PrimeDice Strategy - 15 BTC Winnings in 24 Hrs - Limited Release

[calci]

I can't believe he lost it all again . Did he lose it all on one big bet? or multiple bets?

[mindrust]

I can't believe he lost it all again . Did he lose it all on one big bet? or multiple bets?

He was following a system. So, multiple bets most likely.

Martingale blackhole just got out of control and devoured him

[CryptoDigitals]

im just going to assume based on dooglus response on his neg feedback on your trust, that this is really sketch.

he even provides a image link to a martingale format..

I got greedy, strayed from the system completley, rollercoastered up and down between 12-35 BTC profit a few times, chased losses and busted.

I should have stuck with what got me to 35 BTC at one point, but greed took over (as it can).

Its ok, Ill get back.

CD

[CryptoDigitals]

He had to rain more in my opinion, karma helps alot.

I also rained out a whole lot of tips to players So hopefully when Im back in the high territory I shall make it rain again!

CD

[CryptoDigitals]

I also did a number of 10 BTC Single Rolls, I think 2 or 3 at 2x

Won all of them. For those that saw/watched. That was a bit crazy haha.

CD

[Seketsuna]

He had to rain more in my opinion, karma helps alot.

I also rained out a whole lot of tips to players So hopefully when Im back in the high territory I shall make it rain again!

CD

Please dont forget me if you do that .

[NLNico]

Still implying "his system" is EV+. Pretty delusional.

[Soappa]

im just going to assume based on dooglus response on his neg feedback on your trust, that this is really sketch.

he even provides a image link to a martingale format..

I got greedy, strayed from the system completley, rollercoastered up and down between 12-35 BTC profit a few times, chased losses and busted.

I should have stuck with what got me to 35 BTC at one point, but greed took over (as it can).

Its ok, Ill get back.

CD

I hope you do realize that your strategy doesn't really give you an advantage against the house. It is more likely for you to go further down than to go back up even if you follow your system.
Anyway good luck to you.

[CryptoDigitals]

Understood, and I agree. I plan on playing for a bit, likely next week, and will then post my spreadsheet with auto calculations to share (updating it before I do with next round of gameplay). Not selling, just sharing. It doesnt integrate into PD at all, all it does is visualize betting strategies, took me a while to get the rounding patterns correct that PD uses, sometimes its Round Up, sometimes Round Down, and it does this at different decimal points depending on the variable its calculating.

Having this down really helps show the odds of "At 2.5 X Payout what are the odds of rolling 5000 rolls before hitting a streak that would bust to insufficient funds". It also factors back into the equation average per roll winnings into your BankRoll.

It works well when you use betting strategies that have a bust level of 1 in 800,000 rolls or greater. The higher the odds of busting, an odd multiplier comes into play I have yet to figure out.

Meaning if you played a AutoBet round where based on bankroll you could survive 25 consecutive losses based on starting bet, increase on loss, and payout factor, etc - and that 25 loss streak had a 1 in 1,000,000 chance in happening - the same (at least from what I can tell) is not true for the same odds (1 in 1,000,000) where the streak is only 8 deep.

Meaning odds aside, you will fare better with a larger depth regardless of identical odds.

If you dont believe me, try this simulation:

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 2.25 X
Increase on Loss: 110%
Starting Bet: 0.00000002

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 20 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 44% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 20 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

Now that said running a second simulation, with a much shallower depth of busting, the same does not (at least from my experience) hold true.

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 1.123 x
Increase on Loss: 800%
Starting Bet: 0.00000040

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 6 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 88.16% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 6 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

However, the Second Scenario listed plays much riskier and will bust far sooner regardless of the math behind the rolls.

Unless my math is flawed... Feel free to chime in here if so.

CD

[mindrust]

Understood, and I agree. I plan on playing for a bit, likely next week, and will then post my spreadsheet with auto calculations to share (updating it before I do with next round of gameplay). Not selling, just sharing. It doesnt integrate into PD at all, all it does is visualize betting strategies, took me a while to get the rounding patterns correct that PD uses, sometimes its Round Up, sometimes Round Down, and it does this at different decimal points depending on the variable its calculating.

Having this down really helps show the odds of "At 2.5 X Payout what are the odds of rolling 5000 rolls before hitting a streak that would bust to insufficient funds". It also factors back into the equation average per roll winnings into your BankRoll.

It works well when you use betting strategies that have a bust level of 1 in 800,000 rolls or greater. The higher the odds of busting, an odd multiplier comes into play I have yet to figure out.

Meaning if you played a AutoBet round where based on bankroll you could survive 25 consecutive losses based on starting bet, increase on loss, and payout factor, etc - and that 25 loss streak had a 1 in 1,000,000 chance in happening - the same (at least from what I can tell) is not true for the same odds (1 in 1,000,000) where the streak is only 8 deep.

Meaning odds aside, you will fare better with a larger depth regardless of identical odds.

If you dont believe me, try this simulation:

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 2.25 X
Increase on Loss: 110%
Starting Bet: 0.00000002

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 20 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 44% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 20 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

Now that said running a second simulation, with a much shallower depth of busting, the same does not (at least from my experience) hold true.

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 1.123 x
Increase on Loss: 800%
Starting Bet: 0.00000040

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 6 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 88.16% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 6 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

However, the Second Scenario listed plays much riskier and will bust far sooner regardless of the math behind the rolls.

Unless my math is flawed... Feel free to chime in here if so.

CD

Your argument is invalid.

Every bet has its own chance of wining/losing.

The bet you make is nothing to do with the other you have made before.

You can lose 10 times in a row on a %90 winning chance game and believe me it can happen a lot more than 1/2900000 times.

[finnile]

Understood, and I agree. I plan on playing for a bit, likely next week, and will then post my spreadsheet with auto calculations to share (updating it before I do with next round of gameplay). Not selling, just sharing. It doesnt integrate into PD at all, all it does is visualize betting strategies, took me a while to get the rounding patterns correct that PD uses, sometimes its Round Up, sometimes Round Down, and it does this at different decimal points depending on the variable its calculating.

Having this down really helps show the odds of "At 2.5 X Payout what are the odds of rolling 5000 rolls before hitting a streak that would bust to insufficient funds". It also factors back into the equation average per roll winnings into your BankRoll.

It works well when you use betting strategies that have a bust level of 1 in 800,000 rolls or greater. The higher the odds of busting, an odd multiplier comes into play I have yet to figure out.

Meaning if you played a AutoBet round where based on bankroll you could survive 25 consecutive losses based on starting bet, increase on loss, and payout factor, etc - and that 25 loss streak had a 1 in 1,000,000 chance in happening - the same (at least from what I can tell) is not true for the same odds (1 in 1,000,000) where the streak is only 8 deep.

Meaning odds aside, you will fare better with a larger depth regardless of identical odds.

If you dont believe me, try this simulation:

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 2.25 X
Increase on Loss: 110%
Starting Bet: 0.00000002

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 20 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 44% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 20 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

Now that said running a second simulation, with a much shallower depth of busting, the same does not (at least from my experience) hold true.

BankRoll: 0.05
PayOut: 1.123 x
Increase on Loss: 800%
Starting Bet: 0.00000040

Under this scenario, the odds of busting according to my tables are you would bust at 6 Consecutive Losses. The Odds of that happening work out to an occurance rate of 1 in 2.17 Million Rolls. So with a 88.16% Chance of Winning on 1 Roll, the occurance odds of rolling 6 straight losses are 1 in 2,170,000.

However, the Second Scenario listed plays much riskier and will bust far sooner regardless of the math behind the rolls.

Unless my math is flawed... Feel free to chime in here if so.

CD

Yes it will fail over a long time, but it will eventually happen. That 1 in 2.17 million might just happen in your first bet.
Better to just throw some dust bets, till you get a losing streak of 10, and then start with say 0.0001.
But even this fails easily. So in the end, its all just a gamble.

[CryptoDigitals]

I agree with both of you that each roll of the dice is independent in and of itself from a mathematical standpoint. That the odds of rolling a 6th roll <10 out of 100 after 5 consecutive <10 Rolls (given youre playing a bet where you are wagering the dice will roll >10 out of a possible 100) is 10% in terms of chance, where the previous 5 rolls have no effect on the 6th roll at all.

But mathematically one can assume that certain patterns are unlikely to happen, such as the Monte Carlo Roulette Incident of 1913, where there were 26 rolls of consecutive black, and people lost millions betting red was bound to roll next.

But then again I dont believe an incident like that has happened since. While each roll of the wheel has roughly (factoring out greens or 0s) a 50/50 chance of rolling a red or black, 26 black has the same odds as any other pattern of 26 if pre-determined and bet on, 26 black in a row is astronomically unlikely.

But yes I agree, each roll is independent with no relation to the last roll of the dice. I would wager however you are statistically speaking more likely to see gains FIRST by betting on a 90% win wager using simple a basic Martingale strategy, than an immediate wipe out bust of say 10 consecutive 10% chance losses in a row.

CD

[redsn0w]

I agree with both of you that each roll of the dice is independent in and of itself from a mathematical standpoint. That the odds of rolling a 6th roll <10 out of 100 after 5 consecutive <10 Rolls (given youre playing a bet where you are wagering the dice will roll >10 out of a possible 100) is 10% in terms of chance, where the previous 5 rolls have no effect on the 6th roll at all.

But mathematically one can assume that certain patterns are unlikely to happen, such as the Monte Carlo Roulette Incident of 1913, where there were 26 rolls of consecutive black, and people lost millions betting red was bound to roll next.

But then again I dont believe an incident like that has happened since. While each roll of the wheel has roughly (factoring out greens or 0s) a 50/50 chance of rolling a red or black, 26 black has the same odds as any other pattern of 26 if pre-determined and bet on, 26 black in a row is astronomically unlikely.

But yes I agree, each roll is independent with no relation to the last roll of the dice. I would wager however you are statistically speaking more likely to see gains FIRST by betting on a 90% win wager using simple a basic Martingale strategy, than an immediate wipe out bust of say 10 consecutive 10% chance losses in a row.

CD

So at the end have you become rich ? anyone form the community have bought at least one copy of your amazing guide ? You're really amazing scammer.




Ps: I think you are scared from @dooglus or am I wrong ?

[dooglus]

such as the Monte Carlo Roulette Incident of 1913, where there were 26 rolls of consecutive black, and people lost millions betting red was bound to roll next.

But then again I dont believe an incident like that has happened since.

A player on Just-Dice rolled under 50.5 out of 100 a staggering 32 times in a row, using a provably fair roll system.

That is I think the least likely reported streak in gambling history.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg7060900#msg7060900 for full details of the longest winning and losing streaks at 49.5% on JD.

[dooglus]

However, the Second Scenario listed plays much riskier and will bust far sooner regardless of the math behind the rolls.

Unless my math is flawed... Feel free to chime in here if so.

It's possible your math is flawed, or that you didn't run the simulations for long enough.

But the one with the lower probability of busting will bust less often than the other one - kind of by definition of "probability".

I'm not really sure what your point is here - is it "math is wrong"? (because it isn't); is it "less probable things tend to happen more often than more probable things"? (because they don't); if it's "variance is a bitch" or "the 'large' in 'the law of large numbers' is bigger than I thought" then I agree with you on both counts.

[WaffleMaster]

Oh snap, 32 losses in a row. Guess I'm not going to be luck gambling any time soon 

[Sumerian]

Don't buy this nonsense people. The seller may have been very lucky but that doesn't mean you are.

[dooglus]

Oh snap, 32 losses in a row. Guess I'm not going to be luck gambling any time soon 

Someone else won 30 times in a row at 49.5%. Unfortunately it was probably a Martingale bot, and it bet only 320 satoshis on the first in the streak and 160 satoshis the other 29 times.

Achievement: probably the luckiest streak in gambling history
Total profit: 1.8 US cents' worth of BTC (0.00004960)

[dooglus]

Don't buy this nonsense people. The seller may have been very lucky but that doesn't mean you are.

The seller hasn't been very lucky. See for yourself:

  http://pd3.co/u/NicholasCra1

[redsn0w]

Don't buy this nonsense people. The seller may have been very lucky but that doesn't mean you are.

The seller hasn't been very lucky. See for yourself:

  http://pd3.co/u/NicholasCra1

Then at the end he was only a scammer  , so are our feedbacks right ?