Degen.com | Fastest Growing Online Casino & Sportsbook | DEGEN VIP Transfer

[Synchronice]

Listen, casino has a house edge and in most cases, it's between 1-5%, which means that casino returns to player 99%-95% of the money back, which also means that, long-term, you shouldn't lose more than 95-99% of your capital.

Wrong. What you are missing here is compound interest working against you.

You are right, I'm actually shocked that I wrote that. When you place a bet of $100 and the house edge is 5%, casino expects to create a $5 profit.

If you deposited $1000 and lost $900, mathematically, you still have a chance to gain back those money.

Mathematically it is possible but most unlikely because you would need to make 1,000% on your bankroll playing a game that every time you bet has a minus 1-5% of expected value working against you.

Yes, if my bankroll is $100 and I place $1 for 1000 times, my expected lose is $50.

By the way, the most interesting thing is what happens when the house edge is 0%. Even with zero house edge and no negative compounding, it's still expected to lose, depending on your target. For example, if I start with $100 and I target $110, my chance to reach this target is 90.9% and the chance to go broke is 9.1%, assuming the game is completely fair. But if I target $1000, then my chance to reach the target is 10% but the chance to go broke is 90%.

Formula:
Start = $100 | target = $1,000

Reach target = 100 / 1000 = 10%
Go broke = 100% - 10% = 90

[degencom]

Big Win from littlekid 🎲 9,900x scored in Dice!



🟢 View the Winning Bet
🟢 Discover more Degen Games
🟢 Sign up and enjoy a 7-day Rakeback Boost

[knuckey]

Arsenal vs City Community Shield Match, As a city fan of course I hope for a win for them, in this match I am quite doubtful, both are very equal, a slight advantage is won by Arsenal, I doubt City because Pep Guardiola has left City, sorry for City I can't choose you to win the safe bet is only Draw no bet or handicap

[Pumared]

Arsenal vs City Community Shield Match, As a city fan of course I hope for a win for them, in this match I am quite doubtful, both are very equal, a slight advantage is won by Arsenal, I doubt City because Pep Guardiola has left City, sorry for City I can't choose you to win the safe bet is only Draw no bet or handicap

I think it's worth betting on goals in this match. The odds of 2.5 goals are as good as the one you bet on. I believe at least 2 goals will be scored, especially by City, who have had more than 2.5 goals in 8 of their last 12 games.

[lionheart78]

If you deposited $1000 and lost $900, mathematically, you still have a chance to gain back those money.

Mathematically it is possible but most unlikely because you would need to make 1,000% on your bankroll playing a game that every time you bet has a minus 1-5% of expected value working against you.

Yes, if my bankroll is $100 and I place $1 for 1000 times, my expected lose is $50.

Or more, or can possibly have profit depending on the luck of the person.  We cannot expect a fix number as a result since the RNG is in work here.  Different people, same time session, different results.  That's what makes chance based game very interesting.

By the way, the most interesting thing is what happens when the house edge is 0%. Even with zero house edge and no negative compounding, it's still expected to lose, depending on your target. For example, if I start with $100 and I target $110, my chance to reach this target is 90.9% and the chance to go broke is 9.1%, assuming the game is completely fair. But if I target $1000, then my chance to reach the target is 10% but the chance to go broke is 90%.

Isn't it 50/50 chance?  Mathematically, if the casino has no house edge, our normal chance to win is 50% unless the bet is modified and we have an option to choose the odds of winning but obviously the casino will reduce the reward.

[degencom]

🎯  Be the first to hit 1,000x and the 300 USDT reward is yours  🎯



🟢 Take on Pissed
🟢 Discover More Challenges
🟢 Sign up and enjoy a 7-day rakeback boost

[Potato Chips]

Heads up. This challenge has been taken so don't try anymore. Surprise surprise, it is by none other than notbase again lol. He's a strong contender, most likely is always on the lookout for good challenges.



On another note, I also noticed degen.com also added 155.io. If you're familiar with CCTV Game Rush Hour, they're behind that live game. I don't usually play it, but I remember there was some buzz about it haha. There was even a thread about it in gambling discussion. 

However, I'm only seeing 7 games from 155. There should be more like the duck one. Look: https://degen.com/casino/group/providers?provider=marbles

I hope degen can also add elk one day. Cheers!

[degencom]

Racing Santander vs Villarreal ⚽ Espanyol vs Levante

Who’s got the best read on these matchups? 👀



🟢 Follow LaLiga matchups on DEGEN.com
🟢 Sign up and enjoy a 7-day rakeback boost

[Betwrong]

~

What can I say? On DEGEN difficulty, the multipliers are degen too. I put in my Personal Text.

Hello there,

We are glad to hear you are enjoying our Chicken game. We’d love to hear what you think of our latest release Dragon! Feel free to check it out.

Kind Regards.

I will, for sure. In the meantime I checked out another house game, Dice, and was quite lucky on it. Here's my story. I set the multiplier at 99x with 1% win chance:



and was ready to make a couple of dozens bets, as I always do when hunting for such multipliers, but to my big surprise I hit it from the third try. I even have a screenshot of that. See, only three bets were made:





Going to try Dragon next time. Good luck to all playing on Degen!

[Free Market Capitalist]

By the way, the most interesting thing is what happens when the house edge is 0%. Even with zero house edge and no negative compounding, it's still expected to lose, depending on your target. For example, if I start with $100 and I target $110, my chance to reach this target is 90.9% and the chance to go broke is 9.1%, assuming the game is completely fair. But if I target $1000, then my chance to reach the target is 10% but the chance to go broke is 90%.

Isn't it 50/50 chance?  Mathematically, if the casino has no house edge, our normal chance to win is 50% unless the bet is modified and we have an option to choose the odds of winning but obviously the casino will reduce the reward.

The thing is, when it comes to the risk of loss or bankruptcy, you can’t just consider the 50/50 odds—you also have to factor in capital, and the casino has much more capital than you to fall back on.

If you and I play heads or tails for $1 a spin, but you only have $10 and I have a $10,000 bankroll, I’ll most likely end up winning your $10 because I have plenty of capital to weather the variance (i.e., losing streaks),  whereas your situation is the opposite.

[arwin100]

By the way, the most interesting thing is what happens when the house edge is 0%. Even with zero house edge and no negative compounding, it's still expected to lose, depending on your target. For example, if I start with $100 and I target $110, my chance to reach this target is 90.9% and the chance to go broke is 9.1%, assuming the game is completely fair. But if I target $1000, then my chance to reach the target is 10% but the chance to go broke is 90%.

Isn't it 50/50 chance?  Mathematically, if the casino has no house edge, our normal chance to win is 50% unless the bet is modified and we have an option to choose the odds of winning but obviously the casino will reduce the reward.

The thing is, when it comes to the risk of loss or bankruptcy, you can’t just consider the 50/50 odds—you also have to factor in capital, and the casino has much more capital than you to fall back on.

If you and I play heads or tails for $1 a spin, but you only have $10 and I have a $10,000 bankroll, I’ll most likely end up winning your $10 because I have plenty of capital to weather the variance (i.e., losing streaks),  whereas your situation is the opposite.

Yeah depth of bankroll can possibly change everything. Even if we say the game had 50/50 chance, also we can see it here that ability to withstand any possible losses is not actually equal.

Since usually those who have huge bankroll always have the advantage. While the smaller one seems like in do or die situation, on which one single mistake can affect their entire game.

That imbalance always gives the casino that advantage, that's why its almost impossible to bankrupt them.

[Synchronice]

By the way, the most interesting thing is what happens when the house edge is 0%. Even with zero house edge and no negative compounding, it's still expected to lose, depending on your target. For example, if I start with $100 and I target $110, my chance to reach this target is 90.9% and the chance to go broke is 9.1%, assuming the game is completely fair. But if I target $1000, then my chance to reach the target is 10% but the chance to go broke is 90%.

Isn't it 50/50 chance?  Mathematically, if the casino has no house edge, our normal chance to win is 50% unless the bet is modified and we have an option to choose the odds of winning but obviously the casino will reduce the reward.

The thing is, when it comes to the risk of loss or bankruptcy, you can’t just consider the 50/50 odds—you also have to factor in capital, and the casino has much more capital than you to fall back on.

If you and I play heads or tails for $1 a spin, but you only have $10 and I have a $10,000 bankroll, I’ll most likely end up winning your $10 because I have plenty of capital to weather the variance (i.e., losing streaks),  whereas your situation is the opposite.

This is true and I wrote an example above about how your chance of winning decreases the higher you aim to win more. 0% house edge is a better option for wagering than for increasing your capital. Also, here is the thing, you can't have as much capital as you want on a casino. Casino always sets you limit of how much money you can bet on a game and how much you can win max. Casino has a huge bankroll compared to limits that they set on your max capital and winnings, so there is simply mathematically no way to beat the casino. It's not a charity organization, it's a business, mathematically designed to be profitable.

[OcTradism]

This is true and I wrote an example above about how your chance of winning decreases the higher you aim to win more. 0% house edge is a better option for wagering than for increasing your capital. Also, here is the thing, you can't have as much capital as you want on a casino. Casino always sets you limit of how much money you can bet on a game and how much you can win max. Casino has a huge bankroll compared to limits that they set on your max capital and winnings, so there is simply mathematically no way to beat the casino. It's not a charity organization, it's a business, mathematically designed to be profitable.

When you as a gambler have need of increasing your gambling capital just because of chasing something on a casino, it's risk escalation. It's not worth to do because when you escalate risk, you will have higher probability of losing your money. It's how gambling works and even it is very popularly warned, gamblers still fall into such traps on casinos.

It's a classic irresponsible gambling that always does not promise any safe bet results, happy endings for over leveraged gamblers. Very basically, casinos are created to get profit, and they get it from users, so if users escalate risk, they self put themselves into a loser side.

[degencom]

Fresh from Hacksaw Gaming 🎰 Max Win Machine

Line up all the lucky seven to hit the max win. Degens, what do you think of this one? 👀



🟢 1 Lucky Seven symbol awards a win of 1x
🟢 2 Lucky Seven symbols award a win of 10x
🟢 3 Lucky Seven symbols award the max win of 10,000x