EPTI'm not surprised by blink at all.
EVE Corporation - Page 1070
| Forum Index > General Games |
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34495 Posts
I'm not surprised by blink at all. | ||
|
Mysticus
298 Posts
This is just knowing the odds are against you and playing anyway. In ten seconds you can find out that for a ship costing 80m they are selling 120m of tickets and making a boatload on every transaction. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:47 Byzantium wrote: It's not that I'm analogizing one to the other, I'm just amazed at the scope of the gap in payout structure; I (as you abom would know) don't even mean to suggest this is some amazing deficiency on the part of the playerbase, for all the reasons you mentioned. But if you had just asked me what the payout rate that turned out to be sustainable (and indeed, wildly profitable) was 75% I would have thought it would be closer to payouts in other forms of small-transaction, fixed-probability gambling. I think we can both agree that my stance would clearly be on the side that theres an amazing deficiency in the player base. =D The reason why i didn't like slot machines, despite being a fixed probability form of gambling, is that only the most delusional believe there's a way to game them. Blink makes it much easier by to lull yourself into that spot with their structure. This is due to the fact that the sets are much shorter and much bettered guaranteed than in digital vegas slots, IIRC the ruling is that the algorithm just needs to be mathematically proven to average x wins per y runs rather than just a it must pay out exactly 1 times in y number of runs. There's different rules for mechanical and computerized slots though. The best part of the structure is that casino here simply doesn't mind people 'gaming' the system, they simply accept their rake, which is certainly an amazing strength over a game like black jack where the casino has a stake in the outcome of the game. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:10 ghost_403 wrote: Plex is going on right now. 16 tickets at 42 million = ~640mil. Plex = 525mil, therefore they are making about 115mil, or around 20%. As far as gambling goes, you could do a lot worse than that. Kinda sort of. Most gambling strategies (from the player perspective) focus on pushing the odds as well as you can to just get past the break even point. (this is the basic premise surrounding things like blackjack betting routines, game selection, and why to card count at least in a limited fashion. Ignoring payout value differences (you take a nice cut for cash or a smaller cut liquidating yourself via npc taxes). if you bought 9 tickets you would have about a 56% chance of turning 378m into 525m. So in theory if you had an infinite amount of capital to run an infinite amount of runs, you would technically make money of the long run. Of course you don't have infinite money so you always run the risk of simply hitting a string values in which you would lose all your capital. If you had way too much time on your hands you could work out a model to determine how much capital you would need to continually reduce (not eliminate) the risk of being wiped out by a bad string of results, and at what ticket count to make that work optimally. Regardless of trying to game the system, blink doesn't care because, as you pointed out, they always get their 115m regardless of who wins or not. | ||
|
Mysticus
298 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:10 ghost_403 wrote: Plex is going on right now. 16 tickets at 42 million = ~640mil. Plex = 525mil, therefore they are making about 115mil, or around 20%. As far as gambling goes, you could do a lot worse than that. Except that their profit/loss is not probability based. Even with slots in casinos, it's possible to 'beat the system' as it were (win big early and leave). Over the long term, the averages are set so that the house will always win. This one is literally set up in that the house wins every single time without fail. It's a pretty great idea and I am envious. | ||
|
Byzantium
United States423 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:30 Mysticus wrote: Except that their profit/loss is not probability based. Even with slots in casinos, it's possible to 'beat the system' as it were (win big early and leave). Over the long term, the averages are set so that the house will always win. This one is literally set up in that the house wins every single time without fail. It's a pretty great idea and I am envious. The great idea in it all was the surrounding trappings which made the game attractive to participants; along with Abom's point about what the likely rationalization is for the risk-neutral, infinite-capital gambler, the promo blinks, the sponsorships, the very effective (from everything I've heard) logistics team that handles getting you your prizes if you win a ship etc. all contributes much like the excellent buffet at a casino to the experience of it being fun, and although I'm not sure how it was at the outset, by now Blink has such reputation that there's none of the "it's likely a scam" many private lotteries and such on the Eve Forums are. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
|
Snarfs
Canada1006 Posts
abominaire wrote: Ignoring payout value differences (you take a nice cut for cash or a smaller cut liquidating yourself via npc taxes). if you bought 9 tickets you would have about a 56% chance of turning 378m into 525m. So in theory if you had an infinite amount of capital to run an infinite amount of runs, you would technically make money of the long run. Expected Value E[gain from 378m bet] = (-378m) * (0.44) + (147m) * (0.56) = -84m I'm not sure what I missed here but I don't see how you could be making money in the long run if the statistical expected outcome of each of your bets is that you lose 84m isk. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:42 ghost_403 wrote: I've done science, and I think you can beat this system. I was going to explain it here, but screw you guys, I'm gonna make some money first. Disregard this fool. He's clearly an idiot. Here be math! + Show Spoiler +
edit: I keep fixing this damn thing. Basic probability shouldn't be this hard. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:42 Snarfs wrote: Expected Value E[gain from 378m bet] = (-378m) * (0.44) + (147m) * (0.56) = -84m I'm not sure what I missed here but I don't see how you could be making money in the long run if the statistical expected outcome of each of your bets is that you lose 84m isk. Payoff value is 525, such that E=127.68m. Edit: I overlooked this entirely. Too complacent with structures that just double your money. The problem herein lies that you need 2-3 wins to cover a loss. In the older days of blink there were a handful of items in which the spread allowed for a much closer attempt to cover your losses. One of the frigs or cruisers used to pay at just under doubling your money(50%+1 tickets was almost half the value blink would put on your account including their credit bonus) , thus there was a handful of people happily grinding blink like that. I feel bad at math. | ||
|
tooDARKpark
United States149 Posts
Everyone knows Sard Caid is the Pirate King. | ||
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:27 abominare wrote: Ignoring payout value differences (you take a nice cut for cash or a smaller cut liquidating yourself via npc taxes). if you bought 9 tickets you would have about a 56% chance of turning 378m into 525m. So in theory if you had an infinite amount of capital to run an infinite amount of runs, you would technically make money of the long run. Of course you don't have infinite money so you always run the risk of simply hitting a string values in which you would lose all your capital. -_- I invested in you. Now I feel bad. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
Luckily I didn't use it to play blink. Or did I? I haz stolen all the freighters! No launching for you! *abominare leaves the corporation* | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
| ||
|
Impervious
Canada4211 Posts
Why? He's right. Here's an example showing how you could always come ahead if you had infinite money: At a roulette table, you can bet on black or red. Neither of the options has a 50% chance of winning (since 0 is green), however, the payout for you being right is equal to your bet. In the long run, it sounds like it is impossible to win money, right? Well, try this. Put a 1 dollar bet on red. If you win, you collect the 1 dollar and start again with 1 dollar. If you lose, place a new bet on red for 2 dollars. If you win, you collect 2 dollars. Subtracting the loss from the first bet (1 dollar), you have a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 4 dollars. If you win, you collect 4 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first two bets (1 and 2 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 8 dollars. If you win, you collect 8 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first three bets (1, 2, and 4 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 16 dollars. If you win, you collect 16 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first four bets (1, 2, 4, and 8 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 32 dollars. If you win, you collect 32 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first five bets (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. Repeat as many times as it takes to win. As long as you have infinite cash backing you, you actually can come out ahead. There is more complicated mathematics that can show this as well, but this is a simple way of explaining it. So, while theoretically it is a fucking terrible idea to gamble, since the odds are stacked against you, if you have an infinite source of cash backing you, you can beat the odds. There is mathematics that actually backs this up in a more precise way (I studied it for a semester), but I forget a lot of that stuff already..... Large numbers can be really, really weird :/ | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:51 Impervious wrote: Why? He's right. Here's an example showing how you could always come ahead if you had infinite money: At a roulette table, you can bet on black or red. Neither of the options has a 50% chance of winning (since 0 is green), however, the payout for you being right is 2 times your bet. In the long run, it sounds like it is impossible to win money, right? Well, try this. Put a 1 dollar bet on red. If you win, you collect the 1 dollar and start again with 1 dollar. If you lose, place a new bet on red for 2 dollars. If you win, you collect 2 dollars. Subtracting the loss from the first bet (1 dollar), you have a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 4 dollars. If you win, you collect 4 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first two bets (1 and 2 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 8 dollars. If you win, you collect 8 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first three bets (1, 2, and 4 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 16 dollars. If you win, you collect 16 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first four bets (1, 2, 4, and 8 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 32 dollars. If you win, you collect 32 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first five bets (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. Repeat as many times as it takes to win. As long as you have infinite cash backing you, you actually can come out ahead. There is more complicated mathematics that can show this as well, but this is a simple way of explaining it. So, while theoretically it is a fucking terrible idea to gamble, since the odds are stacked against you, if you have an infinite source of cash backing you, you can beat the odds. There is mathematics that actually backs this up in a more precise way (I studied it for a semester), but I forget a lot of that stuff already..... Large numbers can be really, really weird :/ Was my original point. Then I realized I overlooked that the payout structure not being 2:1 greatly changes the dynamic. The only way to come out ahead with the plex example is to end on a string of favorable outcomes. Like a long string of wins. Which of course if you had infinte backing you'd potentially find. Also, your method will still amusingly get you kicked out of a casino. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:51 Impervious wrote: Why? He's right. Here's an example showing how you could always come ahead if you had infinite money: At a roulette table, you can bet on black or red. Neither of the options has a 50% chance of winning (since 0 is green), however, the payout for you being right is 2 times your bet. In the long run, it sounds like it is impossible to win money, right? Well, try this. Put a 1 dollar bet on red. If you win, you collect the 1 dollar and start again with 1 dollar. If you lose, place a new bet on red for 2 dollars. If you win, you collect 2 dollars. Subtracting the loss from the first bet (1 dollar), you have a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 4 dollars. If you win, you collect 4 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first two bets (1 and 2 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 8 dollars. If you win, you collect 8 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first three bets (1, 2, and 4 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 16 dollars. If you win, you collect 16 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first four bets (1, 2, 4, and 8 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. If you lose again, place a new bet on red for 32 dollars. If you win, you collect 32 dollars. Subtracting the losses from the first five bets (1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 dollars respectively), you get a net gain of 1 dollar. Repeat as many times as it takes to win. As long as you have infinite cash backing you, you actually can come out ahead. There is more complicated mathematics that can show this as well, but this is a simple way of explaining it. So, while theoretically it is a fucking terrible idea to gamble, since the odds are stacked against you, if you have an infinite source of cash backing you, you can beat the odds. There is mathematics that actually backs this up in a more precise way (I studied it for a semester), but I forget a lot of that stuff already..... Large numbers can be really, really weird :/ Premise That if you have infinite bets then after gambling enough money at a negative expected value you will still have infinite money. Problem All you have effectively proved is that 1/10th infinity is still infinity The bet is always negative EV, each time you take it you lose EV. What you've done is thrown infinity into the equation to counter this but it in no way changes the fact the infinity money you get out is of a lower order than the infinity you started with. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:04 KwarK wrote: Premise That if you have infinite bets then after gambling enough money at a negative expected value you will still have infinite money. Problem All you have effectively proved is that 1/10th infinity is still infinity The bet is always negative EV, each time you take it you lose EV. What you've done is thrown infinity into the equation to counter this but it in no way changes the fact the infinity money you get out is of a lower order than the infinity you started with. Not true, it's a +EV series of bets even though all the bets in the series are -EV. Eventually you will win, black will hit, you'll stop playing and make a dollar. It will happen eventually because you have an infinite number of bets, that's how infinity works. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:04 KwarK wrote: Premise That if you have infinite bets then after gambling enough money at a negative expected value you will still have infinite money. Problem All you have effectively proved is that 1/10th infinity is still infinity The bet is always negative EV, each time you take it you lose EV. What you've done is thrown infinity into the equation to counter this but it in no way changes the fact the infinity money you get out is of a lower order than the infinity you started with. The infinite money premise is based on the idea that given the independent probablity of each 'roll' inevitable means that while there is always a tendacy to move towards equilibrium, you will not always have an equal number of W:L, thus there will always be sets where you are postive, thus you have beaten the odds if you end the set there. | ||
| ||
