Dice...

[ChaotiiiKid]

I saw this in a strategy for staking video, and I was curious if it would work with dicing as well.

Okay, so hypothetically...

You bet 1M and lose.
So then you bet 2M.
If you lose you bet 4m.
If you lose again, bet 8m.
Lose again, bet 16m.
Lose again, bet 32m.

With a 100m cash stack, the odds of losing that many time in a row are very slim to none. I think it's roughly 1.6%. So even if you lost all the way up to betting 32m, you'd still profit if you won on the last bet. Or if you have 500m+ the chances of losing your entire stack one bet after another are so low it's almost impossible. If you do this, especially with pre-rolling, couldn't you hypothetically make hundreds of mills?

 

[Darkstassassin]

Yes it would work with dicing. But remember theres a 10% host fee.

And there are times I've seen people do this with staking and lose all their money (500m+).

 

[Quadro]

No, you'll lose the last bet and be sol...

 

[DtheK]

In practice it's probably not going to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

In practice it's probably not going to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

That made me :/

 

If you factor in the 10% host fee, this method becomes pretty useless.

 

[Mattyg]

You're better off sniping the dice works alot better

 

[Flight]

With everyone prerolling now, you're guaranteed to lose a lot more bets.

I've seen people in DD roll 10+ five times in a row for a grand total of 260m won in 10 min.

 

[acrylic]

Ive learned that you'll end up losing all your money, so don't gamble at all :/

 

[Castle Warz]

Without the 10% this method works if you start over everytime you win

 

[Austinsmilee]

I've used this method with great success, but ultimate failure... I decided first of all that doing any bets under 10m didn't lead to any great profit, so the starting bet is 10m..

10m
20m
40m
80m
160m
320m

^ That was my ladder.
Essentially to be able to do the last 320 bet you need a total of 630m. At the time I had around 100m, so I purchased 530m through player auctions with hope that this was going to bring me great success and I would be able to sell back a lot of mils gained dicing... I was using "dragon dyce" which hypothetically is 50/50, I never did pre-rolls or anything- just bet and rolled.

Mathematically your chances of winning get better every time, so 1/2 chance you'll loose the first bet, 1/4 chance you'll loose the second bet... and so on. So with this ladder I used I was making 6 bets, 1/(2^6) chance I would loose... or a 0.78% chance I would loose, less than 1%!

The problem is if you keep betting, you keep pushing yourself into that 1% chance. It would be like rolling a dice 1-100, and if it landed on 32 exactly you would loose everything, and eventually you're going to roll a 32- it's just gonna take while.

So I used this strategy from 630m, and nearly had 1b... Then I rolled a 32 so to speak. I bet the 320m, hoping to god that I wasn't about to loose everything- and I lost. And I was left with less than 300m, my profits from using the strategy. I never bet that 300m because if I lost it i'd be left with nothing.

Dicing is addictive and scary guys, careful out there.

 

[Kabal]

I've used this method with great success, but ultimate failure...

Everyone who's considering getting into dicing, with or without using the method in OP, should read this post

 

[FibOfAllFibs]

Without the 10% this method works if you start over everytime you win

In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers will increase their bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The anti-martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. The perception is that in this manner the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak. As the single bets are independent from each other (and from the gambler's expectations), the same conclusions as above apply.

Doing it after winning is the same principle as doing it after losing, each roll is an independent event.

I've used this method with great success, but ultimate failure... I decided first of all that doing any bets under 10m didn't lead to any great profit, so the starting bet is 10m..

10m
20m
40m
80m
160m
320m

^ That was my ladder.
Essentially to be able to do the last 320 bet you need a total of 630m. At the time I had around 100m, so I purchased 530m through player auctions with hope that this was going to bring me great success and I would be able to sell back a lot of mils gained dicing... I was using "dragon dyce" which hypothetically is 50/50, I never did pre-rolls or anything- just bet and rolled.

Mathematically your chances of winning get better every time, so 1/2 chance you'll loose the first bet, 1/4 chance you'll loose the second bet... and so on. So with this ladder I used I was making 6 bets, 1/(2^6) chance I would loose... or a 0.78% chance I would loose, less than 1%!

The problem is if you keep betting, you keep pushing yourself into that 1% chance. It would be like rolling a dice 1-100, and if it landed on 32 exactly you would loose everything, and eventually you're going to roll a 32- it's just gonna take while.

So I used this strategy from 630m, and nearly had 1b... Then I rolled a 32 so to speak. I bet the 320m, hoping to god that I wasn't about to loose everything- and I lost. And I was left with less than 300m, my profits from using the strategy. I never bet that 300m because if I lost it i'd be left with nothing.

Dicing is addictive and scary guys, careful out there.

You guys need to read the article that DtheK cited. It completely disproves this method.

In practice it's probably not going to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

In the article, it says:

Since expectation is linear, the expected value of a series of bets is just the sum of the expected value of each bet. Since in such games of chance the bets are independent, the expectation of each bet does not depend on whether you previously won or lost.

So, as I've said all along, the bets are independent. Each time, you have a 50% chance of winning or losing. It doesn't compound with every bet.

 

[Liam_]

Why do you guys keep talking about hosting fees? Hosting fees are only for dice duels....

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

Why do you guys keep talking about hosting fees? Hosting fees are only for dice duels....

That's what the whole thread is about, bud.

 

[Zerk Perk]

Yes it would work with dicing. But remember theres a 10% host fee.

And there are times I've seen people do this with staking and lose all their money (500m+).

you can also bet against the host.. then you dont lose the 10% but you are less likely to win

 

[Nytrix]

Don't do it. You'll eventually lose your bank as you get greedy.

 

[Kapa]

I just dice'd, lost half of my cash pile but I got it back by the method referred in this thread. I knew about this long before. But If It's 60-100 sometimes It's not worth it.

I hate gambling, and every time I lost I wanted to double my cash pile in order to win the amount lost. Over all I lost 1m at W2 just now.

 

[Austinsmilee]

In the article, it says:
So, as I've said all along, the bets are independent. Each time, you have a 50% chance of winning or losing. It doesn't compound with every bet.

I agree with this, but it could also be argued the opposite with probability theory. So let me try to make an example, you do a dice duel- let's say you loose the first time. Now the second roll comes along, what's the probability 50/50. Now, forget that you know what happened with the first roll... Now what's the probability? Well now you've picked up a second chance that you could win, two chances right? (1/2)*(1/2) = 1/4 chance of loosing. We're actually getting into some difficult conceptual mathematics... There are two famous examples of similar problems.

The first is the Monty Hall Problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

It's shown pretty well in the movie "21":

[YOUTUBE]6Rl_p3JlSd0[/YOUTUBE]

The other famous problem that explains you not knowing what the last roll was, it's called the cat in the box theory.

Schrödinger's cat

You're actually asking some advanced questions, but unfortunately I am correct about the statistics behind it. SOURCES: 4 college statsics classes, quantium physics class, linear algebra, and CALC III.

 

[Qatarr]

It won't work.