Does large number gambling real put you at an advantage?

[348Judah]

If we are going to apply the bankroll management idea on this, then we may have a sustained gambling experience but still stand the risk of placing bet because of the numbers of games we may be playing, and this also talks about staking low to minimize high risk on losing, even though this is unpreventable at the same time because there will still be more losses than winning in gambling, only that the effectiveness to this is on a reduced level of losing chances.

[Findingnemo]

That is not how probability works in math, the probability of each bet is the same for every bet but it is irrelevant to every other bet so even with 55% probability of winning one can still end up with 0 wins at the end of 500 or 700 bets or the number can be anything. People just assumes that they will win 55 bets if they bet on a game with 55% probability of winning after 100 bets and think that is strategy to have an edge over the casino, while in reality it is not.

You have the right kind of ideal about gambling, though we might see an accumulated bet as wholesome, they are indeed independent and once one goes rogue, all the accumulated bets is lost. That’s how it works in this industry when you use a multiple bet pattern. That means, even the most probable bets can be made irrelevant by any rogued bet, rendering all our efforts out of place.

Despite what our probability might tell us, all bets in an accumulation series are independent and has the ability of affecting every selected and placed bets.

You are talking about multi bets aka parlay, that's not what I am talking. This is about each single bets on a session, one who make bets and they are not a losing series might get the impression that they are due for a big win, but in actual calculation there is no such thing exists, one can lose all the hundred bets in a sereis whithout getting a win even with the probability of winning 98%, that is what the house edge is.

[Sanitough]

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.

Betting with large capital creates opportunities to make you bet longer, but having a large capital will not make any guarantee that your future will be profitable. Same with small amount of betting, losing small is still a loss, but the only advantage is that, your losses aren't giving you a headache because its a very minimal amount.

The real game-changer with gambling is how you play the game well, how experienced and skillful you are to the game. Not on your capacity to lose even a huge amount because that will only make you more exposed to bigger, painful losses.

[Maslate]

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.

Well said. Formulas are good, but we cannot rely on them to make our bets work. Simply because the casinos are designed to make us the losers, while making the house often the winner, that's why there is this house edge that is unbeatable. You can beat it once, but the rest of your games will turn a loss eventually.

Yeah you're right, forget about the math, even mathematicians here cannot beat the casino and win most of their games. Gambling is a good source of entertainment, let's just stick with it and enjoy the game. Winning only comes as a bonus.

[Johnlomape]

If we are going to apply the bankroll management idea on this, then we may have a sustained gambling experience but still stand the risk of placing bet because of the numbers of games we may be playing, and this also talks about staking low to minimize high risk on losing, even though this is unpreventable at the same time because there will still be more losses than winning in gambling, only that the effectiveness to this is on a reduced level of losing chances.

Bankroll management is the surest way to gamble without unnecessarily losing too much to gambling by trying to make money by all means. The probability of playing a particular game for too many times may not be the same outcome when we play the same game few times. The way most games are programmed especially casino games can not literally tell us how far we can earn profits accurately when we continue to play one particular game for too many times. The idea is to continue betting and when you are lucky, you may make big profits from your bets depending on the gravity of the luck.

[stadus]

I think you have noticed that even with large numbers, in most cases millions of bets, the RTP value, for example, is usually referred to as "theoretical", which means that in a game of chance (probability), there is no guarantee that it will always be close to the stated percentage. Sometimes you could get "too lucky", and other times you could hit a very bad losing streak even after those 1000 bets.

Reality is, there is no guaranteed probability calculation that works in gambling. At the end of the day, the house edge will beat our formulation and analysis, so that does not really makes sense when it comes to gambling.

However, I'd still say the formula is right but its not most often applicable with gambling. You could be extremely lucky and win a huge amount, but you could also end up a big loser simply because gambling results are not designed to favor the bettors.

[Hispo]

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. 

From my experience in gambling, multiple small and calculated risks will eventually lead to a steady loss of money through time thanks to the effect of the edge of the house.

It reminds me to the time I used to play dices with a relatively small bankroll and I went when the small multipliers, believing it was a way to make some money out of my gambling sessions, in reality it was just a matter of time before my streak of "safe" rolls turned against me and the casino took all the wager in a single strike of bad luck.

There is no way one can go "safely" when comes to gambling, and anyone who says otherwise it is simply lying to one's face.

[viljy]

I don't think this logic can lead to a deliberately profitable gambling game. The standard deviation is usually used to check the randomness of the result. If the mathematical expectation of the result and the standard deviation are known, then the actual result should be within the range: mathematical expectation plus or minus 3 standard deviations (this covers 97.73% of random outcomes, including unlikely large wins). If this is not the case, then there are doubts about randomness. But this does not affect profitability in any way.

[Italian Panic]

Not necessarily; if you gamble haphazardly, you risk incurring a large number of losses and, as a result, losing the betting bankroll you’d set yourself. It’s better to bet less, but to do so consciously and in a considered manner.
There’s always a discrepancy between the mathematical distributions you mention and what actually happens; statistics don’t always trump the randomness of events.

[Betwrong]

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;~

I think it's important to know what we mean by 'winning'. You can win an amount equal to your stake at odds of 2.00, or you can win a bit less at 1.80 or a bit more at 2.20. I think your calculations are based on a bet at odds of 2.00. If, at those odds, you have a 55% probability of winning, it means you have an edge. Then, of course, the more you bet, the better.

[Cleanshit]

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. 

From my experience in gambling, multiple small and calculated risks will eventually lead to a steady loss of money through time thanks to the effect of the edge of the house.

It reminds me to the time I used to play dices with a relatively small bankroll and I went when the small multipliers, believing it was a way to make some money out of my gambling sessions, in reality it was just a matter of time before my streak of "safe" rolls turned against me and the casino took all the wager in a single strike of bad luck.

There is no way one can go "safely" when comes to gambling, and anyone who says otherwise it is simply lying to one's face.

I won’t really agree that there is no way one can gamble safely, but if this safely is having to win always I will agree to that yes it can’t. But if it to do with our spendings and to avoid losing anyhow, then there are allot of ways to play say if you want to gamble.

If you have to gamble you should have a specific budget and you should avoid losses, and should stop once you reach that limit. Not having to try again after you reach ur limit and keep losing. With this it will avoid financial damage.
Determination maters once it comes to gambling because it controls both win and lost. As there are no safer strategies to beat up casino, there better way and safer ways to gambling.

[Bitcoin.com97]

First of all in gambling, accuracy can be deceiving,do not rely on your own strength or say how your games or prediction are accurate,that alone can lead to addiction, because been accurate in your end doesn't guarantee winning,you can be accurate in your head and still be on a losing streak, gambling is all about risk and luck , with a large number one can be advantage sometime and also things many still go south,that is the irony of gambling.

[fruktik]

You think the casino didn't take all this into account? Hundreds of brilliant minds from all over the world worked on it. Mathematicians who deserve the respect and admiration of society. So I don't see the point in wasting my time on such calculations and theories. It won't yield any positive results anyway. There's no need to mislead others either. What's the point? For me personally, it's just another attempt to find a holy grail that doesn't exist.

[swogerino]

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.

No one guarantees you will have a number of 550 wins as you can have over 800 wins or over 800 lost bets because this is how things works in gambling. You are talking about sport betting in here and that means the games most of the time won't come as expected because if they did then sport bookies would be disappearing in the fastest possible rate. They rely on these surprise results which happen very commonly and that is what keeps us bettors losing in the long run, the surprise results.

[henmark]

I think it's important to know what we mean by 'winning'. You can win an amount equal to your stake at odds of 2.00, or you can win a bit less at 1.80 or a bit more at 2.20. I think your calculations are based on a bet at odds of 2.00. If, at those odds, you have a 55% probability of winning, it means you have an edge. Then, of course, the more you bet, the better.

I don't see how that can be advantageous. A 5% more in your winning probability for an individual bet doesn't necessarily mean you are going to win more bets in the long run, which means that if you make 1000 individual bets with that probability, you can still lose more bets than you can win, because 5% extra probability is nothing in gambling when the results are completely random and one can even lose 5 bets out of 10 bets made with a 90% winning probability. Also, I don't think it's possible for one to have 2.0x odds with a 55% winning probability in a casino game because casinos are not fools to give that much advantage to gamblers, so when you have a higher winning probability than the house, you will have lower odds.

So, when you have lower odds but a 55% winning probability, and then adding the house edge into that, a large number of bets will still give casino an edge unless you are extremely lucky and manage to win about 70% or more of the total bets you are making, and that isn't technically or logically possible in gambling with only a 55% winning probability. Which is why, even if we have a higher winning probability on paper, the house will still have an edge over us as gamblers. This is why we should never consider gambling a source for making money, and people need to understand this.