 Unfortunately... because, of course, it would be very tempting to come up with an effective gambling system! If we're talking about testing your calculations in practice, then, in my opinion, such an experiment is very difficult (and most likely even impossible). After all, to test your calculations in practice, you would need to make 10,000 bets in a row REPEATEDLY (only then can such an experiment be considered scientific).

You write that to achieve a positive result, you need to win with a probability of 55% or more. And you also write that this is easy to do. However, I disagree with you! Achieving such results is not at all easy. Moreover, the more attempts you make (and in your calculations, that's 10,000 bets), the greater the likelihood of failure. 🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

With this huge number of bet sample size it will be difficult to stay in 55% winning percentage since the volume might be a hindrance to have an accurate prediction overtime.

Also, Even professional sports bettor struggles to have high winning percentage whenever they are betting in the long run with huge number.

In paper analysis this is feasible because the 55% is fixed but in reality that’s the hardest part to achieve.

I think gambling in a short term can be profitable if you have a better prediction faculty to predict matches accurately but I know that there is no way you can be an expect in this because the game providers will always beat you in some certain areas that are no known to you. Casino will always make money from bettors even though it is not you at this moment. When they turn the table, it will surely reach your turn and you must remit definitely because you are not perfect to predict games and matches accurately that luck based.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

It is really good to see with our own eyes, That 16million is awesome and i really love it, If there will be a chance? why not! i really do hope.

But that is just a theory and really close to impossible to happen! how we will handle those losing streak?
We will be gone with money really soon with that, with the lowest gain we can have

But, it is really interesting, I hope someone can make it.

[Botnake]

But that is just a theory and really close to impossible to happen! how we will handle those losing streak?
We will be gone with money really soon with that, with the lowest gain we can have

It was already computed. You’re not the first one who asked about the possible losing streak. Based on the OP’s calculation, even 50 straight losses won’t bust the bankroll. I think even 100 losing streak won’t do it, since the stake keeps getting smaller as the bankroll goes down.

The problem is you’re stating things based on your own assumptions. Unlike me, I actually provided a computation for the figures I laid out here, like this one.


--------


That's where $728.34 came from...

[Dr.Osh]

The calculation is indeed accurate but I will not do it because I will not gamble just for profit. I would rather do it in the market than in gambling. In my opinion, gambling is just fun and entertainment so I am not interested in calculating it, besides I am not an expert in betting.

[stadus]

The calculation is indeed accurate but I will not do it because I will not gamble just for profit.

its AI generated calculation, though i don't get how that formula arrived, but i think you are right with that, its likely correct.

I would rather do it in the market than in gambling. In my opinion, gambling is just fun and entertainment so I am not interested in calculating it, besides I am not an expert in betting.

What do you mean by “market”? And since you’re just gambling for fun, then this definitely isn’t for you. But I want to ask something, because I actually started betting just for fun too. Later on I got curious and tried to take it a bit more seriously. Did that ever happen to you?

[stompix]

It's called logic! Pretty simple stuff, no philosophical queries needed!

So what you’re saying is roulette and sports betting are the same thing?
If your answer is yes, then I’ll just stop replying to your post.

Wow, seems I have indeed been right with the first guess, so let me explain it easily for you!
You claimed that sports gambling is a thing about skill, acquiring information, responsibility, bla bla other stuff.
You also said you don't have the millions won from gambling in your pocket. So, obviously, there are two possibilities with the current scenario you presented:

A - Gambling is indeed about self-control, knowledge, research, etc, and you don't have the millions earned because you're too dumb to do that
B - Gambling is about luck, and you don't have the millions because, just like thousands of others like us, you're not lucky
So, pick your poison! 

[icebar]

I believe that if a gambler bets a small amount in gambling, he can at least survive in the long run. When I gamble, I am affected by both the winning and losing outcomes. That is why if I win $100, I am also likely to lose $100. If for some reason the win ratio can be made 55%, then it is certainly possible to be profitable from gambling in the long run. But it is difficult to keep anything consistent in gambling. Even if your calculations are correct, you cannot always place bets based on calculations. The results may not be as expected all the time.

[dunfida]

In my opinion, your calculations don't stand up to the test of mathematical probability theory. 🤷 Unfortunately... because, of course, it would be very tempting to come up with an effective gambling system! If we're talking about testing your calculations in practice, then, in my opinion, such an experiment is very difficult (and most likely even impossible). After all, to test your calculations in practice, you would need to make 10,000 bets in a row REPEATEDLY (only then can such an experiment be considered scientific).

You write that to achieve a positive result, you need to win with a probability of 55% or more. And you also write that this is easy to do. However, I disagree with you! Achieving such results is not at all easy. Moreover, the more attempts you make (and in your calculations, that's 10,000 bets), the greater the likelihood of failure. 🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

With this huge number of bet sample size it will be difficult to stay in 55% winning percentage since the volume might be a hindrance to have an accurate prediction overtime.

Also, Even professional sports bettor struggles to have high winning percentage whenever they are betting in the long run with huge number.

In paper analysis this is feasible because the 55% is fixed but in reality that’s the hardest part to achieve.

I think gambling in a short term can be profitable if you have a better prediction faculty to predict matches accurately but I know that there is no way you can be an expect in this because the game providers will always beat you in some certain areas that are no known to you. Casino will always make money from bettors even though it is not you at this moment. When they turn the table, it will surely reach your turn and you must remit definitely because you are not perfect to predict games and matches accurately that luck based.

Maintaining a 55% win rate sounds easier in theory than in reality keeping that kind of consistency across thousands of bets is nearly impossible because probabilities in gambling are never constant they change with odds adjustments randomness fatigue and human emotion when making decisions. Many gamblers think they can design a perfect system but mathematically the house edge always prevails over time even professional bettors who dedicate years to studying data and odds barely maintain a 53–54% success rate across large samples that small difference is what keeps them profitable long term they don’t win huge every time but they survive by sticking to strict bankroll and risk management.

Short term winning streaks can create the illusion of skill but luck plays a big role and eventually variance evens everything out so that supposed 55% edge quickly disappears once emotions and randomness take over. Instead of chasing a flawless system it’s better to build discipline focus on managing risk and understand that gambling will always be unpredictable skill and math can guide you but luck will always have the final say.

[Franklyn-wood]

I believe that if a gambler bets a small amount in gambling, he can at least survive in the long run. When I gamble, I am affected by both the winning and losing outcomes. That is why if I win $100, I am also likely to lose $100. If for some reason the win ratio can be made 55%, then it is certainly possible to be profitable from gambling in the long run. But it is difficult to keep anything consistent in gambling. Even if your calculations are correct, you cannot always place bets based on calculations. The results may not be as expected all the time.

I don't take some people seriously because this is an online platform that anyone can lie about their result.
Seeing is believing and that has been why many people will never believe something until they see a proof. You can gamble small and you can still be lucky to hit a big win and  this can happen to anybody. It is believed that when you gamble with little fund, you will surely get little profit from your bets based on your results and this can be seen as preferable. There is no way you can gamble and expect to make huge winnings if you are not using big amount or the odds are huge that have luckily made you win.

[Satofan44]

It was already computed. You’re not the first one who asked about the possible losing streak. Based on the OP’s calculation, even 50 straight losses won’t bust the bankroll. I think even 100 losing streak won’t do it, since the stake keeps getting smaller as the bankroll goes down.

If you are such a smart-ass why don't you go ahead and do what is proposed here? Both you and OP are financially poor which means that:

a) This strategy does not work and you are both stupid.
b) This strategy does work but you are not able to do it because you both are too stupid.

Pick which is it? 

Wow, seems I have indeed been right with the first guess, so let me explain it easily for you!
You claimed that sports gambling is a thing about skill, acquiring information, responsibility, bla bla other stuff.
You also said you don't have the millions won from gambling in your pocket. So, obviously, there are two possibilities with the current scenario you presented:

A - Gambling is indeed about self-control, knowledge, research, etc, and you don't have the millions earned because you're too dumb to do that
B - Gambling is about luck, and you don't have the millions because, just like thousands of others like us, you're not lucky
So, pick your poison! 

Most of the people in this section are entirely retarded. No amount of education can fix a person that is retarded. Perhaps to understand why it is worthwhile to look at the average IQ in some of these 3rd world shitholes. What is presented here would be dismissed without even looking at it seriously by someone who passed a high school statistics class.  How stupid one must be to present approaches that are doable, approaches that nobody has ever successfully used. AI is a very bad tool for most people, as it gives the stupid even more confidence about their flawed knowledge on any subject.

[dimonstration]

It was already computed. You’re not the first one who asked about the possible losing streak. Based on the OP’s calculation, even 50 straight losses won’t bust the bankroll. I think even 100 losing streak won’t do it, since the stake keeps getting smaller as the bankroll goes down.

If you are such a smart-ass why don't you go ahead and do what is proposed here? Both you and OP are financially poor which means that:

a) This strategy does not work and you are both stupid.
b) This strategy does work but you are not able to do it because you both are too stupid.

Pick which is it?  

LOL.

I’m surprised too about the justification for the computation and assuming that everything will work based on the computed potential profit while they don’t give much importance on maintaining the winning percentage to make this compounding work.

Without experiencing winning streak this “compounding” will not initiate since the 2% of bankroll bet will always decrease in value.

But it’s not a total dumb idea for a bankroll strategy because you will have control on how much you will risk per bet instead on betting randomly.

[KTChampions]

~Based on the OP’s calculation, even 50 straight losses won’t bust the bankroll. I think even 100 losing streak won’t do it, since the stake keeps getting smaller as the bankroll goes down.~

The problem is not that the deposit burns out completely, but that it shrinks to such a size that it is very difficult to grow back from, you understand? This is a well-known theoretical problem where even players with a positive mathematical expectation do not end up in the black.

Wow, seems I have indeed been right with the first guess, so let me explain it easily for you!
You claimed that sports gambling is a thing about skill, acquiring information, responsibility, bla bla other stuff.
You also said you don't have the millions won from gambling in your pocket. So, obviously, there are two possibilities with the current scenario you presented:

A - Gambling is indeed about self-control, knowledge, research, etc, and you don't have the millions earned because you're too dumb to do that
B - Gambling is about luck, and you don't have the millions because, just like thousands of others like us, you're not lucky
So, pick your poison! 

He's an idiot and doesn't realize he's put himself in this difficult (actually, simple, haha) choice. I checked his Trust and stopped wasting time on him. If I need to talk to the AI, I will do it directly 

[Akbarkoe]

The calculation is indeed accurate but I will not do it because I will not gamble just for profit. I would rather do it in the market than in gambling. In my opinion, gambling is just fun and entertainment so I am not interested in calculating it, besides I am not an expert in betting.

Gambling is the same everywhere, whether in a casino or on the market, everything will depend on your luck, because gambling relies on that, do you play Binary Options on the market? or Future?.

So maybe the conclusion is the same, even though you are in the market you are still gambling and spending your money having fun in the market?

[Smartprofit]

🤷 I am certain (unfortunately) that your gambling system will not work in practice.

That’s not a gambling system. I’m just showing what we can achieve if we hit a 55% win rate in the long run based on the bankroll mentioned in the OP.

What we’re questioning here isn’t the calculation, it’s whether someone can stay profitable after reaching that 10k bets. For some people that might take a year or two, but if you believe there are bettors who are profitable in sports betting, then you believe that a 55% win rate is achievable.

I already used Billy Walters as an example, but someone said it’s just gossip without doing any research. So if you want to know the truth, look up his name so you understand what I’m trying to bring into the discussion.

I believe it's possible to achieve a 55% win rate in sports betting. 🙋 It's certainly possible that there are players with incredible analytical skills. There are also players who are extremely knowledgeable about a particular sport, or who receive insider information from coaches or athletes. Insider information is a trump card that beats any other card...🏆

Nevertheless, if you've achieved a 55% win rate, you should be placing fewer bets (not more). And this rule applies to almost any situation (regarding any source of your competitive advantage over other players).

Let's say your competitive advantage is that you're a brilliant analyst. The more you bet, the harder it will be to realize your competitive advantage (in practice). For example, due to simple fatigue, which in turn leads to mistakes and losses.

[SquallLeonhart]

Compounding in gambling? OMG, this must be a misleading fact. Only small yet consistent wins may help you to have bigger profits and profiting like 16 million from 2k kind of things are insider play or you can call as promotion stunts by houses. Practically getting that much bigger odds are nearly impossible to me or I will get a mini heart attack on seeing how much of my profits are at stake for moving forward. So in my view, this kind of bigger wins are sponsored by gambling houses unless otherwise I hit such thing or at least my close friend hits in front of me.

At least, the term compounding is being misused here. I feel like so, because this may let naive gamblers to leave their profits to risk more by delaying their decision of going for withdrawing the profits. Yeah, such misleads will help houses to profit more regardless of your wins from the initial rounds.

[Crypt0Gore]

I thought OP already did something amazing until I realise that his whole topic is about the calculation to turn 2k into millions, this is nothing but a tale, it is always this easier said than done, gambling is no dreamers land, put action and strategy into it and you will get something else, why is that? Because gambling is the lucky game.

Some lucky gamblers will make you think that its wrong, that with strategy you will win but they will never tell you how much more they have lost before they finally get lucky, you are a dumb person if you believe that strategy is all it takes to win as a gambler, sooner you will realise that you know nothing.

If you can dream it then it is possible that you can do it but don't prove it to the world with words until it becomes a reality, all you have now is empty words.

[YOSHIE]

But this math will blow your mind... ( i got help from AI on this to show the figures as its the main attraction of this post)..

Have you ever seen eating Alaskan crab, the meat is delicious, the price is expensive, the point is still delicious, but you pretend not to know how it is caught, many lives are lost during the catch.
What I want to say, is the same as the mathematical calculation of gambling results produced by Al, I mean Al can easily give you whatever you ask, but the casino has no bargaining for you, it is not easy the process of achieving winnings of $2k to $16 million, that is Al's activity but not the activity of real gamblers.

[Accardo]

Imagine turning $2k into millions. I’d even be happy with just $1 million.

But honestly, I think that’s impossible for me. Maybe for some people it’s possible, but not for me.

Once a while this wins are possible for everyone but for the sake of this chance, going for the highroll is not encouragable, as the house could take more money from the gamer enough to exceed the designated jackpot, this also include after the wins has been awarded.

[Vaculin]

I believe it's possible to achieve a 55% win rate in sports betting. 🙋 It's certainly possible that there are players with incredible analytical skills. There are also players who are extremely knowledgeable about a particular sport, or who receive insider information from coaches or athletes. Insider information is a trump card that beats any other card...🏆

Nevertheless, if you've achieved a 55% win rate, you should be placing fewer bets (not more). And this rule applies to almost any situation (regarding any source of your competitive advantage over other players).

Let's say your competitive advantage is that you're a brilliant analyst. The more you bet, the harder it will be to realize your competitive advantage (in practice). For example, due to simple fatigue, which in turn leads to mistakes and losses.

I’m glad you get the point, and yeah, a 55 percent win rate is actually possible. Some people just refuse to believe that.
About reducing the number of bets, that’s flexible. The 10k total bets I mentioned doesn’t have a fixed timeline. No one said you need to hit that in a few months. You can do 10 or 20 bets per day, slowly, until you reach it.

I think some people misunderstood the topic. They keep arguing that the “strategy” won’t work, when there’s literally no strategy being pushed here on how to achieve that win rate. If they already believe it’s impossible to maintain a 55 percent win rate long term, then there’s no point for them to expand their replies. The conversation dies right there because they don’t even accept the starting premise.

Just to clarify again, this is not a strategy. It’s just a picture of what’s possible if someone manages to maintain a 55 percent win rate and plugs in the other numbers. That’s all.

What I want to say, is the same as the mathematical calculation of gambling results produced by Al, I mean Al can easily give you whatever you ask, but the casino has no bargaining for you, it is not easy the process of achieving winnings of $2k to $16 million, that is Al's activity but not the activity of real gamblers.

Sorry but this is kind of off-topic. We’re talking about sports betting here, not slots or roulette.

He's an idiot and doesn't realize he's put himself in this difficult (actually, simple, haha) choice. I checked his Trust and stopped wasting time on him. If I need to talk to the AI, I will do it directly 

Yeah, so you stop wasting time. That’s why you’re still here again. 

[Jubilee58]

we always hear  the words use proper bankroll management, and some experts say be conservative (based on what i read and hear watching videos)...., like just 2% of your bankroll per bet. this sounds boring at first, but this is supposed to be long-term. meaning if you keep winning the size of your stake slowly grows too. (isn't it interesting?)...

but let’s look at the numbers for a second.
say you make around 10,000 bets in your whole run, you start with a bankroll of $2,000, and you somehow keep a 55% win rate, which honestly is not impossible if you’re really disciplined. now think about it… with compounding, with the stake adjusting every time you grow the bankroll even a bit, how far do you think that $2,000 can go?

people usually underestimate how crazy the numbers get when you win just slightly more than you lose, but over thousands of bets.

But this math will blow your mind... ( i got help from AI on this to show the figures as its the main attraction of this post)..

check it out..

win rate: 55%
stake: 2% of bankroll each bet
starting bankroll: $2,000
total bets: 10,000

1. expected profit per bet

if odds are 1.90, profit on a win is +0.90 per unit.

EV =
0.55 × 0.90 (profit when you win)
minus
0.45 × 1 (you lose your stake)

EV = 0.495 – 0.45
EV = +0.045 per $1 staked
so basically 4.5% edge per stake.

2. apply 2% staking with compounding

you bet 2% of your bankroll each time.

so each bet grows the roll by:

1 + (0.02 × 0.045)
= 1 + 0.0009
= 1.0009 growth per bet

3. compound it over 10,000 bets

bankroll =
2000 × (1.0009^10000)

1.0009^10000 ≈ 8080 (rounded)

final bankroll ≈
2000 × 8080
= $16,160,000+

This sounds very interesting but is not as easy as you think. I myself have tried this method of compound, and it will shock you to know that even the most trusted game is going to disappoint you. When I tried this method of compounding, I was engaging myself in thorough research to make sure my predictions did not fail, sometimes you might be lucky to succeed like two to three consecutive times but will eventually fail.

Compounding most times requires increasing stake, and reducing betting odds but still require caution and winning is not guaranteed.