Does large number gambling real put you at an advantage?

[danherbias07]

If those formulas can solve it, then gambling sites will be bankrupt.

The formulas may be right, but we should always consider the house edge, and that is not stable. It moves. Imagine a gambler won x1000 in a slot game. Will that formula still apply? The answer is a big "No".
I played way too many slots in the past that I saw how unfair a system can be once you win a big multiplier, especially if it's a max win. It doesn't matter which slot provider you choose; you'll still end up on a losing streak. It's like you are robbed of the opportunity to win, even with just 10 percent, and you will definitely feel it.

Forget about the math of it. Just enjoy the games. If you win, good. If you lose, move on.

[The Founding Titan]

One more^imo thing:
I think this is one of the most overlooked aspects of betting. Most people have no idea how much risk they're actually exposing their bankroll to. If more bettors took the time to run these calculations, many of them would either reduce their stakes or think twice before placing a bet  

Will this be an ideal thing to do? Yes, will people actually do it? No.
It will be too much of a hassle to a lot of bettors to have to go through all of these calculations to so they can place a bet, to them it's more about chance then probability and I know a lot of people will say that they are more or less then same but they are not, at least not entirely, when most bettors talk about chance they are mostly talking about luck and we can't deny that most people who win win because of luck, there is this mentality of 'why go through all this stress whenvyou will still lose or luck is not on your side'.

[Moreno233]

55% winning rate doesn't mean anything if multipliers for those wins aren't worth it. And if they are worth it, casino itself wouldn't be sustainable business.

Not sure how anyone would think that very basic math that acts as fundamental to casino revenue could be overwritten with some other speculative math.

I have read the comments before yours and no one seem to even consider this important aspect that changes everything. High win rate is good but if you chase high win rates without considering the multiplier, you will end miserably because few losses can wipe out hundreds of winings. My target is usually to be 40-50% right and let he multiplier give me the advantage. Consequently,  I only bet games where the risk-to-reward ratio is at least 1:3. This way I don't have to be right most of the time but the few times I am,  I will be in net positive.

[Curious T]

It doesn't always work like that. Even a bet with an 80% chance of winning can still lose, and a bet with a 35% chance of loss can win. So following the maths might not be accurate. You can pick 1000 independent bets, and each of them can have at least a 70% chance of winning but still arrive at a loss, or vice versa. The maths might work sometimes, but it's not reliable since it's not constant.

[Somto9Light]

It doesn't always work like that. Even a bet with an 80% chance of winning can still lose, and a bet with a 35% chance of loss can win. So following the maths might not be accurate. You can pick 1000 independent bets, and each of them can have at least a 70% chance of winning but still arrive at a loss, or vice versa. The maths might work sometimes, but it's not reliable since it's not constant.

Totally right, that is the game for you but some people thinks they understand the math in it, as it will make them to get the mindset to stake with big amount, with the hope that they will hit it big. Meanwhile, they forget that the unpredictability is what makes it a game, as it can exciting and dangerous too, depending on the angle one play towards it and this is why most people fall a victim of addiction because they do allow their emotions to take over them, as it affects their decision making.

[Rgram]

It doesn't always work like that. Even a bet with an 80% chance of winning can still lose, and a bet with a 35% chance of loss can win. So following the maths might not be accurate. You can pick 1000 independent bets, and each of them can have at least a 70% chance of winning but still arrive at a loss, or vice versa. The maths might work sometimes, but it's not reliable since it's not constant.

There are always best days and worst days for just anytime. You would find teams you expect to easily get a win fumble at the very last minute. That’s why we have such a thing as the underdogs, where statistic and history don’t work and it doesn’t mean you didn’t do your due diligence, you did the most you could but in the end, football and gambling prevailed.

I don’t really see how these percentages work in gambling except for the issuing of odds by bookmakers, it’s a factor to consider in making bets as well.

[Cointxz]

I believe that not how it always works because each spin or bet is independent from the previous one on any game or slot. So basically having a 55% edge doesn’t mean you will automatically end up close to 550 wins every time on 1000 total. There is a chance you can still go through a very long losing streak before the results start reflecting that edge.

Exactly. This is where some people get lost with their expectations, because they think a 55% winning rate automatically translates into the total number of bets. So, the expectations should be around 550 wins (a little more or less). What they fail to realize is that there is still a possibility of incurring more losses than wins, as the winning rate always apply independently in every roll. So, that means when you flip a coin, there is a possibility that it will result to a 10 straight heads, even though the chances for both sides is 50%.

Now, if a particular game really has a 55% probability of winning, this could be a lot more noticeable in the long term. A thousand bets maybe a perfect example. But on a short period, a bad start can ruin it.  

The most important which this thread doesn’t consider is the realistic payout of the casino over that winning percentage. At that winning percentage, the payout usually not 1:1 rather it’s way lower so even with higher winning percentage doesn’t automatically means you’re winning in terms of PnL. As many already mentioned those winning percentage is useless given that casino always have a house edge therefore large number gambling will never put us in advantage.

However, this discussion is very good for the sake of accumulating total wager for casino VIP benefits. Since risk of ruin and variance is a big factor on how you can efficiently collect wager with fixed bankroll.

[NewRevelation]

It doesn't always work like that. Even a bet with an 80% chance of winning can still lose, and a bet with a 35% chance of loss can win. So following the maths might not be accurate. You can pick 1000 independent bets, and each of them can have at least a 70% chance of winning but still arrive at a loss, or vice versa. The maths might work sometimes, but it's not reliable since it's not constant.

Since it's not constant, thats why we can't trust it and that's what really makes it gambling. Sometimes, it may work, either close to or much More, while sometimes, it is totally opposite of the analysis or possibility. You are right , and this makes me several times to conclude that gambling is all risk and luck.

I remember the last jackpot I hit. To many persons there, it was a total nonsense and total loss of money. Even me, I know it's just a waste of money, but what propelled me to do it is the fact that since games with 75-80% possibility of winnings not winning, then let me play a game with 0% of winning. Infact, you could literally say that I already lost before the game started because the win probability was just within 0-5%, and guess what, the unimaginable happened, I won, a huge amount of money with such a low probability. It happens always, bet or gambling sometimes just goes as it wants

[Grace333]

So lately I've been thinking about how much probability and variance affects betting basically overtime. For instance let's consider a game with a 55% probability of winning which  actually gives us a 45% probability of losing which basically means after 1000 independent bets the expected number of wins should be something like;

Code:

E(X) = np = 1000 × 0.55 = 550

However, the standard deviation is gonna  give us;

Code:

σ = √(npq) = √(1000 × 0.55 × 0.45) ≈ 15.7

Which basically means the results between roughly 534 and 566 wins (550 ± 15.7) are statistically normal despite having a positive edge now what if we consider games with way smaller winning probability which obviously makes our variance smaller too. Now what do with do with the fact that there is a probability I still could lose 700 games worse case scenario? Because it looks like overtime you'll still run into net loss.

Mathematically this might be correct to some extent but it not truly correct let's take a dice cube for instance. A dice has 6 side with six number, if we increase our chance of winning by 50% that would mean we are selecting 3 numbers out of the 6 numbers. Let's say we pick (1,3 and 6) now if we toss the dice 6 times what is the probability that any of those selected number would appear? It's uncertain, meaning we can toss the dice and yet end up not having any of those numbers.
When it comes to casinos this same principle applies and their luck probability should be less than 50% which explains the house edge and why the casino is usually on the wining side.

[Dunamisx]

Which basically means the results between roughly 534 and 566 wins (550 ± 15.7) are statistically normal despite having a positive edge now what if we consider games with way smaller winning probability which obviously makes our variance smaller too. Now what do with do with the fact that there is a probability I still could lose 700 games worse case scenario? Because it looks like overtime you'll still run into net loss.

I like your mathematical expression been made, only that people have forgotten to always remember that gambling is not what they could fully depend on winning because there is high probability of losing than winning, haven't said that, are priority should be to gamble for fun and not to win because we cannot out smart the process, this is not to also justified that people are not willing, but what we are considering here is the winning rate compared to that of losing.

[red4slash]

Since the beginning of mathematical calculation it is an exact science and it will not be possible that gambling which is an uncertain science can be calculated with exact science even though there are probabilities in it but still it will be an inequality in terms of data.

Indeed, it may be calculated with some data, especially calculus or with the theory of chance as the OP did but the result is certainly not certain so even if it is calculated but it will only be a condition where we just convince ourselves that the possibility is greater (a kind of suggestion) but does not mean it becomes a certainty.
If this from the beginning can be used as a reference then perhaps mathematicians who gamble may have benefited and switched professions to become a gambler.

[leea-1334]

Variance, baby,,, so the only thing large numbers do is even out your variance. House edge always means as you thought, over time, you lose. So like others say,,, get the motive/intent right, which is gamble for fun, consider your deposit lost, and when you end up on top its a nice bonus.

For dice, another thing people who run streaks of betting at dice forget, there are other gamblers dicing, so your rolls are actually not even consecutive

Live roulette you ask? Also gets broken up when they clean the ball or reset the wheel

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Cases can be different but it's factual that large number gambling can actually put a lucky gambler at an advantage as long as the gambling models is fair and with that 55% edge, backed up by proper risk management which totally depends on the gambler and the number if bets they make, then the person can still be profitable, even if they don't get the exact win result that they were expecting, the result they will get should be close to the number of win is expected. So, I'd say profit is more likely as the person bets more, the influence of variance will grow smaller as the number of bet grows. For example, if I actually placed 100 bets with $1k and during the gambling session I was placing some bets with $10, $8, $5, $1, $0.5 and $0.25 respectively while being conservative and managing risk, if at the end I had 45 wins which came from the bets that I used a higher amount to stake on, and then I lost 55 bet mostly the ones staked with lower amount, overall I will still be profitable, on the opposite, I could have more wins in volume but still be in loss since the value lost is bigger.

[YOSHIE]

Does large number gambling real put you at an advantage?

Of course, the bigger your betting capital, the bigger the multiplication profit you make, for example if you place a bet of $500x2.5 you will get a profit of $1,250, that's sports betting, not much different from other types of games too, such as slots, poker and so on.

But you need to remind yourself, large amounts or large capital in the bets you make, there is no guarantee that you can win, that's the problem, with large capital you will definitely get big profits, with large capital there is no guarantee that you will win, that's the point.

That's why, people often say that they gamble and bet with capital or money that they can afford to lose, meaning betting according to our capabilities from an economic perspective.

[WhoYouCantKill]

That’s some real maths there. But first of all, before anything else, we need to first understand one thing, which is that having an edge as a gambler doesn’t necessarily imply that you can’t still hit a very long losing streak, but what it means is that, you’re most likely to come out ahead over several rounds. Looking at the scenario theoretically, anything is possible, losing 700 out of 1000 bets with a winning chance of about 55% in my opinion is quite unlikely that it’s almost unrealistic. But what’s more important in all this is making sure that your strategy and bankroll is strong and big enough to withstand that long losing streak before your edge eventually kicks in overtime, because if it’s not, then that’s where you’ll have some real trouble.

[Rhow]

Does large number gambling real put you at an advantage?

Of course, the bigger your betting capital, the bigger the multiplication profit you make, for example if you place a bet of $500x2.5 you will get a profit of $1,250, that's sports betting, not much different from other types of games too, such as slots, poker and so on.

You made a slight mistake in your calculation. If he bets $500x2.5, his total return will be $1,250. But that is not all of the profit. Because he has $500 capital there. So his profit will be $750.

But you need to remind yourself, large amounts or large capital in the bets you make, there is no guarantee that you can win, that's the problem, with large capital you will definitely get big profits, with large capital there is no guarantee that you will win, that's the point.

That's why, people often say that they gamble and bet with capital or money that they can afford to lose, meaning betting according to our capabilities from an economic perspective.

That's right. No matter how big the capital is, it does not guarantee the outcome of the bet. In my opinion, when we play consistently with small amounts, that can put us in an advantageous position. Suppose, you have $10,000 as capital. If you bet $50 each time, you will have many opportunities to tolerate bad consistency. But if you bet $5,000 at the very beginning and the result does not come out as expected, you will probably lose half of your money in the first place. Because large capital cannot give us any mathematical advantage.

[nara1892]

The results will not always be like that, no matter how hard you try to calculate the probability with a formula in the end the results will not always be as you expect, 550 wins from a 55% chance is the expected result and not the exact number that will happen, this means the possibility of losing streaks still exists, even to the point of touching zero without any wins, remember that the casino's advantage is always much stronger, everything is designed only to benefit them especially in the long run.

[ImGenius]

Your calculations for the expected number of wins is correct. However I think you're misunderstanding what they imply.

Lets say a coin has two side, so when it toss head has 50% probability while other part also has 50% probability but when you toss a coin for 100 times can you say with 100% guarantee that each side will comes 50 times exactly?  head may come 45 times or 55 times or maybe 50 times exactly but we can't guarantee it's winning.

Losing 700 out of 1,000 bets is theoretically possible but the probability is extraordinarily small.

[free-bit.co.in]

Mathematically this might be correct to some extent but it not truly correct let's take a dice cube for instance. A dice has 6 side with six number, if we increase our chance of winning by 50% that would mean we are selecting 3 numbers out of the 6 numbers. Let's say we pick (1,3 and 6) now if we toss the dice 6 times what is the probability that any of those selected number would appear? It's uncertain, meaning we can toss the dice and yet end up not having any of those numbers.
When it comes to casinos this same principle applies and their luck probability should be less than 50% which explains the house edge and why the casino is usually on the wining side.

You seem to be confusing probability and expected value, my friend.

In your dice example, if I choose 3 numbers out of 6, then my probability of winning on each roll is 50%.

But even if my number doesn't come up even once after rolling 6 time, that doesn't change long term expectation. Because sample size of 6 time is very small.
Similarly, probability of losing 700 times out of 1,000 independent bet is theoretically not zero. But with 55% edge, that is an extreme variance event that's almost impossible, dude.

Another thing is that casino don't always win with luck probability. They win with mathematical house edge.
Suppose your win probability in roulette may seem very high. But the payout and probability are set in such way that casino's expected return is positive. That is they get an advantage by creating negative expected value.

[crwth]

When I read this, the first thing that comes to mind is the Bet sizing which matters a lot IMO.

Imagine a safer approach that just uses small fractions of the bankroll; it's a good, small, controlled risk but still wouldn't guarantee a win, though. This would get you into a slower loss if you still lose, given the probability of having that edge.

A lot of factors at play, tbh.