like other have stated, there are still some good ones out there for new players. After hitting all the good ones the selections aren't as good and the wager requirements go up. But the monthly's are still good to do, 32red (autoplay) intercasino, littlewoods, will hill, still good money to be made each month.
Busting out doesn't save you anything. It just increases your hourly rate by allowing to you hit more bonuses within a certain amount of time.
You always pay the same vig to complete a bonus. You can't get the bonus by wagering less. If you have to turnover $1000, it doesn't matter if you make 50 $20 bets or just one $1000 bet as the house cut will be the same.
You always pay the same vig to complete a bonus. You can't get the bonus by wagering less. If you have to turnover $1000, it doesn't matter if you make 50 $20 bets or just one $1000 bet as the house cut will be the same.
You guys are wrong. Busting more often helps you in the long run, not just because it saves you time. The reason (to put it another way) is that when you bust, you are not forced to re-deposit money and complete the WR. The WR effectively goes to zero and you are done wagering. If the casino rules were different and you were forced to re-depoist and complete the WR, then my statement would be incorrect. The fact is, the more often you bust, the less you wager overall, the less the house edge eats into your profit. I don't see how you can dispute this.
The fact that each casino in independent is what helps you. If not, you would be forced to complete the "total WR for all the sites." The fact is you don't have to do this if you bust at least some of the time.
The fact that each casino in independent is what helps you. If not, you would be forced to complete the "total WR for all the sites." The fact is you don't have to do this if you bust at least some of the time.
I can dispute it, because it's not true, if you don't believe me e-mail WizardOfOdds or somebody..
You wager less overall, correct, but you get Zero from the casino you bust out of, so it's irrelevent. The only way you could decrease the "overall" house edge is if you bust out after half the WR, but still got paid.
You wager less overall, correct, but you get Zero from the casino you bust out of, so it's irrelevent. The only way you could decrease the "overall" house edge is if you bust out after half the WR, but still got paid.
Awaiting a delivery from FedEx, and have a sick dog I'm housesitting to take to the vets after that (was due to go to London today, but the dog had other ideas)
Then I'll sleep til the Angels game, which should have decent in-running liquidity on Betfair (Live on NASN).
Been sorting out my NFL/NCAA info rather than betting the line moves the last couple of weeks, so my body clock is all out of whack ;o)
Then I'll sleep til the Angels game, which should have decent in-running liquidity on Betfair (Live on NASN).
Been sorting out my NFL/NCAA info rather than betting the line moves the last couple of weeks, so my body clock is all out of whack ;o)
my experiences
I made just under $5k back in 2002 before getting bored with it. I occasionally do the odd casino still when sports betting is quiet, a site I recommend is http://www.casinoscalpingclub.com - a bunch of likeminded bonus whores!
My strategy was to start out low and increase stakes if winning but not if losing. Basically modified Kelly. The idea is to use good luck to minmise the time spent hitting the rollover, but at the same time minimise your risk of losing your deposit. Returns were slightly above the theoretical returns, given that the house edge I faced was 1% on average.
The house edge is 1% of bets placed. If you deposit $100 and hit a 10 times rollover by 10 bets of $100, the house edge is 1% * 1,000 = 10.
However, if you hit it by 1,000 bets of $1, the house edge now becomes
1% * 1,000 = 10.
So you can see how easy it is to reduce the house edge from $10 to $10 by using big stakes!!
The true reason for bigger stakes, as per one person in this thread, is to hit the rollover faster and increase your hourly rate. It is not true to say that busting out is good news, in fact its a disaster.
Being close to busting out is akin to being "on the bubble" in a poker tourney - ie. 4 players left chasing 3 prizes. Maximum risk of loss for minimal benefits of taking that risk. "On the bubble" play only premium hands justify risking all your chips. Similarly when your balance is low, minimum stakes bonus whoring is called for until your balance increases again, or you bust out.
I made just under $5k back in 2002 before getting bored with it. I occasionally do the odd casino still when sports betting is quiet, a site I recommend is http://www.casinoscalpingclub.com - a bunch of likeminded bonus whores!
My strategy was to start out low and increase stakes if winning but not if losing. Basically modified Kelly. The idea is to use good luck to minmise the time spent hitting the rollover, but at the same time minimise your risk of losing your deposit. Returns were slightly above the theoretical returns, given that the house edge I faced was 1% on average.
The house edge is 1% of bets placed. If you deposit $100 and hit a 10 times rollover by 10 bets of $100, the house edge is 1% * 1,000 = 10.
However, if you hit it by 1,000 bets of $1, the house edge now becomes
1% * 1,000 = 10.
So you can see how easy it is to reduce the house edge from $10 to $10 by using big stakes!!
The true reason for bigger stakes, as per one person in this thread, is to hit the rollover faster and increase your hourly rate. It is not true to say that busting out is good news, in fact its a disaster.
Being close to busting out is akin to being "on the bubble" in a poker tourney - ie. 4 players left chasing 3 prizes. Maximum risk of loss for minimal benefits of taking that risk. "On the bubble" play only premium hands justify risking all your chips. Similarly when your balance is low, minimum stakes bonus whoring is called for until your balance increases again, or you bust out.
I don't see what they are getting at either.Santo said:
WVU said:
Eg1: I bet $2000 (betting $20 100 times) to clear a 100% match up to $100 bonus
Expected win is $2000 x .995= $1990 (i've lost $10, but cleared $90 in bonus, so I leave the site with $190)
Eg2: I bet $2000 (betting $5 400 times) to clear a 100% match up to $100 bonus
Expected win is $2000 x .995= $1990 (i've lost $10, but cleared $90 in bonus, so I leave the site with $190)
House edge in this example = .5%
I think you are overlooking the fact that it doesn't matter how many times you bet, when subtracting for house edge, it matters how MUCH you bet.
Bet size
Consider this artificial situation:
You're betting on an unfair coin. 45% of the time it comes up heads, 55% tails. You have no choice, you must take heads. You get paid even-money.
You deposit $1000 and get a $1000 bonus. You can cash out when you've risked $2000.
Casino A: Max bet is $1.
You make 2000 bets, winning 900 and losing 1100. You cash out for $1800.
Casino B: Max bet is $2000.
You make 1 bet. If you win you cash out for $4000. If you lose you get 0.
Clearly with Casino A your expectation is +$800.
With Casino B 55% of the time you lose $1000. 45% of the time you win $3000. So if you repeated this, say, 100 times, you'd lose $55,000 and win $135,000, for a net of 80,000. Divide by 100 and your expectation per play is....+$800.
As a side note I started writing this post thinking it would show that the larger bet would earn more! Obviously, though, your per-hour win is much higher with the larger bet, though you will suffer more variance and need a much larger bankroll. Without doing the math, I'd guess that the "per-bankroll" earn is the same.
Consider this artificial situation:
You're betting on an unfair coin. 45% of the time it comes up heads, 55% tails. You have no choice, you must take heads. You get paid even-money.
You deposit $1000 and get a $1000 bonus. You can cash out when you've risked $2000.
Casino A: Max bet is $1.
You make 2000 bets, winning 900 and losing 1100. You cash out for $1800.
Casino B: Max bet is $2000.
You make 1 bet. If you win you cash out for $4000. If you lose you get 0.
Clearly with Casino A your expectation is +$800.
With Casino B 55% of the time you lose $1000. 45% of the time you win $3000. So if you repeated this, say, 100 times, you'd lose $55,000 and win $135,000, for a net of 80,000. Divide by 100 and your expectation per play is....+$800.
As a side note I started writing this post thinking it would show that the larger bet would earn more! Obviously, though, your per-hour win is much higher with the larger bet, though you will suffer more variance and need a much larger bankroll. Without doing the math, I'd guess that the "per-bankroll" earn is the same.
I have had my share of success for no more than $1000. But I've been getting alot of success on the recent new Live Dealer Casino. They doesnt seem as rigg as playing against computer and those chicks will respond to you if you talk to them. So I think its a gimmick. Live dealer for the win! :money:
