Crypto lounge thread

joost

Kingfisher
Because he actually has nothing to lose and 300 rolls is a LOT for several 50% losses to happen in a row (to Spitz).

The demon has to pay money to the guy also.

In theory you have an edge of a small percentage points so if you did an infinite amount of rolls, you'll end up positive but the right way would be to have a 100% increase to compensate a 50% loss. Otherwise you'll just get rekt eventually.

Many are making money short-term with shitcoins but eventually they'll get rekt.

The cartoon is Black Swan Man. I think it's made by Mark Spitznagel (Universa fund manager).
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Many are making money short-term with shitcoins but eventually they'll get rekt.
I agree with you and am applauding it. Mostly because I've taken the position that BTC is the only really solid play and long term hold and the rest are just attempts at taking advantage of something you can't possibly know about, though it does potentially have crazy asymmetry. The problem for the tech plays/altcoins is that of course BTC could be the only one (maximalist) and their entire endeavor may be nullified. I recognized this early on and as a result, since I don't trade BTC nor the shitcoins, I don't have to really worry about anything given my conviction of BTC long term. Recent events are proving my position to be the strongest, and will shape it moving ahead in the same direction.
 

Parmesan

Kingfisher
Other Christian
I agree with you and am applauding it. Mostly because I've taken the position that BTC is the only really solid play and long term hold and the rest are just attempts at taking advantage of something you can't possibly know about, though it does potentially have crazy asymmetry. The problem for the tech plays/altcoins is that of course BTC could be the only one (maximalist) and their entire endeavor may be nullified. I recognized this early on and as a result, since I don't trade BTC nor the shitcoins, I don't have to really worry about anything given my conviction of BTC long term. Recent events are proving my position to be the strongest, and will shape it moving ahead in the same direction.
There are plenty of coins with strong developer communities and legit use cases, so it's highly unlikely BTC becomes some lone survivor. I agree its a reliable investment if you just want to be exposed to crypto without going down speculative rabbit holes. The existence o sh**coins is a tradeoff for a completely open, unregulated system, but they are easily ignored and can even be an onramp for adoption of BTC and other "sound" coins.
 

Cynllo

Woodpecker
Other Christian
There are plenty of coins with strong developer communities and legit use cases, so it's highly unlikely BTC becomes some lone survivor. I agree its a reliable investment if you just want to be exposed to crypto without going down speculative rabbit holes. The existence o sh**coins is a tradeoff for a completely open, unregulated system, but they are easily ignored and can even be an onramp for adoption of BTC and other "sound" coins.

As a comparison. The token ecosystem is only five years old. Bitcoin is nearly 13 1/2 years old.

There is obviously going to be huge culls of tokens. For any to survive is going to require it to develop an ecosystem for the token to have demand, and it's not really apparent why you'd need a specific token to do than, for the most part. For example, BAT could just use ETH or SOL. A project may survive, but it may be difficult to justify its own token.

Another possibility is that someone could develop a layer two on top of Bitcoin that does all the sorts of things Ethereum can do, but at more the speed of Radix.

The BTC maxis who poo-poo everything that blockchain projects are trying to do, would be better off getting all that ported on top of BTC. The benefit of having BTC as a base layer is it is the most secure.

Ultimately, I think the rocket fuel behind BTC's huge ascent will be when government start seizing assets to prop up banks. At that point BTC/crypto and physical gold will be the only things you could flood into. I guess they want their CBDCs in place by then to try and stop that.
 

Parmesan

Kingfisher
Other Christian
As a comparison. The token ecosystem is only five years old. Bitcoin is nearly 13 1/2 years old.

There is obviously going to be huge culls of tokens. For any to survive is going to require it to develop an ecosystem for the token to have demand, and it's not really apparent why you'd need a specific token to do than, for the most part. For example, BAT could just use ETH or SOL. A project may survive, but it may be difficult to justify its own token.

Another possibility is that someone could develop a layer two on top of Bitcoin that does all the sorts of things Ethereum can do, but at more the speed of Radix.

The BTC maxis who poo-poo everything that blockchain projects are trying to do, would be better off getting all that ported on top of BTC. The benefit of having BTC as a base layer is it is the most secure.
I don't want BTC to be a do everything coin, it's utility is in its relative simplicity and stability. We already have ETH for that. Most wallets already support multiple coins and protocols, so I don't see the need to focus solely on Bitcoin. I could see the idea of parallel currencies being odd for normies at first, but competition among currencies is ultimately a positive thing that people will quickly get used to.
 


This is not the typical video of some idiot who got it right once and people follow him thinking he's an oracle.

It's a good advice on gambling.


I will give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he means well, but I find his kind of advice to be very patronizing and smug. Essentially he says not to invest in cryptos (or anything really) and instead "invest in yourself". Citing himself as an example, he points out how he has a successful youtube channel and is doing well at real estate, or selling used cars. Really. 2008 crash had dozens of people like him that got burned badly.

I'm sorry, but social media success and making it big in real estate success have a FAR lower rate of success than investing in crypto. If the housing market crashes and someone's real estate project goes under, he's just as ruined as investing in crypto.
 

joost

Kingfisher
I'm sorry, but social media success and making it big in real estate success have a FAR lower rate of success than investing in crypto. If the housing market crashes and someone's real estate project goes under, he's just as ruined as investing in crypto.

He's using his income from YouTube to buy houses. He's not trying to "get rich twice" and he's probably getting a very low ROI but we can bet he'll be 100% well off in a few years even if his channel burst.
I can bet most people won't be well off after a few years investing in crypto.

You can't compare a highly risky "investment" like crypto to buying Real Estate. Even if you bought a home in 2006 and the price crashed in half, you still have cash flow (rent).

Do you think people who doubled their money in crypto took profits and left? They're gonna put everything they have expecting similar returns until they burst.
 

Seadog

Kingfisher
The demon has to pay money to the guy also.

In theory you have an edge of a small percentage points so if you did an infinite amount of rolls, you'll end up positive but the right way would be to have a 100% increase to compensate a 50% loss. Otherwise you'll just get rekt eventually.

Many are making money short-term with shitcoins but eventually they'll get rekt.

The cartoon is Black Swan Man. I think it's made by Mark Spitznagel (Universa fund manager).

Being a math/engineering guy who used to make money playing poker, I found that an incredibly interesting brain teaser. My first inkling was yes, the guy has the edge, because the +EV is indeed 4% or whatever. But a few seconds later I thought about it, ran a few basic simulations in my head, then determined that the demon does in fact have the edge in multiple trials. Because while the edge is 4% for that one roll, you may never get to repeat that one roll. If you could do 300 equal bets, I'd take it in a heart beat. If I was feeling frisky I might even do it *1* time, since if you view your life as one long game, just get your money in the pot when you have the +EV and let fate land as it may. To think about it, I simplified the problem with same rules, but for a fair coin with the same +50/-50 rules. Lets say guy starts with $100, the pathways are W-L or L-W Which lead to 150->75, or 50->75. It gets more complicated with more tosses, but the results are the same provided it's going to be a long term about equal #s of each. Even in the W-W case, you're at 225, but then the inevitable L-L that follows takes you down to 112.5, then 56.25.

The difference as I read in a pop stats book recently was similar to the likelyhood of winners in 20 ppl playing 1 hand of black jack (something like you'd expect 9 to win), vs 1 guy playing 20 hands in a row. As I said above about doing it one time, same idea. If you had 20 ppl playing the devil 1 game each, like 16/17 would likely come out ahead, and the demon would be down heaps.

What I'm curious about is if anyone knows the math behind this, and how to calculate long term multi-trial EV for when the wagers aren't going to be consistent. Definately think there are some limits or calculus in there. Reminds me of the idea the Greeks(?) had about an arrow never being able to reach a man. If the man is 100m away, travels at 1m/s, and the arrow travels at 100m/s, after 1s, the arrow is 1m behind the man (as both moved forward), after another 0.01s, the arrow is at 101m, and the man still 0.01m ahead of it. 0.0001s later, the arrow is at 101.01m, yet the man has inched another tenth of a millimeter ahead of it, and you can go on like that forever, and the error will never hit.
 

Seadog

Kingfisher
Being a math/engineering guy who used to make money playing poker, I found that an incredibly interesting brain teaser. My first inkling was yes, the guy has the edge, because the +EV is indeed 4% or whatever. But a few seconds later I thought about it, ran a few basic simulations in my head, then determined that the demon does in fact have the edge in multiple trials. Because while the edge is 4% for that one roll, you may never get to repeat that one roll. If you could do 300 equal bets, I'd take it in a heart beat. If I was feeling frisky I might even do it *1* time, since if you view your life as one long game, just get your money in the pot when you have the +EV and let fate land as it may. To think about it, I simplified the problem with same rules, but for a fair coin with the same +50/-50 rules. Lets say guy starts with $100, the pathways are W-L or L-W Which lead to 150->75, or 50->75. It gets more complicated with more tosses, but the results are the same provided it's going to be a long term about equal #s of each. Even in the W-W case, you're at 225, but then the inevitable L-L that follows takes you down to 112.5, then 56.25.

The difference as I read in a pop stats book recently was similar to the likelyhood of winners in 20 ppl playing 1 hand of black jack (something like you'd expect 9 to win), vs 1 guy playing 20 hands in a row. As I said above about doing it one time, same idea. If you had 20 ppl playing the devil 1 game each, like 16/17 would likely come out ahead, and the demon would be down heaps.

What I'm curious about is if anyone knows the math behind this, and how to calculate long term multi-trial EV for when the wagers aren't going to be consistent. Definately think there are some limits or calculus in there. Reminds me of the idea the Greeks(?) had about an arrow never being able to reach a man. If the man is 100m away, travels at 1m/s, and the arrow travels at 100m/s, after 1s, the arrow is 1m behind the man (as both moved forward), after another 0.01s, the arrow is at 101m, and the man still 0.01m ahead of it. 0.0001s later, the arrow is at 101.01m, yet the man has inched another tenth of a millimeter ahead of it, and you can go on like that forever, and the error will never hit.

Think I got it figured...

For a multi trial game, the expected result will be (0.5)^n/6 x (1.05)^4n/6 x (1.5)^n/6

For the coin toss it would be an easier (0.5)^n/2 x (1.5)^n/2.

Take the log 1.05 and 1.5, divided by the log of 0.5 to get a common base of 0.5 yields: (0.5)^n/6 x (0.5)^(-0.0704*4n/6) x (0.5)^(-0.585n/6) becoming:

(0.5)^(n -0.2816n - 0.585n)/6 simplified out to (0.5)^ (.1333n/6) or (0.5)^0.0222n

Curiously, even for n = 1 this yields a negative EV of -1.53%, which seems to be at odds with the idea of 20 ppl making the same bet 1x each. The 50% winners and losers should cancel each other, and then the demon is on the hook for the 12 or 13 5%ers.

Similar math for the simplified coin toss yields 0.5^0.2075n, and both were checked against a numerical trial, and interestingly the ordering doesn't seem to matter.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Think I got it figured...

For a multi trial game, the expected result will be (0.5)^n/6 x (1.05)^4n/6 x (1.5)^n/6

For the coin toss it would be an easier (0.5)^n/2 x (1.5)^n/2.

Take the log 1.05 and 1.5, divided by the log of 0.5 to get a common base of 0.5 yields: (0.5)^n/6 x (0.5)^(-0.0704*4n/6) x (0.5)^(-0.585n/6) becoming:

(0.5)^(n -0.2816n - 0.585n)/6 simplified out to (0.5)^ (.1333n/6) or (0.5)^0.0222n

Curiously, even for n = 1 this yields a negative EV of -1.53%, which seems to be at odds with the idea of 20 ppl making the same bet 1x each. The 50% winners and losers should cancel each other, and then the demon is on the hook for the 12 or 13 5%ers.

Similar math for the simplified coin toss yields 0.5^0.2075n, and both were checked against a numerical trial, and interestingly the ordering doesn't seem to matter.
So what happens in 100 different sets of 300 rolls (end result), as stipulated by the demon in the game? Let's say Mr. Bored Spitznagel has $1M wealth. Do most turn out to decrease his wealth significantly? Do some 300 roll sets render him up in his wealth at the end? I think it has a lot to do with how early and how many "in a row" of those 1s and 6s come, no?
 

Seadog

Kingfisher
So what happens in 100 different sets of 300 rolls (end result), as stipulated by the demon in the game? Let's say Mr. Bored Spitznagel has $1M wealth. Do most turn out to decrease his wealth significantly? Do some 300 roll sets render him up in his wealth at the end? I think it has a lot to do with how early and how many "in a row" of those 1s and 6s come, no?

So, he'd "expect" to have 0.5^0.0222*300, or a fraction of 0.009888 left. On a million dollars that would be $9,888. While I had an inkling this was the case, and figured out by brute force that a pay off of 2:1 would be even money in such a scenario (ignoring the 5% wins), I didn't think it would be quite as egregious since stock returns are heavily influenced by the order of returns. "Average" return in the mean sense is basically a useless term. Compounded annual growth rate is a number that means something. The power of compounding.

Honestly it's super not hard to check, since the whole process is multiplicative, Say on 300 throws he'd expect 50 50% wins, 50 50% losses, and 200 5% wins.

So in long form that would just be $1,000,000 x 1.5 x 1.5 ... 50 times x 0.5 x 0.5.... 50 times x 1.05 x 1.05... 200 times. You can really move the order of multiplication anywheres you want to signal when the win, minor win, or loss happens, for the same reason that 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 = 4 x 2 x 5 x 3, and it won't change the outcome.

Another way you can think of it would be that every time the demon loses, it sets him up for a greater than that gain later, and every time the hero loses, it sets him up for smaller than that gains (costs to the demon) later.

Assuming he only won, that is 50 50%ers, and 200 5%ers, he'd have and astonishing 11 trillion dollars. That profit can be wiped out between the 43 and 44th 50% event. Then, from 1,000,000 to about 10,000 (roughly 1%) would be a result of the next 6-7 losses. Which makes sense, since 2^7 = 128, so 1/128th a million, is roughly 10k.

If we assume he does in fact have 200 1.05 wins, and 50 1.5 wins, then it's a binomial problem with probability of 0.167 (the odds of throwing a 1), 294 events (since 250 + the 44 halvings the demon needs to profit) and it works out that its about 80% likelihood the demon gets the 44 he needs, vs a 20% likelihood he doesn't. Even if he can squeeze out an addition 10, he'd be rewarded handsomly, but the odds of that are about 1/300, for a pay off of 60x. (Consistent with the 5:1 advantage above)

In the coin flip example, which is a little more straight forward, its 59 wins needed to break even. Which for 100 trials works out to a 4% chance.

2022-05-18 18 24 03-PM130.png

So essentiallly what that graph says is the odds of getting it right however many times. To hit exactly 50%, it is is only 8% likely to happen. So basically for the guy to make money in the coin flip, hed need to be in the area of the chart starting just before 60, and all the way to the right.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Even more simply, the demon is using math on someone else's money - he stakes nothing only considers payouts and getting paid on Spitznagel's funds. Interesting.
 
Top