The FFR Credit Gambling Thread - Whine & Gloat HERE!

[MrRubix]

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

This simply isn't true. The smallest common increment for worst case scenario is 10 credits, max being 100k (most risky). To cover a hedged bet starting moderately (say 10k), anything I lose I can continue to re-cover with higher hedged bets, and therefore I earn back what I lost plus some, even when the house is taking 1%, since increasing increments can cover as long as such increments exist, and as long as the odds are good enough that you can guarantee an eventual win. This strategy actually has a name to it (I forgot what it was called), and it's empirically effective given that you aren't too risk-seeking/prone to overbetting, although it's generally frowned upon because it's very risky if you overdo it (since bad streaks DO occur. You still need to bail once in a while if you're losing too much). You can virtually guarantee you will never lose more money than you are making unless you have an absolutely crap streak, but even if that does occur, you can always get it back using the same strategy, as the probability of having two extremely bad streaks in close proximity (enough to offset your judgment of utility pertaining to whether or not you can afford to lose whatever you are betting) is even more improbable.

This strategy, again, only works if you have a lot of money relative to the increments. If you don't have a lot of money, you risk driving yourself into extreme debt by risking more than you should (as the increments are a higher percentage of your total credit count). As you earn more credits relative to these increments, the marginal impact of loss is diminished and therefore the cost of hedging decreases, thereby allowing you to recover under the assumption that a long, bad streak is not going to occur during recovery.

This is why his strategy is technically workable even though it's risky below a certain credit count (too lazy to calculate the cutoff for an expected breakeven). You could use the technique with as little as 50k (estimating) as long as you're operating with lower hedged increments. I wouldn't use this strategy if I had less than that, honestly.


EDIT: LOL, how funny. I started out with like 100 here... By re-covering lower variance bets with higher hedges, I am slowly earning money back. Only a matter of time before the numbers can start growing larger.

EDIT2: Yep, the moment I stop hedging, I start losing my higher-variance bets.

I wish I would have done this sooner when I had 100,000+ credits -- I've have millions right now, haha