
Premium Member
It's all about targets with cashback bonuses. The logical conclusion of what you are saying ie lose often  is to set a higher win target. You need a high win target with a very low HA game to maximise EV. The higher the win target the more you will lose and the more EV you will earn. But the trouble is unlike an SNR there is no Betfair for the losing money to fall into! But theoretically you are correct in thinking this way  not hoping to lose but setting a high win target.
IMO cashbacks are dangerous. Take the 20% to £100 type. It's quite easy to lose seven on the spin just trying for a double up. You really need a big bankroll to go for the full amount. Well worth going for a smaller amound of cashback and keeping in sensible parameters.

Originally Posted by Super_Dash
Clover I ran through every possible analogy in my brain I could think of and found 1 I think bes describes the refund 50% situation.
It's effectively a £50 sticky bonus. If you win big you cashout forfeiting any bonus (but the bonus gave you a safety net). If you lose, you only lost £50 because the other £50 was effectively bonus money (once you receive your rebate). So it only seems logical to me to hope to lose in this situation If you would hope to lose every sticky bonus you do. (not that i expect this to convince you any more than my previous comments but I put alot of thought into what type of bonus a refund can be compared to and realized that just as a sport refund can be considered and SNR a casino refund can be thought of as a phantom sticky)
Hi Dash,
Yes, that's a good analogy!
I think the main reason you and I aren't likely to agree on this is I'm working on the premise that losses and winnings should more or less even out for an individual player over a reasonable period of time, and you don't think it works that way. (a) I can see where you're coming from, and (b) you may be right! I'm basing my rationale on personal experiences over the past few months which may turn out over time to have been a fluke.
Having got that out of the way (), if you assume I AM right, then if I were doing wagering with both "regular" bonuses and sticky bonuses, then in an ideal world then yes I would want to lose every sticky bonus (and as quickly as possible, to keep the house edge down).
Let me explain it this way:
Assume I have a sticky bonus (100% match, £50 deposit), where I have wagered a certain amount, done shockingly badly, and lost the lot (£100), so I walk away with nothing. I've actually only lost £50 myself, as the other £50 was the casino's.
On another day I get the same bonus, do stupendously well, start with £100, wager the same amount as the previous day, and win £100 (i.e. winnings balancing out the losses). On this occasion I now have a balance of £200, and walk away with £150 (my £50 deposit plus £100 winnings) for a profit that day of £100. The £50 sticky deposit is lost.
Net profit over the two days' play is £50: £150 takehome less £100 total deposit over the two days.
Then try another scenario:
The same first day's play with a sticky bonus: I deposit £50, get a £50 sticky bonus, wager, lose whole £100. My losses £50.
On the next day, however, I have a regular (not sticky) £50, 100% match bonus. I start with £100, wager the same amount, do very well, and end up with a balance of £200 (so winnings balancing out losses). But on this occasion I take home the full £200 (lucky me!) for a profit that day of £150.
Net profit over the two days' play is £100: £200 takehome less £100 total deposit over the two days.
For comparison, let's try two days' play with no bonuses at all. I think for this model I would have to deposit £100 per day, in order to start from the same basis. So first day deposit £100, wager, lose £100. Second day deposit £100, win £100, walk away with £200. So no net profit or loss. I deposited £200 and walked away with £200.
Obviously there are various other permutations, but I don't want to bore us all rigid! But looking at the situation in a very simplistic manner (as above), in theory it's more profitable to lose the casino's sticky bonuses, because that money can never be mine. And then balance out those losses with wins with the other casino's regular bonuses, because that money can come home with me.
Now that is simplistic, it assumes you can choose whether to win or lose at a given casino, which we full well know isn't possible(!), it ignores the "cost" of the wagering (house edge), and it does assume that winnings will balance out losses over time. But that's my basic logic.
We're not going to agree on the basic premise (winnings and losses balancing out), but if you accept that premise for the sake of the argument, do you see anything wrong with the rest of the logic?

Premium Member
I definitely see your logic. And I can see why an individual would come to start thinking like that. And I can also see how the laws of large numbers working their magic over 1000s of similarly sized spins would make it appear that the mechanism your describing is dictating whether you win your average next cash bonus or not.
I guess in order to see my logic you would need alot of sticky bonuses, less cash bonuses and to lose the stickys (or win) and not get the expected wins (or losses) on your next offers but even then over time the laws of large numbers would work to confirm your belief that your losses balanced out the wins vice versa because that's how they work.
Interesting discussion clover; I gUess we've reached the agree to disagree conclusion.
A wise man told me don't argue with fools, cos people from a distance can't tell who is who ~ Jay Z

Different strokes for different folks. It was a good discussion. I'll let you know if I change the error of my ways!

Premium Member
I've been following this with great interest and I think it actually has a similar concept to a quantum physical principle known as Schrodinger's cat. How on Earth? I'll try to explain:
From what I can make out, Cloverleaves believes (like many others) that big wins are evened out by big losses. In much the same way that people in this thread have been saying that their "actual gain" lines on graphs have been tending towards "EV" lines, and will over time move towards it.
Now, mathematically, whenever you move away from the EV line, you actually don't expect to gravitate towards it, mathematically. In fact, mathematically you expect to follow a new line parallel, starting from your current position. Cloverleaves and others here, believe that you'd gravitate back towards it, that because you've just had a big win (or loss) you're expecting the opposite to come along.
Now then, slight mind boggler, but actually in a way, we're both right. And it's because it all depends on, believe it or not, you (and you thought casino's didn't depend on you). Here's the reasoning: picture this.. you've taken a bet on arsenal to win a football match at 2.00 odds. Assuming these are exchange odds and accurately portray the chance of winning, this means you have a 50% chance of winning your bet. Now then, if you watch the game, and by half time arsenal are 20 down and on the exchange their odds are at 6.5, you now have a much lower chance of winning. HOWEVER. If you don't look, you don't watch that game, and you don't have that knowledge, you STILL have a 50% chance of the bet winning.
And here I return to the Schroedingers cat analogy. Any idiot realises that at any point the cat is actually physically alive OR dead, one or the other. Not both. However it is only by looking inside that you can determine, and by doing so you "force" the cat to die or live. In the same way, checking the score of the arsenal game "forces" the odds to be either higher or lower than the original 2.00, and thus changes your chances.
How does this relate to slots wagering, well, if you did a ton of wagering over a few months, and then checked your EV line, I would expect your gains to be very near or on the EV line. However, if you were tracking your EV the whole time and you'd lost say your first two offers, I would expect your gains to be below the EV line. It's because by checking the results, you've "started again". You've picked another starting point, and everthing in the past has no effect, so the lost EV there is gone forever, whereas for the person who plots it all at the end, the EV is still there as a whole.
And this is where our opinions differ. I believe that once you do an offer with an EV of £100 and you come out of it with £80, that EV is gone forever. You missed out on £20. A shame, but deal with it. You however, feel that the £20 of EV that you lost will appear again afterwards, because you're taking all the wagering you will ever do as a whole.
In effect, you're shutting your eyes and not looking at the score of the arsenal match. You're not plotting the EV line until the day you die, so that every bit of EV can be accounted in it. You're keeping the lid on schroedingers box. You're not actually wrong, but neither am I.
Hopefully that yielded some sense to some of you. It attempted to give a philosophical explanation to the differences in our opinions. I feel it was pretty clear (if you're familiar with schrodinger's cat) until I began applying it to the slots wagering  though I'm convinced the same concept applies I just explained it awkwardly. Perhaps I'll have another go making it clearer tomorrow, or hopefully if the general concept was understood, that part will be understood too.
Cheers
Duck

Good post (even though brevity is clearly not among your greatest skills ), you're saying some of the stuff I have been thinking all along when I have followed this thread, but not had the energy to try to explain.
It's true that if you for instance start with a bonus with EV of 100, that you lose 100 on, your expected gain after another 1000 of EV is not 1100, it's 900. In fact, in time you are not expected to be closer to EV than in the beginning, it's more and more likely to be far away from EV in terms of £ the more offers you do. However, the deviation from EV percentage wise is expected to be less over time. To make it clearer: After one offer, you are likely to be say £100 off from EV, which is a high percentage but a small amount. After say £10000 in EV, you are likely to be say £1000 off from EV, which is a much higher amount, but a much smaller percentage.
It's good for me that it's like this, because it means that from this moment to infinity, my expected total gain is EV plus about £7700.

Premium Member
That summed up my Bayesian analysis very nicely. I'm updating my expected posterior value after every offer; Cloverleaves is, but mainly using the information she had before hand about her expected value.
Great post Mighty
A wise man told me don't argue with fools, cos people from a distance can't tell who is who ~ Jay Z

Originally Posted by Endre
It's true that if you for instance start with a bonus with EV of 100, that you lose 100 on, your expected gain after another 1000 of EV is not 1100, it's 900. In fact, in time you are not expected to be closer to EV than in the beginning, it's more and more likely to be far away from EV in terms of £ the more offers you do. However, the deviation from EV percentage wise is expected to be less over time. To make it clearer: After one offer, you are likely to be say £100 off from EV, which is a high percentage but a small amount. After say £10000 in EV, you are likely to be say £1000 off from EV, which is a much higher amount, but a much smaller percentage.
Spot on, this sums up the Law of Large Numbers very nicely.

Premium Member
Very intresting post duck, I can see why you say the EV is lost but on the other hand shouldn't it all even out if you take an infinite number of offers?
Lets take the example back from Endre: You have 1000£ ev over lets say 10x 100£ ev offers but lose 1 of them. So now you are 10% below ev. In the long run (in the infinity) you expect to come close to the ev line (% wise not money wise)
Lets say after 100k ev you are only 1% of the ev line ( so no you are 1000£ of ev which is higer money wise but not %) but in the infinity you should come to 0% of ev line. So the ev you lost over the wagering should come back and thus isn't 'lost'.
Now, mathematically, whenever you move away from the EV line, you actually don't expect to gravitate towards it, mathematically. In fact, mathematically you expect to follow a new line parallel, starting from your current position. Cloverleaves and others here, believe that you'd gravitate back towards it, that because you've just had a big win (or loss) you're expecting the opposite to come along.
Do you mean that there is some sort of correlation between previous ev and future ev? With this I mean that if you are x% off ev over x number of bonuses, you will be x% off ev over y (y>x) number of offers and thus following the parallel.
Is what I'm saying makes any sence?
(English is only my 3rd language so its more difficult to try and explain all this)

Premium Member
If you take it to infinity then you actually end up broke, because no matter how much you've earnt there's a minute chance that taking more offers will lose it all, and with infinite chances it will happen!
But you are correct that if you took it to infinity, your EV would be infinity and any individual result would have no difference. In practical terms you obviously can't take it to infinity and instead can only take it to a very large number. In this case, while you may come closer to the EV percentage wise, your EV (after losing say, your first offer of £50) will always be "some very large number  50"
So the EV is indeed lost. In the practical sense.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
