Talking of FOBTs, and roulette in particular - I was meandering through some internet pages and came across this, on roulettestrategy.net
Using European roulette as an example, there’s a 1 in 784 chance that the colour you’re betting on is not going to hit for 10 spins in a row. But this number applies to the start of the event, not during. In other words, when you first spin the wheel there’s a 1 in 784 that you will go on a run of your colour not hitting for 10 spins, but after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically.
Not right, shirley?!
The odds of getting five colors in a row must be smaller than getting ten, so I think it's correct?
Yes. The odds of ten in a row is fixed, and is the odds of one instance (I don’t know how a roulette board is configured) to the power n, where n is the number of “goes”.
However if you have already had five in a row, the odds of you now getting to the end of the sequence will be the odds of five in a row. Only useful or relevant if you can change your strategy part way though. If you think about it, you intuitively know this is right, since on the last roll your odds are obviously the odds for that roll alone.
Indeed. What is in the past is completely irrelevant in predicting future rolls. Watch someone flick a coin heads up ten times running (and click on the next video for what should be the obvious explaination to anyone who bets). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzYLHOX50Bc
If the DUP imperil a Brexit deal then the rest of the UK should hold a referendum to expel Northern Ireland from the UK.
The DUP are only able to do so because of the numbers in the Commons. That they happen to caucus together is a technicality. On your argument, the Commons shouldn't have a vote at all.
Rumour has been that Tillerson's been unhappy and semi-detached for a while but it's still extraordinary that these internal discussions are being leaked, not least because it's not clear who benefits from a leak.
Trump's ego, obviously. He seems to think he's running a large scale version of Celebrity Apprentice...
Talking of FOBTs, and roulette in particular - I was meandering through some internet pages and came across this, on roulettestrategy.net
Using European roulette as an example, there’s a 1 in 784 chance that the colour you’re betting on is not going to hit for 10 spins in a row. But this number applies to the start of the event, not during. In other words, when you first spin the wheel there’s a 1 in 784 that you will go on a run of your colour not hitting for 10 spins, but after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically.
Not right, shirley?!
The odds of getting five colors in a row must be smaller than getting ten, so I think it's correct?
the process is memoryless, though so the last spin has no influence on the next spin.
Ignoring the zero (which only makes things worse), the chance of getting it wrong 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10 = 1/1024, no?
Because of the zero, reds only come up 48.6% of the time (for example), so (0.5135)^10 = 1/784.
Doh. Yes, got it now. Thanks. Had the calculation inverted in my head.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
Talking of FOBTs, and roulette in particular - I was meandering through some internet pages and came across this, on roulettestrategy.net
Using European roulette as an example, there’s a 1 in 784 chance that the colour you’re betting on is not going to hit for 10 spins in a row. But this number applies to the start of the event, not during. In other words, when you first spin the wheel there’s a 1 in 784 that you will go on a run of your colour not hitting for 10 spins, but after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically.
Not right, shirley?!
The odds of getting five colors in a row must be smaller than getting ten, so I think it's correct?
the process is memoryless, though so the last spin has no influence on the next spin.
Ignoring the zero (which only makes things worse), the chance of getting it wrong 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10 = 1/1024, no?
Because of the zero, reds only come up 48.6% of the time (for example), so (0.5135)^10 = 1/784.
So, at the half way stage (after 5 reds in a row), the chance of another 5 is (0.5135)^5??
Talking of FOBTs, and roulette in particular - I was meandering through some internet pages and came across this, on roulettestrategy.net
Using European roulette as an example, there’s a 1 in 784 chance that the colour you’re betting on is not going to hit for 10 spins in a row. But this number applies to the start of the event, not during. In other words, when you first spin the wheel there’s a 1 in 784 that you will go on a run of your colour not hitting for 10 spins, but after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically.
Not right, shirley?!
The odds of getting five colors in a row must be smaller than getting ten, so I think it's correct?
the process is memoryless, though so the last spin has no influence on the next spin.
Ignoring the zero (which only makes things worse), the chance of getting it wrong 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10 = 1/1024, no?
Because of the zero, reds only come up 48.6% of the time (for example), so (0.5135)^10 = 1/784.
So, at the half way stage (after 5 reds in a row), the chance of another 5 is (0.5135)^5??
The more I think about it the more Theresa May is just like Margaret Thatcher.
Like Thatcher Mrs May is going to sell out Northern Ireland to Dublin so enraging the Unionists they'll resign as MPs and trigger a wave of by elections.
But is Leo Varadkar the Garret FitzGerald de nos jours?
That would be a very foolhardy action by the DUP. In 1985, Ulster Unionism was far more dominant than it is today, the DUP and UUP had a stand down pact with each other, and yet still the unionists lost one of those by-elections to the SDLP. In 2017 it's not impossible to see Sinn Fein winning most votes or most seats - some of the DUP's seats are pretty marginal and if other unionists didn't stand aside they may easily be lost.
It would make much more sense for them not to stand down, but rather to vote against the government, and with the Opposition, on issues where it suited them.
Agreed
I think it's also the case that there's a much wider gulf between DUP and UUP than in the 1980s (not least that I think UUP supported Remain). UUP seem less tolerant of the Paisleyite belligerence than 30 years ago. It isn't a given that they'd stand aside for DUP in by-elections.
The DUP today are pretty much what the UUP were, 30 years ago.
The piece is misleadingly phrased. "Increasing to 10" can mean EITHER from the existing five spins, getting another five OR the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Makes more sense now although v badly worded.
Yup, I misread it initially (assuming that a site called roulettestrategy would be peddling nonsense!) There isn't a way to beat a fair roulette table.
Because it’s designed not to be fair. The zero is the house advantage of 1/36.
Talking of FOBTs, and roulette in particular - I was meandering through some internet pages and came across this, on roulettestrategy.net
Using European roulette as an example, there’s a 1 in 784 chance that the colour you’re betting on is not going to hit for 10 spins in a row. But this number applies to the start of the event, not during. In other words, when you first spin the wheel there’s a 1 in 784 that you will go on a run of your colour not hitting for 10 spins, but after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically.
Not right, shirley?!
The odds of getting five colors in a row must be smaller than getting ten, so I think it's correct?
the process is memoryless, though so the last spin has no influence on the next spin.
Ignoring the zero (which only makes things worse), the chance of getting it wrong 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10 = 1/1024, no?
Because of the zero, reds only come up 48.6% of the time (for example), so (0.5135)^10 = 1/784.
So, at the half way stage (after 5 reds in a row), the chance of another 5 is (0.5135)^5??
My initial concern was misreading the statement. It said "after 5 spins of your colour not hitting, the odds of that increasing to 10 are no longer 1 in 784 because you’ve already had 5 of them, so the odds reduce dramatically."
It is true if they are talking about another five spins taking the total to 10; they are wrong if they mean the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
My reading of DUP statements today is that they want a veto on any eventual NI arrangements, than that they are potentially scuppering Article 50 Phase 2 outright.
The piece is misleadingly phrased. "Increasing to 10" can mean EITHER from the existing five spins, getting another five OR the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Makes more sense now although v badly worded.
Yup, I misread it initially (assuming that a site called roulettestrategy would be peddling nonsense!) There isn't a way to beat a fair roulette table.
Because it’s designed not to be fair. The zero is the house advantage of 1/36.
My simple solution for dealing with the social harm caused by FOBT's, is to legislate away the edge.
Everyone with an interest in the issue will scream and shout, but in reality it would probably solve the problem overnight.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
My reading of DUP statements today is that they want a veto on any eventual NI arrangements, than that they are potentially scuppering Article 50 Phase 2 outright.
The piece is misleadingly phrased. "Increasing to 10" can mean EITHER from the existing five spins, getting another five OR the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Makes more sense now although v badly worded.
Yup, I misread it initially (assuming that a site called roulettestrategy would be peddling nonsense!) There isn't a way to beat a fair roulette table.
Because it’s designed not to be fair. The zero is the house advantage of 1/36.
My reading of DUP statements today is that they want a veto on any eventual NI arrangements, than that they are potentially scuppering Article 50 Phase 2 outright.
Well if the Norn Irish are going to scupper Brexit why not the North Britons?
The piece is misleadingly phrased. "Increasing to 10" can mean EITHER from the existing five spins, getting another five OR the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Makes more sense now although v badly worded.
Yup, I misread it initially (assuming that a site called roulettestrategy would be peddling nonsense!) There isn't a way to beat a fair roulette table.
Because it’s designed not to be fair. The zero is the house advantage of 1/36.
My simple solution for dealing with the social harm caused by FOBT's, is to legislate away the edge.
Everyone with an interest in the issue will scream and shout, but in reality it would probably solve the problem overnight.
But then how would drug dealers launder their money?
The cynic in me thinks someone somewhere in the government said "well, we can't stop the black market, but what we can do is provide an easy way to get receipts that allow that money to flow back into the legitimate economy, where we can then tax it."
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
Yes, I'd wager everyone on this forum of at least part "white" ancestry is descended from Charlemagne. Easier to trace back for some than others, @charles and @tlg86 wouldn't have a hard job and I managed it myself. Of course one's nobility or otherwise is entirely dependant on the patriarchal line in Britain.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
+1.
There has been a long-standing criticism of the banking sector that it is too big and to complex for anyone to full understand it's workings - hence why subprimes et all occurred. Whilst I think that may be over-egging the pudding a little, it is true we all put trust in processes that we don't fully understand.
I'm a techie, and whilst I *think* I understand the concept of blockchains, there's a little too much trust in the system as a whole for my liking.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
Hm, I doubt we are all descended from someone in the early 18th Century!
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
It is actually possible to gain a marginal advantage with blackjack in most casinos, provided that you can count cards and not get thrown out doing it. In simple terms this is because the house advantage changes depending on how many '10' cards there are left in the pack, arising from the fact that the dealer cannot stop drawing until reaching 16, whereas the player can stick lower than that (sticking down to 12 is the optimum strategy when the dealer is showing a low card). So the player needs to keep a tally of how many 10 cards have gone against low cards, and make bigger bets when there are a higher than normal ratio of 10 cards left in the deck.
Of course, with regular shuffling and various other house rules the advantage is very small, and the tactic of dramatic variation in bet size almost impossible to pull off without being rumbled. And the mental agility needed is high.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
It is actually possible to gain a marginal advantage with blackjack in most casinos, provided that you can count cards and not get thrown out doing it. In simple terms this is because the house advantage changes depending on how many '10' cards there are left in the pack, arising from the fact that the dealer cannot stop drawing until reaching 16, whereas the player can stick lower than that (sticking down to 12 is the optimum strategy when the dealer is showing a low card). So the player needs to keep a tally of how many 10 cards have gone against low cards, and make bigger bets when there are a higher than normal ratio of 10 cards left in the deck.
Of course, with regular shuffling and various other house rules the advantage is very small, and the tactic of dramatically sized bets almost impossible to pull off without being rumbled. And the mental agility needed is high.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
It is actually possible to gain a marginal advantage with blackjack in most casinos, provided that you can count cards and not get thrown out doing it. In simple terms this is because the house advantage changes depending on how many '10' cards there are left in the pack, arising from the fact that the dealer cannot stop drawing until reaching 16, whereas the player can stick lower than that (sticking down to 12 is the optimum strategy when the dealer is showing a low card). So the player needs to keep a tally of how many 10 cards have gone against low cards, and make bigger bets when there are a higher than normal ratio of 10 cards left in the deck.
Of course, with regular shuffling and various other house rules the advantage is very small, and the tactic of dramatically sized bets almost impossible to pull off without being rumbled. And the mental agility needed is high.
Mike Atherton wrote at least one book about it.
Yes, there is a whole variety of systems, where some cards have plus weightings and others negative. You keep a tally in your head and vary your bet depending on whether the running total is positive or negative. I did just about learn how to do it, years ago, just for fun. But it is very difficult - and impossible to enjoy yourself whilst at it.
I also found an online casino that uses a 'real deck' model (there are a few), rather than the 'perpetual deck' that most use. So I could try the counting at home. I did manage to win a small number of pounds, but it was so boring and I didn't stick it long enough to establish whether or not it was actually working or I had just been marginally lucky. In any event the hourly rate for the work involved was pitifully low.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
Yes, I'd wager everyone on this forum of at least part "white" ancestry is descended from Charlemagne. Easier to trace back for some than others, @charles and @tlg86 wouldn't have a hard job and I managed it myself. Of course one's nobility or otherwise is entirely dependant on the patriarchal line in Britain.
There are some quite amusing posts on Family History forums; people saying that DNA tests are rubbish, ‘cos they have documentary proof of their ancestry back to William the Conqueor and how come there are suggestions of Gipsy forebears?
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
+1.
There has been a long-standing criticism of the banking sector that it is too big and to complex for anyone to full understand it's workings - hence why subprimes et all occurred. Whilst I think that may be over-egging the pudding a little, it is true we all put trust in processes that we don't fully understand.
I'm a techie, and whilst I *think* I understand the concept of blockchains, there's a little too much trust in the system as a whole for my liking.
Not sure BlockChain is Bitcoins problem as much as the fact that it is non-fiat currency.
If had had a few quid in on it near the beginning, I would definitely be bailing out now and letting the devil take the hindmost.
To me it has all the hallmarks of the Tulip bubble.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
I agree with the point being made, but on the specific of Electress Sophia it isn't so. I always assumed that once I had got rid of 2/3rds of the population I was in with a chance of being king, but sadly no. According to Wikipedia in 2001 there were 4973 (presumably on a given date, but it doesn't say when) and in January 2011 there were >5,000.
To the best of my knowledge I am not one of them so I am doomed to be a peasant even if all in line snuff it.
Just reached a million steps made this month. Go me!
That's about 500 miles. I need a rest ...
I’m not sure whether to say well done or f*** off! My own 10k steps a day average achievement just got put into perspective.
(Snip)
Don't. I'm a bit of an obsessive when it comes to walking, my son's started pre-school, and I don't have a job. Hence lots of free time. So I put some podcasts on my MP3 player, put my shoes on, and head out the door.
10K a day with a job and other obligations is blooming good.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. It baffles me that people willingly put money on online casino betting. Even if the algorithms are perfect, the games themselves are designed to put you at a disadvantage.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
I tell you what I cannot understand.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
+1.
There has been a long-standing criticism of the banking sector that it is too big and to complex for anyone to full understand it's workings - hence why subprimes et all occurred. Whilst I think that may be over-egging the pudding a little, it is true we all put trust in processes that we don't fully understand.
I'm a techie, and whilst I *think* I understand the concept of blockchains, there's a little too much trust in the system as a whole for my liking.
Not sure BlockChain is Bitcoins problem as much as the fact that it is non-fiat currency.
If had had a few quid in on it near the beginning, I would definitely be bailing out now and letting the devil take the hindmost.
To me it has all the hallmarks of the Tulip bubble.
The key difference is that the number of potential buyers for Bitcoim is very significantly higher than for tulips back whenever it was, and the key question is what proportion of those potential buyers have yet to enter the market.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
I agree with the point being made, but on the specific of Electress Sophia it isn't so. I always assumed that once I had got rid of 2/3rds of the population I was in with a chance of being king, but sadly no. According to Wikipedia in 2001 there were 4973 (presumably on a given date, but it doesn't say when) and in January 2011 there were >5,000.
To the best of my knowledge I am not one of them so I am doomed to be a peasant even if all in line snuff it.
I think once you get back to the Tudors you are pretty well in with a good chance of being a royal descendent, but sadly that cuts no ice. The rules are the rules.
Mr. B2, interesting suggestions. Of course, if anyone does win too much the casino can just stop letting them gamble.
True. There is nevertheless an optimum strategy, which is quite easy to learn - essentially a series of rules that tell you whether to stick or twist in each scenario. You can learn just a few that bring the biggest benefit in terms of reducing the house advantage, or a whole lot, with some of the marginal ones varying depending on the game rules the casino is using.
By far the biggest reduction of house advantage comes from sticking at 12 points or higher, whenever the dealer is showing a 2,3,4,5 or 6. Most casual punters don't do this because sticking at 12 seems counter-intuitive, but the logic is that the dealer has a very good chance of going bust if they start with a low card.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
Case uses for bitcoin (not exhaustive by any means)
1. A safe way to store wealth without trusting the bank. In the UK, your deposit is theoretically protected by the government up to 85k. Anything beyond that if the bank goes belly up you lose your money. And in a financial crisis, as we saw in Cyprus a couple of years ago, there is nothing to stop the government ordering a haircut for all depositors at any arbitrary balance.In short, it's a safer way of keeping huge sums of money under your personal control without stashing it under the mattress.
2. A way to circumvent capital controls. Ever see those signs at airports demanding you declare more than xxxxx amout of currency at the border? Now you can carry any amount you like on a password protected memory stick. For countries like China with strict capital controls, it's one of the few ways of moving large sums of money out of the country.
3. Privacy. Bitcoin is only semi-anonymous, but full anonymity is coming soon. And other coins such as monero already implement a full privacy solution. Think of it as an extremely technologically advanced Swiss bank account. Only now, you don't need to trust a third party. You can just hide the money yourself.
4. Inflation. Bitcoin is limited to 21 million coins (divisible many times over, it is possible to own one hundred millionth of a bitcoin). Bitcoin is a deflationary currency, so if you are worried about rampant inflation devaluing your savings, you can park your wealth there. Perhaps not such a big call for it in the UK, but have you checked out the value of the Venezuelan Bolivar lately? No surprise to learn that Bitcoin is popular there.
5. Cheap, fast and trustless transmission of money. Want to send 10k to someone anywhere else in the world? You can do it for a couple of dollars and it will be in their hands within the hour, with no need for it to pass via a third party. Want to send 100k, 1m? You can do it in exactly the same amount of time, for just a few dollars more.
6. Speculative attack. This one is slightly different and rather more political and would require in excess of 1000 words to explain properly, but the TL;DR is if you believe that good money crowds out bad (Thiers Law), then bitcoin has many of the properties of good money. A currency crisis in any given country could lead to a run on that currency leading to something called 'hyperbitcoinization' (essentially, the opposite of hyperinflation), whereby the fiat money of said country becomes worthless. This is, in my opinion, the reason its creators invented it - for political reasons, to take power away from central banks. Many involved in the crypto scene in the early days were hardcore libertarians and were looking for a way to curtail the power of governments via central banks.
Mr. B2, interesting suggestions. Of course, if anyone does win too much the casino can just stop letting them gamble.
True. There is nevertheless an optimum strategy, which is quite easy to learn - essentially a series of rules that tell you whether to stick or twist in each scenario. You can learn just a few that bring the biggest benefit in terms of reducing the house advantage, or a whole lot, with some of the marginal ones varying depending on the game rules the casino is using.
By far the biggest reduction of house advantage comes from sticking at 12 points or higher, whenever the dealer is showing a 2,3,4,5 or 6. Most casual punters don't do this because sticking at 12 seems counter-intuitive, but the logic is that the dealer has a very good chance of going bust if they start with a low card.
I believe Blackjack is still the best standard casino game to play, from the view of a punter informed on genuine play strategy, without doing stuff like counting cards. The rules that constrain the dealer to stick or twist on certain numbers actually give a slight advantage to a good player.
"You are of royal descent, because everyone is. You are of Viking descent, because everyone is. You are of Saracen, Roman, Goth, Hun, Jewish descent, because, well, you get the idea. All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago." https://www.popsci.com/descended-from-royalty?dom=rss-default&src=syn
But are you descended from the Electress of Hanover... that's all that really matters these days
I guess so. Adam Rutherford's (of BBC Inside Science) book seems to prove mathematically and using DNA that we are all Europeans and all descended from practically anyone you care to name.
I agree with the point being made, but on the specific of Electress Sophia it isn't so. I always assumed that once I had got rid of 2/3rds of the population I was in with a chance of being king, but sadly no. According to Wikipedia in 2001 there were 4973 (presumably on a given date, but it doesn't say when) and in January 2011 there were >5,000.
To the best of my knowledge I am not one of them so I am doomed to be a peasant even if all in line snuff it.
I think once you get back to the Tudors you are pretty well in with a good chance of being a royal descendent, but sadly that cuts no ice. The rules are the rules.
I think you might have to go back further? Bastards aside, there was relatively little leakage from the royal caste between the late middle ages and the 20th century, so it's not as likely as you might think to have moderately recent royal ancestry (last 500 years or so). Royals married royals and their children married other royals. And of course, the Tudor and Stewart lines pretty much died out anyway. There's plenty of Plantagenet blood sloshing around in Britain though.
Lab +0.4% Con -3.1% LD -0.4% UKIP +2.1% Greens +0.7%
But you need to remember that UKIP and the Greens did not stand in all seats at the general election so the increase in their percentage when comparing the GE result to the polls does not necessarily indicate an increased level of support.
The LDs didn't stand in all seats, so a fall in their percentage indicates an even bigger decline in their level of support!
The piece is misleadingly phrased. "Increasing to 10" can mean EITHER from the existing five spins, getting another five OR the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
Makes more sense now although v badly worded.
Yup, I misread it initially (assuming that a site called roulettestrategy would be peddling nonsense!) There isn't a way to beat a fair roulette table.
Because it’s designed not to be fair. The zero is the house advantage of 1/36.
1/37 ?
It's actually lower than that if you play the each way bets, as you get half your money back if it lands on zero.
Comments
Watch someone flick a coin heads up ten times running (and click on the next video for what should be the obvious explaination to anyone who bets).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzYLHOX50Bc
Edit: Mr @rottenborough
He seems to think he's running a large scale version of Celebrity Apprentice...
Cotton (Rep) won 56.5 to 39.4 last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arkansas,_2014
When I first heard he'd tweeted to the wrong T. May, I hoped he'd sent it to @RealTeresaMay (warning, NSFW)
It is true if they are talking about another five spins taking the total to 10; they are wrong if they mean the remaining five spins increasing to 10.
I can see why someone might play blackjack or poker against other players (read somewhere, ages ago, blackjack's the best casino game with a 49.5% chance of winning, but that everything else is miles worse), but against the house just seems like throwing money away.
Everyone with an interest in the issue will scream and shout, but in reality it would probably solve the problem overnight.
I know everyone here appreciates some world class pedantry.
Bitcoin, it just seems like a massive con-cum-ponzi scheme.
Mr. Divvie, world class pedantry is the best kind.
The cynic in me thinks someone somewhere in the government said "well, we can't stop the black market, but what we can do is provide an easy way to get receipts that allow that money to flow back into the legitimate economy, where we can then tax it."
Easier to trace back for some than others, @charles and @tlg86 wouldn't have a hard job and I managed it myself. Of course one's nobility or otherwise is entirely dependant on the patriarchal line in Britain.
Ladbrokes had 6 on there being another EU referendum before the end of 2019.
There's £61 available on Betfair Exchange at 1.3 on there being no referendum before 2020.
Obviously check the rules etc, but that does appear to make it possible to be green either way.
The news networks are reporting "mounting allegations regarding Sen. Al Franken".
There has been a long-standing criticism of the banking sector that it is too big and to complex for anyone to full understand it's workings - hence why subprimes et all occurred. Whilst I think that may be over-egging the pudding a little, it is true we all put trust in processes that we don't fully understand.
I'm a techie, and whilst I *think* I understand the concept of blockchains, there's a little too much trust in the system as a whole for my liking.
Just reached a million steps made this month. Go me!
That's about 500 miles. I need a rest ...
Of course, with regular shuffling and various other house rules the advantage is very small, and the tactic of dramatic variation in bet size almost impossible to pull off without being rumbled. And the mental agility needed is high.
I'm seeing Steps featuring The Vengaboys this Saturday evening at the Manchester Arena.
I'm so excited.
@TSE will be along in a minute with a Proclaimers joke...
Legal precedent for it too now with that disgusting Ivey verdict.
I also found an online casino that uses a 'real deck' model (there are a few), rather than the 'perpetual deck' that most use. So I could try the counting at home. I did manage to win a small number of pounds, but it was so boring and I didn't stick it long enough to establish whether or not it was actually working or I had just been marginally lucky. In any event the hourly rate for the work involved was pitifully low.
Liberal media that loved the Bill O’Reilly story have gone awfully quiet in the last couple of weeks.
There are some quite amusing posts on Family History forums; people saying that DNA tests are rubbish, ‘cos they have documentary proof of their ancestry back to William the Conqueor and how come there are suggestions of Gipsy forebears?
If had had a few quid in on it near the beginning, I would definitely be bailing out now and letting the devil take the hindmost.
To me it has all the hallmarks of the Tulip bubble.
To the best of my knowledge I am not one of them so I am doomed to be a peasant even if all in line snuff it.
A: Popeye kicked the shit out of him
10K a day with a job and other obligations is blooming good.
By far the biggest reduction of house advantage comes from sticking at 12 points or higher, whenever the dealer is showing a 2,3,4,5 or 6. Most casual punters don't do this because sticking at 12 seems counter-intuitive, but the logic is that the dealer has a very good chance of going bust if they start with a low card.
1. A safe way to store wealth without trusting the bank. In the UK, your deposit is theoretically protected by the government up to 85k. Anything beyond that if the bank goes belly up you lose your money. And in a financial crisis, as we saw in Cyprus a couple of years ago, there is nothing to stop the government ordering a haircut for all depositors at any arbitrary balance.In short, it's a safer way of keeping huge sums of money under your personal control without stashing it under the mattress.
2. A way to circumvent capital controls. Ever see those signs at airports demanding you declare more than xxxxx amout of currency at the border? Now you can carry any amount you like on a password protected memory stick. For countries like China with strict capital controls, it's one of the few ways of moving large sums of money out of the country.
3. Privacy. Bitcoin is only semi-anonymous, but full anonymity is coming soon. And other coins such as monero already implement a full privacy solution. Think of it as an extremely technologically advanced Swiss bank account. Only now, you don't need to trust a third party. You can just hide the money yourself.
4. Inflation. Bitcoin is limited to 21 million coins (divisible many times over, it is possible to own one hundred millionth of a bitcoin). Bitcoin is a deflationary currency, so if you are worried about rampant inflation devaluing your savings, you can park your wealth there. Perhaps not such a big call for it in the UK, but have you checked out the value of the Venezuelan Bolivar lately? No surprise to learn that Bitcoin is popular there.
5. Cheap, fast and trustless transmission of money. Want to send 10k to someone anywhere else in the world? You can do it for a couple of dollars and it will be in their hands within the hour, with no need for it to pass via a third party. Want to send 100k, 1m? You can do it in exactly the same amount of time, for just a few dollars more.
6. Speculative attack. This one is slightly different and rather more political and would require in excess of 1000 words to explain properly, but the TL;DR is if you believe that good money crowds out bad (Thiers Law), then bitcoin has many of the properties of good money. A currency crisis in any given country could lead to a run on that currency leading to something called 'hyperbitcoinization' (essentially, the opposite of hyperinflation), whereby the fiat money of said country becomes worthless. This is, in my opinion, the reason its creators invented it - for political reasons, to take power away from central banks. Many involved in the crypto scene in the early days were hardcore libertarians and were looking for a way to curtail the power of governments via central banks.
NEW THREAD