Revive gambling hall!!

[Card Man]

-1

Play FFR to make credits; end of story.

[UserNameGoesHere]

Originally Posted by tofurox

Well, they first would have to fix the code so it won't be easily exploitable anymore.

So there was an exploit? Is this confirmable? I kind of figured it was shut down either for potential legal reasons or because it was breaking something or was being broken by something which would be too much trouble to fix.

I liked it although I ended with a pretty substantial net loss. I agree skill-based games would be better though.

[fermble]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I also like it because it teaches people the pitfalls of gambling without having to actually waste money.

I like dis idea. I'm 16, no point in gambling any real money I don't have in life haha. IMAGINARY MONIES WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Proabability isn't 50/50 if you have 5 bets running in a row (METHINKS).
I dunno, I'd finally worked out a way I would bet the week leading up to the closure of the gambling hall.

It might have been something like 1k, 1k, 5k, 1k, 1k I don't remember. ?__?
I just was always winning more in the long run when I did it that way.

I COULD BE WRONG.

[devonin]

One somewhat good strategy (which is **** for long term) is the martingale, where you basically just keep betting higher to cover the sum of all previous losses. Of course, this results in a fairly slow accumulation of wealth, which can all be taken away from one bad streak. The ones who earn a lot from the gambling hall tend to be the ones who bet heavy and simply get lucky.

Martingale works flawlessly if you have infinite capital. Though why the hell you're gambling if you have infinite capital is beyond me.

The system is perfect, on paper, but people using it a) don't have enough money to cover a very long losing streak and b) come up against house limits on wagers even if they did have enough money.

[TC_Halogen]

Originally Posted by Card Man

-1

Play FFR to make credits; end of story.

Damn straight.

[Rodrig0v]

I'd love to play poker with my credits.

AKA chips

[LegendaryMaster]

I would love to try the gambling hall

[funmonkey54]

Blackjack PvP with bets on rounds, games, and tournaments. I am ALL for that. =D

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by fermble

I like dis idea. I'm 16, no point in gambling any real money I don't have in life haha. IMAGINARY MONIES WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Proabability isn't 50/50 if you have 5 bets running in a row (METHINKS).
I dunno, I'd finally worked out a way I would bet the week leading up to the closure of the gambling hall.

It might have been something like 1k, 1k, 5k, 1k, 1k I don't remember. ?__?
I just was always winning more in the long run when I did it that way.

I COULD BE WRONG.

No matter what combination you bet on, in the long run, you will lose it. The best way to delay that inevitable loss is to try to create stopping rules to help maximize your short-term gains. Of course, the guys who earned the most just bet heavy on a bunch of 50k's and 100k's and simply got lucky. You'll also end up with heavy betters who end up getting equally UNlucky (Argo).

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

FFR blackjack hold 'em and such would be really neat actually.

[psychoangel691]

yea I agree with middie

[MrRubix]

(Expected number of bets to get a given streak) vs. (Streak length)
2 1
6 2
14 3
30 4
62 5
126 6
254 7
510 8
1022 9
2046 10
4094 11
8190 12
16382 13
32766 14
65534 15
131070 16
262142 17
524286 18
1048574 19
2097150 20



n = 2^(k+1)-2 can help describe the relationship between the expected number of bets (n) before you get a given streak (k). Don't argue with me on the math or I'll rip your face off.

So to get a bad streak of, say, 6, you could expect to experience such an event when betting 2^(6+1)-2 = 126 times. Keep in mind this is an EXPECTATION, which means this is only 100% true if we were to repeat an experiment infinitely many times -- this would be the average we'd derive. Expectation is like saying the "average" payoff of a die is 3.5 (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6, even though in the short term you will potentially get much higher/lower averages. If we had infinitely many rolls though, the payoff would be exactly 3.5. Anyway.

I can't remember the gambling bins 6 back from the top, but I think it was 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000. As you can see, on expectation, even if you start a martingale from 500, it won't take long before you wind up losing every single one of those for a bad-streak loss of 166,500. And it's going to take a while to put a dent in that with a martingale because you're only going to win the 50k/100k if you end up losing the other 4/5 again to begin with, and even then it's only a modest net gain (if you win the 100,000, it's really like winning 33,500 under a 6-bet martingale).

None of this is even taking into account the house's cut, which works even harder against your favor.

So a martingale is not necessarily a bad strategy for the short term, but as Devonin said, you need infinite capital to pull it off all the time for the long haul because you'd always have enough to cover your bad bets, and even then, you wouldn't be betting in the first place. The reason why martingales work in the short term is because you're betting against the notion that you can earn back what you lose before you end up hitting those particularly nasty streaks that, on expectation, require many trials to end up hitting on a long-term basis.

So how do you get lucky? Well, if I throw down 2 million in 100k bets (20 total bets) and the probability gods shine in my favor and decide to bestow upon me a modest 60% winrate. Now, recall that when you place bets down, you technically already lose everything you put down. Losing earns you nothing back, and winning earns you back double what you put down. Under a 60% winrate, then that means I win 1.2*2 = 2.4 million, which puts me 400,000 ahead of where I started. Of course, if I kept betting 100k's, in the long run I would expect to lose as much as I would win for no net gain, but since the house takes 2% on each transaction, then at worst I lose 100k per bet and at best I win 98k, leaving a 2k gap from that win alone (which is a fairly significant chunk of those early martingales which start from 500/1000/5000!).

In other words, the best way to earn a lot of money with the gambling system is to bet high and hope the winrate is slightly in your favor in the short term. If you get greedy and keep going, you'll lose what you earned.

[demonllama6124]

if memory serves me right, i was number 1 with most credits earned. funmonkey, tofu, goelo, and plan can support this. i maxed out two account with credits, it was awesome

[fastfingers34]

Originally Posted by lumphoboextreme

-1, i was +3mil but got greedy and went busto

Well that was your fault wasn't it?
You obviously had a gambling problem!

+1 btw, i would go there occasionally to try and get credits

[TC_Halogen]

Hold'em? On FFR?


...oh no.

[fermble]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

n = 2^(k+1)-2

Heyyyy heyyheyyheyy it looks like a derivative of some sort

maybe

[One Winged Angel]

if hold 'em ever gets on ffr (not happening lol) i'd probably play more poker with you guys than the game itself

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

(Expected number of bets to get a given streak) vs. (Streak length)
2 1
6 2
14 3
30 4
62 5
126 6
254 7
510 8
1022 9
2046 10
4094 11
8190 12
16382 13
32766 14
65534 15
131070 16
262142 17
524286 18
1048574 19
2097150 20



n = 2^(k+1)-2 can help describe the relationship between the expected number of bets (n) before you get a given streak (k). Don't argue with me on the math or I'll rip your face off.

So to get a bad streak of, say, 6, you could expect to experience such an event when betting 2^(6+1)-2 = 126 times. Keep in mind this is an EXPECTATION, which means this is only 100% true if we were to repeat an experiment infinitely many times -- this would be the average we'd derive. Expectation is like saying the "average" payoff of a die is 3.5 (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6, even though in the short term you will potentially get much higher/lower averages. If we had infinitely many rolls though, the payoff would be exactly 3.5. Anyway.

I can't remember the gambling bins 6 back from the top, but I think it was 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000. As you can see, on expectation, even if you start a martingale from 500, it won't take long before you wind up losing every single one of those for a bad-streak loss of 166,500. And it's going to take a while to put a dent in that with a martingale because you're only going to win the 50k/100k if you end up losing the other 4/5 again to begin with, and even then it's only a modest net gain (if you win the 100,000, it's really like winning 33,500 under a 6-bet martingale).

None of this is even taking into account the house's cut, which works even harder against your favor.

So a martingale is not necessarily a bad strategy for the short term, but as Devonin said, you need infinite capital to pull it off all the time for the long haul because you'd always have enough to cover your bad bets, and even then, you wouldn't be betting in the first place. The reason why martingales work in the short term is because you're betting against the notion that you can earn back what you lose before you end up hitting those particularly nasty streaks that, on expectation, require many trials to end up hitting on a long-term basis.

So how do you get lucky? Well, if I throw down 2 million in 100k bets (20 total bets) and the probability gods shine in my favor and decide to bestow upon me a modest 60% winrate. Now, recall that when you place bets down, you technically already lose everything you put down. Losing earns you nothing back, and winning earns you back double what you put down. Under a 60% winrate, then that means I win 1.2*2 = 2.4 million, which puts me 400,000 ahead of where I started. Of course, if I kept betting 100k's, in the long run I would expect to lose as much as I would win for no net gain, but since the house takes 2% on each transaction, then at worst I lose 100k per bet and at best I win 98k, leaving a 2k gap from that win alone (which is a fairly significant chunk of those early martingales which start from 500/1000/5000!).

In other words, the best way to earn a lot of money with the gambling system is to bet high and hope the winrate is slightly in your favor in the short term. If you get greedy and keep going, you'll lose what you earned.

You forgot to carry the one.

Originally Posted by demonllama6124

if memory serves me right, i was number 1 with most credits earned. funmonkey, tofu, goelo, and plan can support this. i maxed out two account with credits, it was awesome

He speaks the truth.

[AC1speakerbox]

Originally Posted by leonid

gambling hall was like people threw bets in and I took their credits

lol'd so hard. xD

I'm kind of neutral on it. I don't think its a good habit to pick up, but I do think it has the possibility to serve as an outlet for those who do have a gambling problem. That is, only if it doesn't only worsen said gambling problem.

I only lost once and won three times, the one loss was like 10 creds too. Ended up winning like 10k I think.
However, I don't think that the benefit outweighs the fact that we're facilitating gambling for kids. =/

[LolWutMikeh]

Warning: Division by zero in /home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/gambling/history.php on line 196

The database tried to divide by zero before I realised I wasn't on prefx, I had a 1 mil loss on prefx :/