Statistics? ...if you following statistics you are always on the winning side...

 

I hope you are talking about the people that host now.

 

No, not really.

Source of all knowledge, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

But statistics are unrealistic, as I have said before, you can run infinite trails as if you can spend like no tomorrow for a constant and relatively small potential profit.

 

However that doesnt mean the host will lose. You know, the wonderful thing about statistics and distributions is you can use it to prove the otherwise.

For the host, firstly you have more than 1 clients and you also take in the probability of clients exponential growth of stakes. Then run a confidence test, you will get a pretty high confidence of winning as a host.

 

If you are really into this kind of maths, I can show you the more hard core stuff.

 

You just posted a link to a source that proves yourself wrong...

 

Doubling after a loss until you win DOES NOT lead to a net profit. With a finite cashpile you can place only a finite number of bets. A confidence index doesn't matter because this particular system is balanced between a very large number of small gains and a very small number of large losses. You're only gambling that you won't run into a large loss before you stop going for small gains.

 

Especially in a flower game where the host can win 100% of the time simply by accepting the offer and continuing on their way.

Lol it is funny. Here's what I do..."doubling money up to 10m!"~Legit. I ask them to show do 200k to prove that they will and then I will do 5m. I get 200k doubled to 400k and leave lol. Teaches them not to be greedy =p

You just posted a link to a source that proves yourself wrong...

 

Doubling after a loss until you win DOES NOT lead to a net profit. With a finite cashpile you can place only a finite number of bets. A confidence index doesn't matter because this particular system is balanced between a very large number of small gains and a very small number of large losses. You're only gambling that you won't run into a large loss before you stop going for small gains.

 

Especially in a flower game where the host can win 100% of the time simply by accepting the offer and continuing on their way.

 

Yes, you are right about the theory, but I am not wrong either.

Scroll up and you will know that I was arguing with someone telling another person to "study statistics".

I have stated clearly in my reply that the fact that statistics will always show you are winning but it includes unrealistic assumption.

I have used all those statistics crap in my research papers to make things more "convincing", all those new exciting contradicting "medical researchs" also use it, you can do it too.

 

And besides, it is still true that doubling money doesnt work as the scammer only get the initial amount of stakes no matter how much more the cash pile have been roll up, if the client only do doubles.

These are under ideal conditions...

 

The host can tele without pause and goodbye your huge bet.

... that statistics will always show you are winning but it includes unrealistic assumption...

I have used all those statistics crap in my research papers to make things more "convincing", all those new exciting contradicting "medical researchs" also use it, you can do it too.

 

Dude, really. I have no clue what you are rambling on about.

 

"statistics....unrealistic asssumption" wut

"exciting contradicting medical researchs" wut..

 

never mind, I am pretty convinced from what I have seen from your posts so far that you will not ever be able to explain what you mean. Let me rephrase that: ...that I will ever be able to understand what you are saying.

if you have unlimited funds, then doubling your bet every loss WILL guarantee profit

 

however you do not have unlimited funds - ultimately what this betting strategy does is give high odds of small payout, and low odds of high loss (i.e. your entire bank). given limited funds (i.e. reality), it is still in the host's favor.

 

example: player has 3.1 million coins and starts betting at 100k, doubling each time he loses. each bet is 60/40 in host's favor.

 

odds of winning with 100k bet - 40%, win 100k

odds of winning with 200k bet - 24%, win 100k

odds of winning with 400k bet - 14.4%, win 100k

odds of winning with 800k bet - 8.64%, win 100k

odds of winning with 1,600k bet - 5.18%, win 100k

odds of losing with 1,600k bet - 7.78%, lose 3,100k

 

tl;dr: your odds of winning 100k are 92.2%. your odds of losing 3.1M are 7.78%. with these specifications, long term this betting strategy turns out to increase the players odds to about 41:59, but as long as you have finite amount of money it will never be a winning game for the player.

And with those tactics you are trying to not lose money, not earn money. Get back to Mort Myre fungi picking.

 

Gambling is just like pking : if you not willing to lose it all in hope for a big profit don't do it, as it's pointless.

Dude, really. I have no clue what you are rambling on about.

 

"statistics....unrealistic asssumption" wut

"exciting contradicting medical researchs" wut..

 

never mind, I am pretty convinced from what I have seen from your posts so far that you will not ever be able to explain what you mean. Let me rephrase that: ...that I will ever be able to understand what you are saying.

 

The assumption in this case is that the person has unlimited fund and is willing to use it to ensure he never lose out.

 

The second point is less important to this topic, but I guess wikipedia may explain better than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

The assumption in this case is that the person has unlimited fund and is willing to use it to ensure he never lose out.

 

Ok. I doyn't think purely theoretical assumptions belong here. Point is, in reality there is no chance to win, not even in the long term, if the odds are against you.

The assumption in this case is that the person has unlimited fund and is willing to use it to ensure he never lose out.

 

Ok. I doyn't think purely theoretical assumptions belong here. Point is, in reality there is no chance to win, not even in the long term, if the odds are against you.

 

should be 'there is no chance to win in the long term'

 

because there's plenty of chance to win in the short term.

 

and apparently if u had say 100m and you started on a 200k bet you could end up winnning by just doubling your bet each time until you do, then quitting. but i still don't understand how that can be true because surely it applies to real life? and if there's an unbeatable way to bet then everyone would gamble??

The assumption in this case is that the person has unlimited fund and is willing to use it to ensure he never lose out.

 

Ok. I doyn't think purely theoretical assumptions belong here. Point is, in reality there is no chance to win, not even in the long term, if the odds are against you.

 

should be 'there is no chance to win in the long term'

 

because there's plenty of chance to win in the short term.

 

and apparently if u had say 100m and you started on a 200k bet you could end up winnning by just doubling your bet each time until you do, then quitting. but i still don't understand how that can be true because surely it applies to real life? and if there's an unbeatable way to bet then everyone would gamble??

In RS, you're spending quite a while making those 200k bets, and have a certain small chance of losing 100m in exchange for having a high chance of winning 200k. You'd probably be better off cash/hour-wise killing frosts rather than spending a bunch of time betting over and over to make 200k, especially when you factor in that eventually you are losing 100m (if you can even find anyone to take bets that high).

 

In real life, it goes like this: Bet $100 on red, lose. Bet $200 on red, lose. Bet 400$ on red, lose. Bet $800 o-- Maximum bet is $500, sir. And/or being roughly told to get the hell out of their casino, because they aren't obligated to let you keep playing if they don't want to. And of course, in that scenario you're still risking some obscene amount of money for $100.

I was stood Inge the other day thinking about all this...

 

They must get money, or it would have died out long ago.

 

When I see a doubler I sometimes stand next to him and spam...

 

"Halving money -I'm legit"

 

I get more trades than the doubler does. Runescape seems to be filled with thick, lazy people who trust others too much.

doubling the bet amount every time you lose is still statistically against you because there is small the chance of you losing all the money you have.

 

Unless of course, you believe in the stupid idea of infinite money and time.

doubling the bet amount every time you lose is still statistically against you because there is small the chance of you losing all the money you have.

 

Unless of course, you believe in the stupid idea of infinite money and time.

 

But realisticaly the longest i've ever continually won on the dice is 6 times. I'd say unless you're unbelievably unlucky the most you shoudl expect is 10 games until you win, the MOST.

 

I'm gunna do a little example for myself for someone who loses 7 games ina row, right unlikely.

 

200k - lose -200k

400k lose - -600k

800k lose - 1400k

1600k lose - 3m

3.8m - lose - 6.8m

7.6m - lose - 18.2m

15.2m - win -3.2m..

 

Say whaat? did i just do terrible maths or is that actually what happens, in that case you can never be up doubling, unless you doubled the total loss??

 

200k lose - 200k

400k lose - 600k

1.2m lose - 1.8m

3.6m lose - 5.4m

10.8m lose - 16.2m

32.4m lose - 46.6m

97.2m win + 46.6m

 

Is that what everyone been talking about then? doubling your total loss, not your last bet?

 

Either way, its not hard to have 160m, its not even too hard to find dicers legit for that much money. its damn hard to lose more than 7 times in a row, so if the dicer always let you play it would be easy as pie to make tons of money!

Freaky- you are why dice games work. Enjoy losing your bank with your "foolproof plan."

Freaky- you are why dice games work. Enjoy losing your bank with your "foolproof plan."

 

am getting sick of [developmentally delayed]s skimming a post and then judging. especially when it's the same thing repeated over and over.

 

i host dice games btw, i dont play them.

 

its not idiots that bet like that that make dice games work either, surely my math was right. if it wasnt tell me, don't just make a stupid [developmentally delayed]ed comment like that without reading anything. <_<

 

its idiots that make small bets continually that make dice game work, its people with 50m banks that win big and carry on betting till its gone that make dice games work.

 

do you host btw? because whenever someone ups me its by doing something similar to that.

 

ive tallied 400m at least going through me, having a lot fo less than 1m bets, done at least 400 bets. if you host aswell then fairplay, but whatever i think im in a fair position to know about it.. <_<

 

so out of at least 400 games with peeps ive only won continually for 6 games. the longest with one person betting is 5. i think its fair to assume that 7 losses in a row is unbelievably rare, if other people get bets in between then yeah, but otherwise..

I host, and I LOVE when people start doubling bets. They're essentially betting their entire bank against like 100k. Sure, they might win several strings in a row (which is a small enough loss that I don't notice it, with all the other bets going on), but then sometimes they'll get unlucky, lose several in a row, and I'm up several mil. Every trade that goes through me, I take 10%. No amount of silly little math games people play are going to change that, and this particular little game people play ends up with me getting progressively larger bets to take my chunk from. I'd much rather have people betting 1m+ than the usual 100k betters.

I host, and I LOVE when people start doubling bets. They're essentially betting their entire bank against like 100k. Sure, they might win several strings in a row (which is a small enough loss that I don't notice it, with all the other bets going on), but then sometimes they'll get unlucky, lose several in a row, and I'm up several mil. Every trade that goes through me, I take 10%. No amount of silly little math games people play are going to change that, and this particular little game people play ends up with me getting progressively larger bets to take my chunk from. I'd much rather have people betting 1m+ than the usual 100k betters.

 

me to but can you read my maths and tell me if it's wrong. it's always better to get 1m bets than 100k, 100ks arnt fun. but yeah read my post wwith the maths please and then..

 

assuming that you do that and as soon as you win you start over, and it's only you betting. is it not guarenteed you'll win?

if you have unlimited money

 

which you don't

 

so you will still long term lose money when you finally get cleaned

I host, and I LOVE when people start doubling bets. They're essentially betting their entire bank against like 100k. Sure, they might win several strings in a row (which is a small enough loss that I don't notice it, with all the other bets going on), but then sometimes they'll get unlucky, lose several in a row, and I'm up several mil. Every trade that goes through me, I take 10%. No amount of silly little math games people play are going to change that, and this particular little game people play ends up with me getting progressively larger bets to take my chunk from. I'd much rather have people betting 1m+ than the usual 100k betters.

 

me to but can you read my maths and tell me if it's wrong. it's always better to get 1m bets than 100k, 100ks arnt fun. but yeah read my post wwith the maths please and then..

 

assuming that you do that and as soon as you win you start over, and it's only you betting. is it not guarenteed you'll win?

I read your post. They have a great chance of winning 100k or whatever they're starting with over several bets, and a small chance of losing THEIR WHOLE BANK. I'll take those odds, no problem. On average, I still take 10% of whatever they bet, they can't change that without an unlimited cashpile.

doubling the bet amount every time you lose is still statistically against you because there is small the chance of you losing all the money you have.

 

Unless of course, you believe in the stupid idea of infinite money and time.

 

But realisticaly the longest i've ever continually won on the dice is 6 times. I'd say unless you're unbelievably unlucky the most you shoudl expect is 10 games until you win, the MOST.

 

I'm gunna do a little example for myself for someone who loses 7 games ina row, right unlikely.

 

200k - lose -200k

400k lose - -600k

800k lose - 1400k

1600k lose - 3m

3.8m - lose - 6.8m

7.6m - lose - 18.2m

15.2m - win -3.2m..

 

Say whaat? did i just do terrible maths or is that actually what happens, in that case you can never be up doubling, unless you doubled the total loss??

 

200k lose - 200k

400k lose - 600k

1.2m lose - 1.8m

3.6m lose - 5.4m

10.8m lose - 16.2m

32.4m lose - 46.6m

97.2m win + 46.6m

 

Is that what everyone been talking about then? doubling your total loss, not your last bet?

 

Either way, its not hard to have 160m, its not even too hard to find dicers legit for that much money. its damn hard to lose more than 7 times in a row, so if the dicer always let you play it would be easy as pie to make tons of money!

 

that's where you messed up

Haha, I was just about a victim of a kinda clever scam. (I knew it was a scam going into it, but I just played along to see what this noob had up his sleeve.)

 

Noob:Showing how to legity double items and money!

Me:Alright, show me.

Noob:Ok, I'll show you and you don't even have to give me anything.

Me:K....

Noob:Ok, first trade me, then put up whatever it is you want doubled/

Me:K.... *puts up 15m*

Noob:Ok, now click accept on the first trade screen, then click the "15" at the bottom of the trade screen where it says "wealth transfered" 20 times.

Me:Lol k..... *hover mouse over the 15 and wait to see what really happens"

Noob: *clicks accept on the first trade screen then the second trade screen very quickly"

Me: *mouse is hovering right over "Accept" on the second trade screen* Oooo, you're very tricky, but not tricky enough. :lol:

Noob: *logs out*

 

Ok, so I didn't really almost fall for it, but still, it was pretty funny.

On the topic of the bet-doubling, I'd have to quote n64jive from a previous thread:

 

People who say "Oh, as long as you keep doubling, you'll eventually win". Here is a quick spreadsheet analysis

 

0	430059	41.01%	1
1	254355	24.26%	2
2	149596	14.27%	4
3	88025	8.39%	8
4	51998	4.96%	16
5	30496	2.91%	32
6	17967	1.71%	64
7	10643	1.01%	128
8	6229	0.59%	256
9	3763	0.36%	512
10	2233	0.21%	1024
11	1289	0.12%	2048
12	771	0.07%	4096
13	474	0.05%	8192
14	285	0.03%	16384
15	162	0.02%	32768
16	103	0.01%	65536
17	60	0.01%	131072
18	33	0.00%	262144
19	17	0.00%	524288
20	4	0.00%	1048576
21	4	0.00%	2097152
22	3	0.00%	4194304
23	3	0.00%	8388608
24	3	0.00%	16777216
25	1	0.00%	33554432
1048576		

 

Simply what I did here was use a random number generator to generate ~1.05 million numbers. In this simulation, it kept track of consecutive losses (the amount being the 2nd column, the percentage being the 3rd column).

 

Dice game doing 60+ gives the player 41% chance of winning. The statistics hold true to the numbers. What you don't realize is that about 2.5% of the time, you will have to risk over 100m. 0.31% of the time, you'll exceed the max cash limit allowed.

 

Now many will argue "N64Jive, those percentages are so small, that it is very unlikely to happen". 2.5% if actually rather large. I'll agree that .30% is small. However it is probably similar to drop rates of many items that exist in this game.

 

Conclusion, you can't be statistics. In a negative expectation game, you can and/or will lose.

 

 

If you only do this one time? Yes, odds are that you will profit. Doing it repeatedly? Odds are it's going to come back and bite you.

if you have unlimited money

 

which you don't

 

so you will still long term lose money when you finally get cleaned

 

Depends how high you bet surel. My crapp[y little maths bit about doubling losses, losing 7 times in a row you only need 97.2m if you lose 6 times in a row, which if it's only you betting is pretty insanely unlikely.

 

Surely if you always start at a few hundred ks and go back to that everytime you get cleaned it's pretty insanely impossible to not win at some point. IF you had 1b for example you could lose 9/10 times (I think) in a row. Which is insanely bad luck!

I was in Vegas last month and started playing $1 roulette. I was up about $20 doubling on losses. Last night there I see it hit black two times already. I put a dollar on red and lose. The ball lands on black five more times (7 in a row total) and I'm out of money. Put my last $3 on red to win, but this was the 8th spin. Even with 49.5% chance of winning I was cleaned out and left to invest in alcohol.