The FFR Credit Gambling Thread - Whine & Gloat HERE!

[tofurox]

Overall:
143K>8M (till tass fixed glitch)>250K>200K>250K>200K>150K>80K>150K>200K>250K>200K>100K>20K>100K>150K>200K>250K>300K>200K>250K>300K>320K>330K>340K>350K

Thats just my big bets.
Worlds best streaker, with 17 wins in a row.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by ryanisadouche

Reading the last few pages of this thread is just ridiculous. Rubix, surely you of all people realize there's no possible way to beat the system at all, no matter how "patient" you are. Every account would eventually end up at 0 credits if they kept betting. No matter how good some peoples current streaks are, the expected return remains 0.98 and you'll eventually start losing.

Basing a strategy even loosely on events that have already occured is absurd. If a friend took a coin out of his pocket and made you a bet, would you ask him what the coin landed on the last several times it was flipped? Obviously not. Coins have no memory whatsoever, and while a record is kept for ffr gambling, the system has no memory either. I really hope you don't think you've found some surefire way to beat the system, because your odds will never be greater then 50/50 on any given play, and your return rate will never go up from 0.98.

0.98 might sound close enough to 1, but its really not. Playing "Jacks or Better" on a vlt with perfect play has a return rate of 0.9954, and blackjack, depending on rules, is usually at least 0.99 using basic strategies (without card counting). Casinos can still have these games though, because even having a return rate of mere decimals below 1 means the player loses money the majority of the time.

When you gamble, you should expect to lose. This can be thought of as "the cost of entertainment". As soon as you start to think you can actually win money gambling, you get yourself in serious trouble.

Not true at all -- you can beat this system. And I never advocated Gambler's Fallacy. Probability indeed has no memory. But that doesn't mean you can't protect yourself.

[tofurox]

Exactly....
360K FTW! When just 2 hours ago I was about to quit FFR with 20K....

[ryanisadouche]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Not true at all -- you can beat this system. And I never advocated Gambler's Fallacy. Probability indeed has no memory. But that doesn't mean you can't protect yourself.

Protect yourself by pooling credits together? I dont see how this accomplishes anything

[rzr]

Wrong place, but I don't care, I need to bitch: ****ING BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! K, done.

[ryanisadouche]

Originally Posted by Arbitrage

ryanisadouche: It's all about variance.

also BASSSSS

but its not about variance. There's no way to predict or control the system by varying your bets, your just as likely to win the small ones and lose the big ones.

also HUNTERRRRR

[ryanisadouche]

I would love to hear you, or rubix, or anyone try to explain to me in a PM how they think they can "beat the system". Unless there's an actual glitch somewhere, then no matter how much you bet last time, whether you won or lost, your next bet will be 50/50.

[hoochan]

Originally Posted by ryanisadouche

stuff

That's not how gambling works. There's always 1 loser and 1 winner. Barely anyone ends up even (in this case even is .98).

EDIT- You can't beat the system but you can gamble intelligently where you win (net gain, not win every bet) almost every time unless you are having extremely bad luck.

[ryanisadouche]

Originally Posted by hoochan

you can gamble intelligently

o hi gamblers fallacy.

Originally Posted by hoochan

Barely anyone ends up even

Over a smaller sample space, no, but as you keep playing your results get closer to what they should be,"breaking even at 0.98" as you put it, which really means you are losing.

It's easy to say "thats not true" but no one's tried explaining themself yet. Probability and gambling has always fascinated me and i know i'm right here.

[PlayTrumpet]

Yay, finally pulled myself out of the biggest loser top 10 list. ^_^

[heyitsmee]

if you will add a free bet amount i will be able to use the double up strategy like this

1000 - lose
3000 - lose
6000 - lose
12000 - lose
26000 - lose
50000 - lose
125000 - lose
250000 - lose
450000 - lose
1mil - lose
2mil - lose

with a free bet amount if you had about 400k to start with you could have about 9 bets to double back up to the original amount

and if every thing goes normally you would slowly get credits

but with fixed amounts the jump from 1000 to 5000 to 10k 50k and the maximum of 100k breaks this strategy

[hoochan]

Originally Posted by ryanisadouche

o hi gamblers fallacy.



Over a smaller sample space, no, but as you keep playing your results get closer to what they should be,"breaking even at 0.98" as you put it, which really means you are losing.

It's easy to say "thats not true" but no one's tried explaining themself yet. Probability and gambling has always fascinated me and i know i'm right here.

Uh no. That is in no way gambler's fallacy because I never said anything about sequences...

Also, no. Barely anyone breaks even. The experimental probability of someone getting a 1:1 win:lose ratio is inaccurate because everyone knows that that never happens. In these situations, human instinct would prevail over the math.

[ryanisadouche]

edit - at heyitsmee


Strategies like that always fail in the long run. Very similiar strategies have been formed for games like roulette.

Sure, it'll work almost every time. But the huge risk outweighs the tiny profit by a mile. It's inevitable that you'll eventually hit the unlikely but very possible losing streak, and lose it all, making your tiny 1k wins add up to nothing.

[ryanisadouche]

Originally Posted by hoochan

Uh no. That is in no way gambler's fallacy because I never said anything about sequences...

Also, no. Barely anyone breaks even. The experimental probability of someone getting a 1:1 win:lose ratio is inaccurate because everyone knows that that never happens. In these situations, human instinct would prevail over the math.

Well you said "gamble intelligently", which assumes you think you have some sort of influence over the outcome.

And i believe that almost anyone would confirm that a 1:1 win:lose ration is VERY accurate. It would take thousands and thousands of games before you start to see it, but it's definitly there.

And I'm really not sure what your getting at, but for your sake I hope you don't ever go to a casino with real money and try to win on "human instinct".

[sarahxjane]

I had 30k given to me, since I had like 10 left.

I was stupid, and gambled it.

Now I have 9 left.

[bill_clinton]

I was passing out 100k's to people for free, because I was rich as ****.

Now I wish I didint do that.

[Tasselfoot]

bill was BALLIN'.

[7thJosephSign]

Well i had an awesome day today!!!

[LoneW0lf]

Originally Posted by 7thJosephSign

Well i had an awesome day today!!!

yes
and you bragged

and bragged


and bragged

lol nice increase man :P

[7thJosephSign]

at least i didn't post it in the Brag Board XD