Is this a good staking schedule?

[Caesar]

You shouldn't think like this, if you lose 10 stakes in a row, your chances of winning haven't increased, it's still a 50% chance you will lose.

 

Jagex don't grant you better hits the next stake just because last stake you weren't hitting as much as your opponent...

That's probability though. The chances of losing 10 stakes in a row is 1/(2^10), which is EXTREMELY unlikely. Did you even read/interpret the mathematics posted above? It's year 10 maths. 

 

It's 50/50, in the long run you should win one, lose one. My theory is selecting which ones to bet big/small. The attack/strength/defense level calculates the probability. Which is this case is 50/50, since both players have even levels. 

 

You are correct, this is straight up Gambler's Fallacy.

It's not a mistaken belief. When it comes to probability you have; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability

 

I don't consider a mistaken belief based on mathematics. 

 

If you Section 2 in the Gambler's Fallacy you posted. Yes it is a 1/2 chance each new stake. But here read this Very Carefully.

 

THE CHANCES OF WINNING CONSECUTIVE TIMES IS 0.5^N. WHERE 'N' IS THE NUMBER OF TIMES. 

 

You've just won three stakes in a row. The chances of CONSECUTIVELY winning 4 stakes is 1/16. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Caesar

[Woody]

Not taking risks ≠ no chance to make lots of cash

 

Dude, YOLO

[GoEasyLmNew]

That's probability though. The chances of losing 10 stakes in a row is 1/(2^10), which is EXTREMELY unlikely. Did you even read/interpret the mathematics posted above? It's year 10 maths. 

 

It's 50/50, in the long run you should win one, lose one. My theory is selecting which ones to bet big/small. The attack/strength/defense level calculates the probability. Which is this case is 50/50, since both players have even levels. 

 

It's not a mistaken belief. When it comes to probability you have; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability

 

I don't consider a mistaken belief based on mathematics. 

 

If you Section 2 in the Gambler's Fallacy you posted. Yes it is a 1/2 chance each new stake. But here read this Very Carefully.

 

THE CHANCES OF WINNING CONSECUTIVE TIMES IS 0.5^N. WHERE 'N' IS THE NUMBER OF TIMES. 

 

You've just won three stakes in a row. The chances of CONSECUTIVELY winning 4 stakes is 1/16. 

 

and winning the three stakes in a row then losing the 4th stake is also a 1/16 chance.

 

If there was a method to improve your odds everybody would be doing it, it's pure luck

[The Hero of Time]

it's definitely possible to lose 8 times in a row, i've experienced it, i lose a shit ton of times during staking, lol it sucks, other times i convert 2m into 10m+ tho, it's all RNG

 

idk about the whole schedule thing tho, i just stake 1-2m's and sometimes more

[NoahTheWeebWolf]

it's definitely possible to lose 8 times in a row, i've experienced it, i lose a shit ton of times during staking, lol it sucks, other times i convert 2m into 10m+ tho, it's all RNG

 

idk about the whole schedule thing tho, i just stake 1-2m's and sometimes more

That's depressing =(.

The thing with the schedule was so that eventually when/if I won after several losses id still get all my money back and a small profit.

It just seems so unlikely id lose that many times consecutively though(eventually id have to win at some point).

I could see how my method is extremely risky. The only problem with betting 1m(the same amount) repeatedly is unless you win multiple times in a row you might just keep going backwards losing money/remain at the same level. The only benefit I see is you ultimately get more tries, and you have to hope that at the end of the day you leave with more than you begun(quite possibly the safest and surest method but even then still inherently risky). I guess I could bet 10m in ten sets of 1m a day and if I lost 10 times than I would begin to try getting my shit back and eventually after so many losses, there's more of a chance of getting my crap back with a small profit and then try again tomorrow.

I mean I could also fight people at lower levels and let them bet less than me as an incentive(though odds are I will whoop them and lose nothing).

[GoEasyLmNew]

I mean I could also fight people at lower levels and let them bet less than me as an incentive(though odds are I will whoop them and lose nothing).

 

That's not an uncommon thing for many people to do, but you will find it very hard to get a fair x,

[Lemons]

 

 

 

Since it's 50/50, if you lost the previous stake you'll most likely win the next stake.

 

Nope, it's still 50/50. This statement makes me lol. 50/50 odds means you'll most likely win! Gambler's Fallacy.

 

If you're opponent has lost a few stakes in a row, they'll most likely win.

 

Nope, it's still 50/50. Gambler's Fallacy.

 

And from the wikipedia article on Gambler's Fallacy (since Year 10 math didn't teach ya to read):

 

We can see from the above that, if one flips a fair coin 21 times, then the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. However, the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 1⁄2. This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

In short, you can calculate probability but you can't properly apply it.

 

Edit: This assumes 50/50 odds (as your posts seem to do)

Edited October 8, 2015 by Lemons

[Caesar]

Nope, it's still 50/50. This statement makes me lol. 50/50 odds means you'll most likely win! Gambler's Fallacy.

 

 

Nope, it's still 50/50. Gambler's Fallacy.

 

And from the wikipedia article on Gambler's Fallacy (since Year 10 math didn't teach ya to read):

 

 

In short, you can calculate probability but you can't properly apply it.

 

Edit: This assumes 50/50 odds (as your posts seem to do)

I can't stress this enough. Do you understand the phrase "MOST LIKELY".

 

4 stakes in a row is (1/16), 5 stakes is (1/32). If you've just won 4 stakes in a row. It is UNLIKELY you'll win the 5th. 

[Isolate]

I can't stress this enough. Do you understand the phrase "MOST LIKELY".

 

4 stakes in a row is (1/16), 5 stakes is (1/32). If you've just won 4 stakes in a row. It is UNLIKELY you'll win the 5th. 

or you have a 50/50 chance of winning, you know

[Lemons]

I can't stress this enough. Do you understand the phrase "MOST LIKELY".

 

4 stakes in a row is (1/16), 5 stakes is (1/32). If you've just won 4 stakes in a row. It is UNLIKELY you'll win the 5th. 

 

Unless "MOST LIKELY" and "UNLIKELY" mean 50% chance then no, I don't understand.

 

I'll translate for you:

 

We can see from the above that, if one flips a fair coin 21 times, then the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. However, the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 1/2. This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

with your scenario becomes...

 

We can see from the above that, if one does a fair stake 4 times, then the probability of 5 wins is 1 in 32. However, the probability of getting a win after having already having won 4 stakes in a row is simply 1/2 (50/50). This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

Also, here is the whole explaining part:

 

 

This can also be seen without knowing that 20 heads have occurred for certain (without applying of Bayes' theorem). Consider the following two probabilities, assuming a fair coin:

• probability of 20 heads, then 1 tail = 0.5²⁰ × 0.5 = 0.5²¹
• probability of 20 heads, then 1 head = 0.5²⁰ × 0.5 = 0.5²¹

The probability of getting 20 heads then 1 tail, and the probability of getting 20 heads then another head are both 1 in 2,097,152. Therefore, it is equally likely to flip 21 heads as it is to flip 20 heads and then 1 tail when flipping a fair coin 21 times. Furthermore, these two probabilities are equally as likely as any other 21-flip combinations that can be obtained (there are 2,097,152 total); all 21-flip combinations will have probabilities equal to 0.521, or 1 in 2,097,152. From these observations, there is no reason to assume at any point that a change of luck is warranted based on prior trials (flips), because every outcome observed will always have been as likely as the other outcomes that were not observed for that particular trial, given a fair coin. Therefore, just as Bayes' theorem shows, the result of each trial comes down to the base probability of the fair coin: 1⁄2.

 

So basically, the odds of a win after a 4 win streak is 1/32, and the odds of a loss after a 4 win streak is 1/32. Its the same odds, the streak will never change those odds.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Lemons

[Caesar]

Unless "MOST LIKELY" and "UNLIKELY" mean 50% chance then no, I don't understand.

 

I'll translate for you:

 

We can see from the above that, if one flips a fair coin 21 times, then the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. However, the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 1/2. This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

with your scenario becomes...

 

We can see from the above that, if one does a fair stake 4 times, then the probability of 5 wins is 1 in 32. However, the probability of getting a win after having already having won 4 stakes in a row is simply 1/2 (50/50). This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

Also, here is the whole explaining part:

 

 

 

So basically, the odds of a win after a 4 win streak is 1/32, and the odds of a loss after a 4 win streak is 1/32. Its the same odds, the streak will never change those odds.

Yeah fair enough. I was just a bit stubborn on my first opinion. It does make sense that the previous flips don't effect the next flip, that it's always 50/50. But I still believe in my system :P

[Arctic]

Yeah fair enough. I was just a bit stubborn on my first opinion. It does make sense that the previous flips don't effect the next flip, that it's always 50/50. But I still believe in my system

 

And that right there is gambler's fallacy :P

[NoahTheWeebWolf]

I feel kind of bad now I didn't want to pit anyone against each other.

 

Also I made 3-4m profit yesterday. It was scary I won two bets for 1m and one for 1.9m(all three on the first try consecutively). Than I lost a few rounds and lost it all and then I got it all back.

 

Quite a thrill really and I am glad I profited. I find t very good to stake against lower level people(Though they bet less given their odds it's better than winning nothing but when they do win it sucks).

 

I don't know if it's something id like to do all the time however.

[letsgetitbro]

WHat dubstep u like?

[Caesar]

And that right there is gambler's fallacy

I know... the Irony... hence why I had to sell my main. Too much Gambler's Fallacy