The FFR Credit Gambling Thread - Whine & Gloat HERE!

[Lordd_Magus]

I noticed that at first as well, I started off by betting only 1k. I set up around 10-15 of them and my money seemed to increase but also decrease. I also tried so called izzy's way as well, I believe if I just watched the loses and wins and waited for every 2 loses and put 5k down for a win I would, that didn't work out. Then I got angry and put 10k down 4 times in a row, lost 20k won 20k then did it again and lost 40k. Once again I will say it, this kind of gambling is not fun even the slightest because you can't play it "smart" there is no way to "cheat" the system. 50/50 chance every singles time you try it so screw that **** don't waste your credits

[Sprite-]

You have much to learn, young gamblers.

[Lordd_Magus]

Ouch sorry tofu, you helped me when I didn't have **** all.

[GamerShadow]

Here's what I think is going to happen. Those that have credits and don't gamble, but continue to play FFR are going to have more credits than almost all of the FFR population. There will be a few people that will win it all, but they will be, as mentioned, few and far between.

I have 80k credits right now, why bother going to zero in an hour when I can get to 100k within a week?

[rzr]

@ Rubix: Then don't wager anything over 18k.

@ Shadow: Yup, house takes 1% rounded up. Which makes me mad because even if I win one 100k and lose one 100k I still don't break even.

[rauchster]

I have noticed some people here incorrectly reading what I've posted.

Originally Posted by x After Dawn x

I hope you don't have to either, because you're totally incorrect. The chance of breaking that streak is always 50/50. Whether I have 3 in a row, 10 in a row, or 999,999 in a row, there's always a 50/50 chance that it will break.

After Dawn - please do not insult me like that.
I never once disagreed with your statement. The chance of ANY individual bet being win/loss is 50/50. HOWEVER, and please read this right, the chances of getting a 10 streak is much smaller than getting a 3 streak.

For Example:
There are 64 possible outcomes with 6 flips of a coin.
2 of those involve a 6 long streak (all heads/wins, and all tails/losses)
4 of those include a 5 long streak of either wins or losses in any place during the 6 bets.
10 of those have a 4 long streak.
22 of those have a 3 long streak.
20 of those have a 2 long streak.
and 2 of them have no streak, just getting alternating wins and losses.

Therefore: Although the chance of breaking any streak at no matter what length it is equals about 50%, the chance of getting bigger streaks is MUCH less than the chances of having a bunch of smaller streaks.

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

rofl all you people doing all this math

there is no "strategy" for straight coin flips. 50/50 probability does NOT nessecarily mean that it will even out to 50/50 within a certain timeframe. Perhaps theoretically at infinity you reach 50/50 each time, but I can't comprehend the math you'd go to prove that kind of thing 0_o

At a short timeframe that you guys are dealing with (like, less than billions of bets) it's all luck, minus what the house takes.
Think if you get T-T-T. What's the next one going to be? By rauchster's logic, apparently it's more likely to be heads. As in, the NONPARTIAL & MEMORY-LESS coin is going to be weighted toward heads because it knows that it should start evening out to 50-50 about now. wtf? I don't get that logic.

EDIT- rauchster, your fallacy is assuming that an individual event consists of 4 coin flips. If the gambling game were based on a comparison of 4 flips, then each individual event would be more likely to tend toward 50-50 in the final tally. But you haven't proved anything there, because we all know that it's less likely to get T-T-T-T than any one of the 6 combinations of 2H & 2T. The thing is, the next flip after you get T-T-T-T is still just 50/50 to be T again, not influenced by the previous flips. You've confused combinations with permutations, I think XD


Comparing it to poker is just laughable, because in poker it's possible to bluff, read people's tells, calculate odds... all of which take a lot more skill than pressing a button with 50/50 chance of winning.

And the house wins in the end. Which is especially funny, because in this case, the house is just vaporizing their takings for the pleasure of watching all you go broke rofl

I like the fact that you actually provide statistical evidence to back your findings. What you don't seem to realize though is that I was not disagreeing with what you are saying, at least not in whole.

Here is my statistical evidence to support my viewpoint.
I do NOT say that after getting three losses, you are more likely to get a win.
I AM saying that over the course of my entire betting sessions, it is a higher statistical chance that I will have smaller streaks instead of a couple gigantic ones.
This strategy is NOT based on any individual bets, but rather the chances of getting a streak, and determining the average length of said streaks.
I.E:
When you bet 100 times.
There are only 2 way to get a streak of 100.
And only 4 ways to get a streak of 99.
But there are 845,100,400,152,153,375,588,353,340,941 different possible ways to gamble 100 times on a coin flip, in which your biggest streak(win or lose) is NOT LONGER THAN 3!
I'm playing the length of the streaks and the probability that those will happen.

I haven't confused combinations with permutations, in fact those aren't even used in my calculations.
What you are saying is true, any INDIVIDUAL toss is 50/50.
But the chances of getting longer streaks is by far less.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I mean, don't buy into Gambler's Fallacy. Waiting until you get a losing streak is not going to help you. The statistical masking here is the fact that you're hedging with lower sum bets and NOT the fact that you're waiting until an affordable losing streak occurs with an extremely small amount of credits.

If you place reasonable bets that you can afford to lose that can potentially help you gain in the slightest, you can estimate how much of that margin you are willing to forgo to seek bigger bets if smaller synthesized packages aren't available to take advantage of the variance. Of course, since our betting increments change quite drastically, this would insinuate that playing it patiently is the best way to earn. Betting twice at 5000 is technically safer than betting once at 10,000. So if you can tackle lower bets to synthesize larger ones, then by all means, do it (if you lose the first 5,000 you don't have to bet the second 5,000, whereas if you bet 10k on the first shot and lost, you just lost out on that extra 5k). The variance is lower, and the more you can do it, the easier it is to at least break even if you don't ever make enough margin. However, the UPSIDE to being locked into a higher risk is the fact that you earn more. If I make ten bets of 50, I am expected to lose 250 and win 250. However, if I bet 500, there is a 50% chance that I will come out with 500. So you have to look at the margin of what you win/lose vs. the variance of your next strategy.

Of course, this assumes you are patient. If you're like me, you're going to be risk-seeking and bet 300k and lose all of it in a 1/8th cumulative chance shot. WTF.

The idea here is to make an optimal stopping rule with a higher expected payoff. The correct "strategy" to this betting system would actually be in the form of a large table indicating how to hedge depending on amount won or lost on the immediate margin. Finding the rule though is a very hard task.

So never ever bet what you aren't willing to lose -- if you manage to win big, don't get greedy. Try to partition off what you won to at least ensure that you don't overbet.

You, sir, are a smart man. Please, take no offense to anything I may say below.
I know you probably didn't read any of my previous posts, so I would like to share something with you.

TRUE, there is a gambler's fallacy, and it is quite possible that it will happen here to me at some point.
But, played smartly, EVERY game can have a winner.
You, of all people, should understand this.

I did some calculations on these losing streaks, and determined that there IS a way to play them correctly, with maximizing wins, and minimizing losses.

I'll explain it as simply as I can.
If you take every bet as a singular event, there is no strategy, just placing credits on a 50/50 chance.
But, after looking at the big picture, you start to realize that there are odds and probabilities embedded within this so-called "50/50" game.
Chances of a single win or single loss alternating being your biggest streak, are fairly minimized. There is only 2 options for this, no matter how many times you bet, and that is alternating W/L.
But the chances of small streaks are much higher.
And the chances of big streaks are just insanely small.

I'd explain more but, I think the spreadsheet I made would be much more explanatory.
If you (or anyone) would like to see it, I'll send it to you.

[MrRubix]

rauchster: I don't quite understand what you are saying (because the key to this betting system is dependent on understanding the implications of variance vs expected return for a given stream of bets), but your spreadsheet should still be interesting -- PM me a link por favor.

EDIT: If I am understanding you correctly, you are betting on the fact that a huge losing streak is improbable thus you are going to hedge your losses with covering bets until you make up the difference. That strategy indeed works but assumes you have a lot of money to begin with, and isn't a good strategy otherwise. I didn't quite understand your last post so I may be misinterpreting you.

[rauchster]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

rauchster: I don't quite understand what you are saying (because the key to this betting system is dependent on understanding the implications of variance vs expected return for a given stream of bets), but your spreadsheet should still be interesting -- PM me a link por favor.

EDIT: If I am understanding you correctly, you are betting on the fact that a huge losing streak is improbable thus you are going to hedge your losses with covering bets until you make up the difference. That strategy indeed works but assumes you have a lot of money to begin with, and isn't a good strategy otherwise. I didn't quite understand your last post so I may be misinterpreting you.

Close Enough.
I am indeed betting on the probability of the streaks being smaller, while allowing for variances in the overall streak length. I win on every 1-2-3-4-5-7-8-10 losing streak in the winning bet at the end, while losing on 6-9 losing streaks. But all the losses from the 6 losing streaks are kept to under what I gain from a 7 losing streak, or about equal to 2- five loss streaks, and all the 9's are covered by the 10's, or 2 8's.

PM Me with an e-mail address, and I'll hit you with that spreadsheet.

[sumzup]

Send the spreadsheet to me, please. I'd like to see what you're explaining in detail. Thanks!

Edit: Er, send it to sumzup@flashflashrevolution.com, I guess.

[MrRubix]

rauchster: Ah, I understand what you mean now. Yeah, that strategy is perfectly viable as long as you don't get greedy and aim too high, and if you can afford to lose on a really bad streak (say a streak of 6 in a row being bad) with all bets involved.

[[HectoGtzMX]]

O: What happened to hammy?

Biggest Positive Increase Get, again xd
1 [HectoGtzMX] 3,058,602

[sumzup]

You're just too good, Hecto. Maybe you should stop STEALING everyone's hard-earned credits. /jk

[[HectoGtzMX]]

At least this gambing addiction is taking away my ffr addiction lol, I haven't played a lot since gambling appeared.

[sumzup]

One addiction for another...it's like switching from smoking heavily to getting drunk all the time. lose-lose situation.

I, for one, would have a gambling addiction...except for the fact that I don't have any credits xD. Thus, I have returned to FFRing.

Edit: I think a rough table for gambling would be to wager only what you are willing to lose 10 of in a row. (maybe less if you're risky, or more if you want to be safer). i.e. If you have 300k, it's probably the safest and best strategy to only bet up to 10k on a single wager.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

rauchster: Ah, I understand what you mean now. Yeah, that strategy is perfectly viable as long as you don't get greedy and aim too high, and if you can afford to lose on a really bad streak (say a streak of 6 in a row being bad) with all bets involved.

No, I would figure this would require millions, even billions of bets to begin to play out in a predictable fashion. Explain to me why not.

And even then, with the house taking 1%, you're ****ed anyway

[rauchster]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

rauchster: Ah, I understand what you mean now. Yeah, that strategy is perfectly viable as long as you don't get greedy and aim too high, and if you can afford to lose on a really bad streak (say a streak of 6 in a row being bad) with all bets involved.

Which is why I've done my betting strategy as it is to take advantage of all the 5 or under losing streaks I get.
I've check, and had 35+ 2-3-4-5 losing streaks.
while only having 3 6+ losing streaks.
So I take advantage of all the smaller ones, and do marginal on the bigger (but less often) ones.

E-Mail sent.

[rzr]

I think I've developed an unhealthy gambling addiction. Thanks, FFR. Really. Thanks.

[rauchster]

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

No, I would figure this would require millions, even billions of bets to begin to play out in a predictable fashion. Explain to me why not.

And even then, with the house taking 1%, you're ****ed anyway

Because when you play off streaks, you are only playing off the length of the streaks, not the length of everything.
You're betting against the length of the streak.
You devise a betting strategy that allows you to win off of the most common, smaller, streaks. I.E.: 1-2-3-4-5 long losing streaks.
Since the higher streaks are less common, you make the previous strategy work out so that you break even or marginally win/lose the bigger streaks.

Or you can do this the opposite, and devise a strategy that does marginal on the lower streaks, but wins huge on the longer streaks.

Either way works.

I chose a strategy that wins marginally at 1-2-3-4 loss streaks, loses marginally on 6-9 loss streaks, and wins big on 5-7-8-10 streaks.
And since every win streak is a win regardless, that and the marginal wins after 1-2-3-4 loss streaks helps offset any marginal losses at 6-9 loss streaks.

[Adamaja456]

ITT: critical thinking

[remedy1502]

I'm such a ****ing idiot. I don't know when to stop. I was up to like, 300k from 125k, now I'm down to nothing. >_>