Satoshi Dice Safest Aggressive Martingale at 50% Odds?

This is a satoshi/crypto DICE site. This particular one has only a 0.1% House Edge, but that is not really relevant to my question.

I am running a bot script that bets a Martingale strategy. To keep it simple, i will use a 2x multiplier and a bet unit of 1 (which is actually like $0.0025)

Starting Balance = 128700
Starting Bet = 1
Multiplier on Loss = 2
Reset to Starting Bet on Win
Script Auto-Withdraws 1300 when balance = 130,000 and keeps betting

With these settings my 16th loss in a row will lose me a total of 65,535 and be unable to place the next bet of 65,536, since my remaining balance would be too small to be placed. So i am left with half(ish) my original bankroll plus 1300 times the amount of auto-withdrawals.

according to the dice site, the odds of losing 16 bets in a row at 49.95% is 1 in every 64497 bets
according to , the odds of losing 16 bets in a row over 64497 bets at 50.05% chance-to-lose is 39.314%
These results seem to be at odds. am i missing something?

Now to the meat of the question...

Should i double my starting bet? That would cut the number of bets before cashout in half, but reduces my bust(half-bust) number to 15 in a row (bust 1 in 32281 bets)
Should i halve my starting bet? That would double the number of bets before cashout, but increase my half-bust number to 17 losses in a row (bust 1 in 128864 bets)

...and up or down from there. Is there a safer option or is it does it all boil down to the same odds? is it the same odds if i double my starting bet or halve it considering there will be more or less bets?

I know that if i set my starting bet too high and only allow 5 losses in a row before half-bust, i will half-bust too often to be profitable. but am i taking on the same amount of risk by slowing down my withdrawals but vastly increasing my number of bets?

...whew...

Quote: Bullseye

according to the dice site, the odds of losing 16 bets in a row at 49.95% is 1 in every 64497 bets
according to , the odds of losing 16 bets in a row over 64497 bets at 50.05% chance-to-lose is 39.314%
These results seem to be at odds. am i missing something?

Maybe because you could possibly lose 16 times in a row more than once in 64497 rolls? And one site is telling you the chances of exactly once and the other is telling at least once?

In any event, why would you use a bot to automate rolling on a negative-expectation game? You're just going to lose faster. The whole point of playing dice is for the fun, not the profit, since you expect to lose.

Fun? Fun has nothing to do with money.

Quote: Bullseye

Fun? Fun has nothing to do with money.

everyone is expected to do one thing on here otherwise you deviate and are assured to be called crazy. because the long term is bleak, you shouldnt believe that profit is ever possible because the math says so... someone please give me a generic response as to why i am wrong because even if you are right no one believes me or you

i personally am interested in your bot, not specifically the code but in general i like to talk to the type of person you are. pm me for any reason no matter how crazy. i have background in computer science although no background in the gaming industry yet

Quote: heatmap

everyone is expected to do one thing on here otherwise you deviate and are assured to be called crazy. because the long term is bleak, you shouldnt believe that profit is ever possible because the math says so... (snip)

I agree.

----
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/34655-the-labouch-re/

To the OP: I recommend you read the post about " the Labouchère" (Edit: see link above) for an example of why any betting system can not overcome the house edge, no matter how small that house edge is (at least see extract below, if you don't want to read the whole link).

Notice in the extract that the "Ratio money lost to Money bet" % is always the same, no matter what your starting bank roll is.

Extract:

"...As a reminder the house edge in baccarat on the Player bet is 1.365%, if you ignore ties. Here are the results. The starting bankroll is along the top row and the goal is to always win 10 units. The total sessions played in the simulation was over 12 billion...."

"

Starting Bankroll	50	100	250	500	1000	2500
Probability winning goal reached	81.47%	89.52%	95.34%	97.53%	98.71%	99.45%
Average number of bets	17.810	19.565	20.766	21.184	21.404	21.542
Average units bet	82.023	112.075	155.106	189.515	225.548	275.329
Expected win per session	-1.119	-1.530	-2.117	-2.584	-3.078	-3.754
Ratio money lost to Money bet	1.36%	1.36%	1.36%	1.36%	1.36%	1.36%

"




---
Update (about 1145 pm)

About 3 years ago, I could play a game with a neutral or even a slight player edge, where the casino also paid me a commission### of 0.3% on all money wagered, so if you are in a similar situation where the "commission is greater than the house edge", then you could have a good/profitable system^^^.

###: They don't offer any game at the moment where the commission is greater than the house edge, so I don't play there anymore.

^^^: Flat betting is probably the best strategy to use, if you are getting paid a commission for your play and it is greater than the house edge.

Note: If they do offer a commission, then it is probably best to PM someone rather than post about it publicly, like I have done in the past, but it is your choice.

Quote: Bullseye

Fun? Fun has nothing to do with money.

is there any type of rebate or some type of bonuses available?

Quote: Bullseye

(snip)according to the dice site, the odds of losing 16 bets in a row at 49.95% is 1 in every 64497 bets (snip)

If the chance of winning is 49.95% and the chance of losing is 50.05%, then I get a 1/66,593... chance of losing 16 bets in a row out of 16 bets in total (not a big difference, but i don't know why our answers are different)

Quote: Bullseye

Fun? Fun has nothing to do with money.

But you mention Martingale, and Martingale is a way of making losing money more fun..... But then you are letting the bot have the fun, so I guess writing and watching the bot is your source of fun.

Anyway, Just in case you think you have an idea for a profitable venture, let's knock that on the head with OnceDear's rule of thumb

Martingale is perfectly fine for making a small profit by putting a large bankroll at risk.
E.g. if you had $900 and were about to be shot unless you could bribe the firing squad with $1,000 then Martingale would probably save your life and would be a great idea.
But Martingale for income is on par with wagering on russian roulette.

Oh..... And believe me: Online casinos can get quite aggressive in confiscating funds from bot users.

Quote: Bullseye

This is a satoshi/crypto DICE site. This particular one has only a 0.1% House Edge<snip>

Now to the meat of the question...

Should i double my starting bet?<snip>

Bullseye,

The answer depends on your goal.

If your goal is to increase your bankroll (the usual goal of AP's), then the answer is no: rather, you should lower your starting bet to zero, because you never have an edge on your wager.

On the other hand, if your goal is something else, please provide a quantifiable goal and I or someone else here will answer you.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Wow, overwhelmed by all the responses. Much more used to crickets in a forum :) At work now but i will try to address everyone's input tonight.

Quote: ksdjdj

/forum/gambling/betting-systems/34655-the-labouch-re/

To the OP: I recommend you read the post about " the Labouchère" (Edit: see link above) for an example of why any betting system can not overcome the house edge, no matter how small that house edge is (at least see extract below, if you don't want to read the whole link).

Notice in the extract that the "Ratio money lost to Money bet" % is always the same, no matter what your starting bank roll is.

Just read the whole thread. Thank you for the link. Seems like a safer system (i know none are safe). I'll test once i script the system.

I think the line that most applies to my question is "Probability winning goal reached". If i'm understanding the chart, it seems that using the larger bankroll to achieve the same goal is safer. I guess i have to determine how many goals i need to reach to offset losing half my starting bankroll. And it sounds like i should assume that the result, due to ANY house edge (even 0.1%) will result in a net loss given infinite play.
================

To answer other replies quickly, there are no kickback or bonuses involved. I will address other comments later.

I would like to hop on to the Labouchere thread and ask these questions, but don't want to cross-post. I'd like to see the Wizards chart applied to the 0.1% HE for Labuchere and Martingale.

Thanks All. You guys rock extra!

Quote: Bullseye

Wow, overwhelmed by all the responses. Much more used to crickets in a forum :) At work now but i will try to address everyone's input tonight.



Just read the whole thread. Thank you for the link. Seems like a safer system (i know none are safe). I'll test once i script the system.

I think the line that most applies to my question is "Probability winning goal reached". If i'm understanding the chart, it seems that using the larger bankroll to achieve the same goal is safer. I guess i have to determine how many goals i need to reach to offset losing half my starting bankroll. And it sounds like i should assume that the result, due to ANY house edge (even 0.1%) will result in a net loss given infinite play.
================

To answer other replies quickly, there are no kickback or bonuses involved. I will address other comments later.

I would like to hop on to the Labouchere thread and ask these questions, but don't want to cross-post. I'd like to see the Wizards chart applied to the 0.1% HE for Labuchere and Martingale.

Thanks All. You guys rock extra!

Do you think your time would be better spent experimenting and playing at a place that might have have an advantage? I'm always dumbfounded when I come across someone that seems fairly intelligent yet they are chasing systems/games that are -EV when there's something just around the corner that's positive expectation.

Quote: AxelWolf

Do you think your time would be better spent experimenting and playing at a place that might have have an advantage?

I do. Any suggestions for a site that allows bot betting? I am very new to this. just learned LUA scripting this week to write these dicebot scripts. Thanks!

Quote: Bullseye

I do. Any suggestions for a site that allows bot betting? I am very new to this. just learned LUA scripting this week to write these dicebot scripts. Thanks!

Like AxelWolf says, there are so many online casinos that promote themselves by giving bonuses and loss rebates, that it would be pretty wasteful of your time applying your bot writing skills to play into negative expectation.
If you find a gaff that gives you a real edge, by way of bonus, then you'd be better to increase your wagers based on rolling percentage of your bankroll, probably by kelly betting. Martingale with only a tiny edge would not be a very safe way to play it.

No online casino will 'allow' bot betting. Most explicitly forbid it and the rest implicitly forbid it as an unfair playing practice. Heck, some gaffs think progressive betting is a reason to ban you. The trick is to give your bot human like behaviour, Running it 24/7, playing at 1 second intervals would stand out like a sore thumb. Remember that the online casinos have computers on their end of the wager, and they have countermeasures and alerts in place. Often, the simple act of winning more than you lose is a red flag that will get them to ban you. When they do, expect them to seize your balance without you having any recourse.

But it can be done. It's a game of cat and mouse with constantly changing conditions.

Quote: OnceDear

No online casino will 'allow' bot betting. Most explicitly forbid it and the rest implicitly forbid it as an unfair playing practice. Heck, some gaffs think progressive betting is a reason to ban you. The trick is to give your bot human like behaviour, Running it 24/7, playing at 1 second intervals would stand out like a sore thumb. Remember that the online casinos have computers on their end of the wager, and they have countermeasures and alerts in place.

One guy I knew who needed more realism to a random script actually hired a kid to punch an Easy Button (Kid you not; he rewired one of those Staples desk ornaments as the only system input) every few minutes to re-randomize the seed. As such, it also included variability for bathroom breaks, meals, random distractions, etc. since it's not like it was being mashed non-stop.

...On the other hand, he also once tried to hired me to chase virtual pigs into a pen for 20$ an hour.

Quote: OnceDear

No online casino will 'allow' bot betting.

There are many that will. These are cryptocurrency-specific DICE sites i am talking about. I'm not bringing this to RedDog. In fact those sites encourage bots because they know they will get their money faster from suckers like me.

And i'm not claiming to be able to beat them. I assume everyone on here is looking good for odds. I like the 0.1% HE for testing my scripts. I haven't found any even money ones yet..

All i really wanted to try to compute is:

I will stop and bank my profit when the profit reaches X using Martingale or Fibo or whatever strategy.
These sites let me bet as little as $0.00000001, allowing me to create a really deep martingale (like being able to withstand 20 losses in a row on a 50% chance)
Since i will bust as some point, is it better to have a bigger initial bet, which allows me to hit target in less bets, but will bust at 14 losses in a row
OR
is it better to start w/ a lower initial bet, allowing 20 losses, but significantly increasing the #of bets and time overall to hit target.

Quote: Bullseye

There are many that will.

Ask yourself why that is.

Quote: ksdjdj

If the chance of winning is 49.95% and the chance of losing is 50.05%, then I get a 1/66,593... chance of losing 16 bets in a row out of 16 bets in total (not a big difference, but i don't know why our answers are different)

My bad, after having another look I found that the dice site odds are correct (about 1/64,496 chance).

I did.

I'm not looking for a list of reasons why i shouldn't trust people. I appreciate the concern, but that is not the scope of this experiment.

If it makes it any easier, consider my questions to all be hypothetical. "In a perfect world, which is the better of the two options i have presented?"

Trying to find the optimal approach given my parameters. (Abstinence is not one of them)

Quote: Bullseye

Since i will bust as some point, is it better to have a bigger initial bet, which allows me to hit target in less bets, but will bust at 14 losses in a row
OR
is it better to start w/ a lower initial bet, allowing 20 losses, but significantly increasing the #of bets and time overall to hit target.

You ask which is 'better' but you need to define your objective, so we know what 'better' means.

When comparing 'bigger initial bet' with 'lower initial bets' Then each option has one advantage at the expense of the other....

Bigger initial bet will mean that you will hit your end point much sooner. But, you'll expose your bankroll to higher variance. I.e. if you are going to go bust, that will be known soon enough. If you hit your goal, you will have more time to get cocky and try again and again till you surely go bust.

Lower initial bet will see a smoother bankroll graph as you progress through time, and it will take longer to know whether that crushing defeat will be your outcome. Profit goal achieved or bust.

There will be one other disadvantage of lower bet size: You will tend to expose funds to the house edge more often and so will waste more bankroll to it. I.e. lots of small wins and losses broadly cancelling each-other out.

Think about it at the extremes: If you have 10,000 bankroll and a target profit of 1,000 then you could marty with a base bet of 1,000
You might hit goal after one wager having placed total action of 1,000 at the mercy of the house edge. What do you do then? Retire from betting? Waste of a bot!
If on the other hand you marty with $1 min bet, you will have a session of many hours, of steadily ascending ramp of bankroll with a few gut-wrenching plunges. Variance will tend to be far less and the ebb and flow of bankroll will see far more exposure to the house edge.
If there is ANY house edge at all, I'd recommend the biggest wager required to hit your goal.
If you have a player advantage, then I personally would forget the idea of marty and flat bet the minimum. After all, your bot won't get bored.

If you crave excitement, then marty to your hearts content.

Marty outcomes with roulette