Deleted

[melds39]

Deleted

[Rulishix]

Looks interesting. I will give it a shot after a few people report their successes or failures. Pools have a somewhat successful run here.

[9inety7even]

Your post contradicts itself. You admit that the house always wins in the long run, yet you think your daily returns will average out to a positive return at the end of the week? If you want investors you'll need to better explain how you think you can beat the house, in either the short or long term, and what you plan to do if you lose the money.

[leex1528]

So you are saying your strategy is to lose when you bet small and win when you bet big?

Do you have some sort of plan on accomplishing this?  I think that is what every gambler since the dawn of time has tried to do.

It is the reason martingale was invented....

[leex1528]

So you are saying your strategy is to lose when you bet small and win when you bet big?

Do you have some sort of plan on accomplishing this?  I think that is what every gambler since the dawn of time has tried to do.

It is the reason martingale was invented....

It is not that simple. Martingale is actually a very very horrible strategy. If you go to betting sites you will see a lot of people doing martingale.
To give you an idea of how bad martingale is, if your starting bet is 0.001 btc and your bankroll is 10 btc, you will bust after 14 losses in a row. 14 losses in a row is fairly common. You started at 0.001 and you bust at 14 losses with a 10 btc BR.

In your next 100 bets you could lose 80 and win 20. The more you bet, the more the numbers fix themselves to show that 1% edge almost preciously.

We will not be using martingale. We will be trying to use statistics to our advantage. It is still gambling because every bet is random, but it's incredibly slow and boring gambling, which no one wants to do... gambling should be fun and exciting! well not for me :-|

Also remember that our "big" bet is only 0.25% of our bankroll. That is a total of 40 bets to our 10% loss limit for the day. So we have a lot of room for when the statistics do not follow itself in the short run.

Actually Martingale is one of the best strategies there is, if not the best. 

If you have 10 BTC and bet .001 you can lose 14 times in a row which roughly happens once every 14,252 rolls, say it does happen on the 14,252 roll, you will have gained 14,251*.001 = 14.251BTC, which isn't too bad at all.  In which case say you do lose the next roll, you will still have a profit of 4.251 BTC which still isn't that bad...

If you were smart you would play Martingale, that is by far the best method with a larger bankroll.

Anyway I guess I wish you luck, if you aren't playing the best strategy unfortunately you will probably fail and lose everyone their money:( 

Good luck!

[Nobitcoin]

Hmm is this another Primedice addict? 

[9inety7even]

So you are saying your strategy is to lose when you bet small and win when you bet big?

Do you have some sort of plan on accomplishing this?  I think that is what every gambler since the dawn of time has tried to do.

It is the reason martingale was invented....

It is not that simple. Martingale is actually a very very horrible strategy. If you go to betting sites you will see a lot of people doing martingale.
To give you an idea of how bad martingale is, if your starting bet is 0.001 btc and your bankroll is 10 btc, you will bust after 14 losses in a row. 14 losses in a row is fairly common. You started at 0.001 and you bust at 14 losses with a 10 btc BR.

In your next 100 bets you could lose 80 and win 20. The more you bet, the more the numbers fix themselves to show that 1% edge almost preciously.

We will not be using martingale. We will be trying to use statistics to our advantage. It is still gambling because every bet is random, but it's incredibly slow and boring gambling, which no one wants to do... gambling should be fun and exciting! well not for me :-|

Also remember that our "big" bet is only 0.25% of our bankroll. That is a total of 40 bets to our 10% loss limit for the day. So we have a lot of room for when the statistics do not follow itself in the short run.

I'm also thinking of changing the max bet limit to 0.1% of bankroll as 0.25% will probably never be wagered in a single bet.

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

[leex1528]

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

Reading comprehension? I never said there's a way to beat the house edge. If you roll 1000 times you are expected to win ~490. How much you wager and when is what determine if you lose or not. And you realize the house edge in casinos is a shit ton more than 1%?


And to the guy above, martingale is not a good strategy. It might be good in the very short run, but it is not a good strategy. You can incorporate aspects of it in other strategy, but martingale itself is not good at all. I don't need opinions on martingale as I already said what mine is.

I strongly disagree martingale is a bad strategy, there is a reason professional gamblers use it. Every strategy is going to fail in the long run, that is why Casinos exist.

From what I gather you are essentially trying to count cards that you cannot see-Which is impossible

You are also banking that a group of rolls are going to be dependent on each other-Which they aren't

Like I said I wish you the best of luck, but when it comes down to it you are essentially asking people to pay you so you can gamble for them when they have just as good as shot as you.

[Rulishix]

His strategy might work in the long term or not. It's gambling! Who wants to let this guy gamble for them? I'm intrigued to find out! I will go in if someone else will as well.

[melds39]

His strategy might work in the long term or not. It's gambling! Who wants to let this guy gamble for them? I'm intrigued to find out! I will go in if someone else will as well.

Exactly! It's completely free until the 21st and I lowered the fee to 5% of profits. Again, No losses beyond 10% guaranteed. So you have time to withdraw whenever you want without worrying about going bust.

[9inety7even]

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

Reading comprehension? I never said there's a way to beat the house edge. If you roll 1000 times you are expected to win ~490. How much you wager and when is what determine if you lose or not. And you realize the house edge in casinos is a shit ton more than 1%?


And to the guy above, martingale is not a good strategy. It might be good in the very short run, but it is not a good strategy. You can incorporate aspects of it in other strategy, but martingale itself is not good at all. I don't need opinions on martingale as I already said what mine is.

So you're going to magically (since you haven't bothered to explain how) wager high when you're going to win, and wager low when you're going to lose?

Have you heard of the gambler's fallacy?

[melds39]

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

Reading comprehension? I never said there's a way to beat the house edge. If you roll 1000 times you are expected to win ~490. How much you wager and when is what determine if you lose or not. And you realize the house edge in casinos is a shit ton more than 1%?


And to the guy above, martingale is not a good strategy. It might be good in the very short run, but it is not a good strategy. You can incorporate aspects of it in other strategy, but martingale itself is not good at all. I don't need opinions on martingale as I already said what mine is.

So you're going to magically (since you haven't bothered to explain how) wager high when you're going to win, and wager low when you're going to lose?

Have you heard of the gambler's fallacy?

Wow, haha. I hate people who don't read the main post and keeps speculating. I said the goal is to TRY.  It's a grinding process. Also, the 49.5 was used as an example.
I do not know what you don't get about the first sentence of the thread.

Yes, I have. That's exactly why I said pure martingale is not a good strategy.

[9inety7even]

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

Reading comprehension? I never said there's a way to beat the house edge. If you roll 1000 times you are expected to win ~490. How much you wager and when is what determine if you lose or not. And you realize the house edge in casinos is a shit ton more than 1%?


And to the guy above, martingale is not a good strategy. It might be good in the very short run, but it is not a good strategy. You can incorporate aspects of it in other strategy, but martingale itself is not good at all. I don't need opinions on martingale as I already said what mine is.

So you're going to magically (since you haven't bothered to explain how) wager high when you're going to win, and wager low when you're going to lose?

Have you heard of the gambler's fallacy?

Wow, haha. I hate people who don't read the main post and keeps speculating. I said the goal is to TRY.  It's a grinding process. Also, the 49.5 was used as an example.
I do not know what you don't get about the first sentence of the thread.

Yes, I have. That's exactly why I said pure martingale is not a good strategy.

Clearly I still don't understand, so I'd appreciate it if you could help me. Let me throw some statements out, and you tell me which ones are wrong, and why:

1. You cannot beat a house edge in the long term.
2. You have no way to know whether you will win or lose a roll.
3. You are far less disciplined than any non-random algorithm.

[melds39]

I'm starting to think you don't understand basic math. How are you going to use statistics to your advantage, when the house already has an edge? Statistics says that with a 1% edge, the house will win 50.5% of the time, and you will win 49.5% of the time. You will eventually lose, it's that simple. If you can prove me wrong, you'll be the most popular man in Las Vegas.

Reading comprehension? I never said there's a way to beat the house edge. If you roll 1000 times you are expected to win ~490. How much you wager and when is what determine if you lose or not. And you realize the house edge in casinos is a shit ton more than 1%?


And to the guy above, martingale is not a good strategy. It might be good in the very short run, but it is not a good strategy. You can incorporate aspects of it in other strategy, but martingale itself is not good at all. I don't need opinions on martingale as I already said what mine is.

So you're going to magically (since you haven't bothered to explain how) wager high when you're going to win, and wager low when you're going to lose?

Have you heard of the gambler's fallacy?

Wow, haha. I hate people who don't read the main post and keeps speculating. I said the goal is to TRY.  It's a grinding process. Also, the 49.5 was used as an example.
I do not know what you don't get about the first sentence of the thread.

Yes, I have. That's exactly why I said pure martingale is not a good strategy.

Clearly I still don't understand, so I'd appreciate it if you could help me. Let me throw some statements out, and you tell me which ones are wrong, and why:

1. You cannot beat a house edge in the long term.
2. You have no way to know whether you will win or lose a roll.
3. You are far less disciplined than any non-random algorithm.

1. True. The goal is not to beat the house edge.
2. True. We can, however, know that we will lose roughly 50.5% of the rolls.
3. False. Here's why... This will be work, it won't be treated as gambling to me. My incentive to earn is to make the most educated decisions each bet. I, a human, have many many more features, as I can, and will change bets, style, and frequency whenever thought appropriate.
A bot betting thousands of times endlessly will eventually run into the nasty lose streak while using martingale, which is where every bot busts.

An example, we are betting at 50%. We are wagering 0.0001% of the BR each roll, we have lost 200 and won 100. That's roughly 33% wins for us. The numbers will eventually correct to almost exactly 50% if the rolls are truly random. That does NOT mean the next roll is gonna be a win, but statistically speaking we will win more rolls.

But of course, again the rolls are random, that's why in the case we get screwed and get the worst luck in the universe and, after 2000 rolls, we only won 1000 at 50% win chance, we have our 10% loss cap for the day.

Basically you have a human processor motivated by discipline as his bread and butter :-)

Of course you can use a bot. Or you can transfer all that responsibility and sit back and relax, not worry about wasting time or tilting :-)

[9inety7even]

An example, we are betting at 50%. We are wagering 0.0001% of the BR each roll, we have lost 200 and won 100. That's roughly 33% wins for us. The numbers will eventually correct to almost exactly 50% if the rolls are truly random. That does NOT mean the next roll is gonna be a win, but statistically speaking we will win more rolls.

This is the gambler's fallacy; you are 100% wrong. I quote, straight from wikipedia:

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future

Statistically speaking you will not win more roles, if you have lost more than expected in the past. The numbers will not regress to the average. Even if you lose 1,000,000 roles in a row, out of the next 1,000,000 you will win about 500,000.

But of course, again the rolls are random, that's why in the case we get screwed and get the worst luck in the universe and, after 2000 rolls, we only won 1000 at 50% win chance, we have our 10% loss cap for the day.

This is how it really works. Except instead of winning 1000 out of 2000, you're only going to win 990 out of 2000, because the house always has an edge.

3. False. Here's why... This will be work, it won't be treated as gambling to me. My incentive to earn is to make the most educated decisions each bet. I, a human, have many many more features, as I can, and will change bets, style, and frequency whenever thought appropriate.
A bot betting thousands of times endlessly will eventually run into the nasty lose streak while using martingale, which is where every bot busts.
[...]
Of course you can use a bot. Or you can transfer all that responsibility and sit back and relax, not worry about wasting time or tilting :-)

I don't think you understand the concept of an algorithm. An algorithm follows the rules that I give it up front. It can change bets, style, and frequency in an optimal way, not one that relies on "whatever thought appropriate". It can stop betting if it hits too long of a losing streak. It wastes just as much of my time as you do. There is no element of betting that you do better than an algorithm.

[melds39]

This is how it really works. Except instead of winning 1000 out of 2000, you're only going to win 990 out of 2000, because the house always has an edge.

Wrong. If you are betting at 50% you are expected to win 50% of the rolls. What are you talking about?

I don't think you understand the concept of an algorithm. An algorithm follows the rules that I give it up front. It can change bets, style, and frequency in an optimal way, not one that relies on "whatever thought appropriate". It can stop betting if it hits too long of a losing streak. It wastes just as much of my time as you do. There is no element of betting that you do better than an algorithm.

Okay, go use your amazing bot then, why are you here? :-)

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future


Statistically speaking you will not win more roles, if you have lost more than expected in the past. The numbers will not regress to the average. Even if you lose 1,000,000 roles in a row, out of the next 1,000,000 you will win about 500,000.

I just said that is NOT always the case. That is incredibly rare to happen and the rolls are always where they should be after 2k rolls or ~1% away from where they should be and it does fluctuate. There is no gamblers fallacy here. There is a 100% random factor. No interference whatsoever.
I have tested millions and millions of bets and the result is the same. The number of won to lost bets is exactly what you would expect from a 1% house edge. Numbers cannot be changed. The only thing that can be change is the wagered amount.

The same way you can lose a lot more, you can win a lot more. The number always averages out. You have to be incredibly unlucky(or betting like an idiot, like most people do) for the numbers to not be close to where they should be after thousands of bets.
Use any bot, or any seed checker and simulate your rolls. The numbers do not change :-)

[9inety7even]

Ok, you clearly can't be convinced, so let me ask you a very simple question.

If it's possible to make money from playing dice, why doesn't everybody do it?

[melds39]

Ok, you clearly can't be convinced, so let me ask you a very simple question.

If it's possible to make money from playing dice, why doesn't everybody do it?

I know what you are trying to say. Gamblers are gamblers, but it is a ONE percent house edge. There a reason the house limits the amount they will risk per bet. They aren't trying to get a small return and be at peace. They are betting half their BR per bet etc...

[9inety7even]

Ok, you clearly can't be convinced, so let me ask you a very simple question.

If it's possible to make money from playing dice, why doesn't everybody do it?

I know what you are trying to say. Gamblers are gamblers, but it is a ONE percent house edge. There a reason the house limits the amount they will risk per bet. They aren't trying to get a small return and be at peace. They are betting half their BR per bet etc...
Whales and fish feeds the house and the disciplined :-)

No actually, the disciplined lose money just like everybody else. I'll leave you this http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

[melds39]

Ok, you clearly can't be convinced, so let me ask you a very simple question.

If it's possible to make money from playing dice, why doesn't everybody do it?

I know what you are trying to say. Gamblers are gamblers, but it is a ONE percent house edge. There a reason the house limits the amount they will risk per bet. They aren't trying to get a small return and be at peace. They are betting half their BR per bet etc...
Whales and fish feeds the house and the disciplined :-)

No actually, the disciplined lose money just like everybody else. I'll leave you this http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

Roulette has 5x the house edge.

Also, to everyone else... If you think a bot is better, use a bot. If you think there's no way to profit, don't play. It is as simple as that.