I want to have a no-limit casino to invest , like you can bet all the investment , which was like 30k or something , be able to bet 30k than. Thats more fun , casinos should take some courage to run , even if its not your money to run , even better if its like that.
You would have no investors, only gamblers. Makes no sense, not even a bit. (unless you were being ironic, of course) |
|
|
|
I personally agree with the change as a stopgap solution and I am down more than anyone I think since I never divested. This site was not intended to have so much variance for the investor. I am fine with losing coins, it is an investment. But this investment was never designed to be one where someone can go fro +10% to -25% in 5 days. I would not expect it to similarly gain.
The high max bet has increased the variance to astronomical levels. It may not effect gambler luck, but that is not the goal. A high max profit with a player who now has more coins likely than the entire bankroll, can truly break the bank and has practicallly done so.
The key for J-D to stay competitive is to still over the best interface and best odds of any reputable online casino. Whales will continue to come to J-D since Dooglus has proven time and again to be honest and always payout. Noone is going to deposit 10k bitcoins on LetsDice (would you trust them not to steal it all?).
The max bet at our nearest competitor is 20 BTC (Primedice). There is a reason for this. For sites such as Satoshi Dice which allow higher max profit the house edge is 1.9%. These are the #s we need to beat.
I agree a better strategy would be to increase house edge for big potential profit bets. The site will lose nothing since these players have no other trustworthy place to go with better odds. I like a sliding scale house edge which inceases by .02% for every 1 BTC potential profit over 50 BTC up to a max of 1.9%. Eg. 60 BTC max profit bet has a house edge of 1.2%, 90 BTC max profit bet has a house edge of 1.9%. Beyond that, I would not increase the house edge further. With these changes I would increase the max profit per bet to 0.5%
This change will not even effect 99.99% of players since few ever make bets with max protits greater than 50 BTC. Those very few who do, have nowhere better to go, since J-D still offer the best odds out there in bitcoinland. Decisions should not be made on whether one player (nakowa) returns or not. He has shown the site's design is flawed from its intended design - this level of variance was never intended. Doing otherwise would just be the gambler's fallacy in reverse on the house.
In summary I recommend:
0.5% Max Profit per Bet
1% House edge up intil max profit 50 BTC, then increase 0.02% per 1 BTC up until a max of 90 BTC profit at 1.9% house edge
Max Investment of 50,000 BTC - this will in effect lead to a cap of the max bet and less likely investor divestment in bad runs (since if you divest and someone else invests back up to the max, you lose your spot). This would still allow 250 BTC max profit bets (at an edge of 1.9%) - still a very large amount and better than the competition.
Btw, looks today like most of Nakowa's bets in the 30 - 60 BTC range, even he would be minimally effected by these changes with his "current" playing style.
Fullquote and BIG +1. Except for the cap at 1.9% edge: since we are the only one offering such a small max bet, I feel we really need no cap on increasing the edge. |
|
|
|
Can the manual withdraw limited please be increased and/or lifted?
+1 Not without putting all the cold wallet funds in the hot wallet. The last thing we need right now is a site hack to turn into a "everyone's coins are stolen" kind of story. It'd fit right in with the typical big bitcoin site shutdown mantra, but I guarantee that if it did actually happen, no one would believe me anyway, so... Let's not do that.  Right, good move. |
|
|
|
If Nakowa really found a flaw then lowering the max bet change nothing except slowing down the house loss. If he didn't found any flaw then it will only slow down the profit of the house. Increasing max bet is not a bad idea but increasing it only on big bet is stupid.
Because big bets -> high variance, and high variance is bad. If can bet as much as you want, but split it in small bets if you want the low house edge. And if you insist you want to place a single big bet, fine, but you get a higher edge, as a compensation for the variance. Either that or don't play at all, since the competitors just do not allow big bets. |
|
|
|
Just keep the house edge as it is and enable something to let every investor decide for him self how much of his investment he wants to bet against a roll at max.
1% is IMO to high but some people maybe are more adventurous than me.
Enable to set max profit/loss between a range of 100% - 0,01% and every Investor can vote with his wallet what he wants to risk.
As has already been explained over and over and over and over AND OVER here in the past pages, if you want to risk less you can just divest, and it will have the same effect. While if you set the risk too high, there's no point in been called "house", you are basically another gambler. So, no, this makes no sense. |
|
|
|
How long do we leave things alone before it's time to try something different?
I think increasing house edge for high bets is vital, and while "in general" I don't agree to lowering the max bet, I certainly agree to lower it temporarily until you can implement the higher edge. |
|
|
|
Secondly, he is reading the forum and he is worried that dooglus actually lowers the max bet, and if he is worried it means that it is not cheating at all, but he is just trying to play out the bankroll (which is easier with max bets).
Thirdly, I fear that dooglus is getting stressed about this issue, for many reasons (people are getting nervous and the situation is new). I hope no one here is really thinking that the whale has the "right martingale" or that they can "analyse the betting pattern". COME ON! What is happening is that the whale just wants to make dooglus nervous by exploiting the unpredictability of luck.
dooglus please do not get stressed, do not believe in martingales or as such and do not lose confidence in yourself. Until a STRONG AND CONVINCING statistical proof arrives, the whale is just a gambler with tons of bitcoins.
+1 That last line "donate for luck" is increasingly common. People selling 'karma' or just asking for 'rain'.
I've tried to allow everything in the chat except for blatant spamming or advertising of competitors.
Should I be stricter and disallow begging for donations? Racism? Drug talk? Where do you draw the line? I don't know!
I personally think that begging in the form of (rain/karma/donation/budda/african children/...) should be banned after one warning. Between the nakowa 300 spam bets and incessant begging, it's increasingly harder to follow the intricacies of nuanced, rational discourse, investor moaning, and the merits of sparklecoin. No warnings: you beg, you banned. Begging is way too common both in bitcoin forums and in some online games, and it should definitely be stopped, without warnings. Anything else shouldn'd be censored imho: censorship is a bad thing. If we "censor" anything, it's just because we have to prevent spam from happening, or the chat becomes useless. So, as long as you aren't spamming (begging included in spamming), that's fine. Advertisements are the only exception, for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
I had been talking in the chat about increasing the house edge for bets with profit over 50 BTC (since none of the competition with a 1% edge allows bets that big anyway). This was obviously his way of 'showing me' that it won't help...
If he isn't cheating, it makes sense to increase the edge for big bets. If he is cheating, it still makes sense to do it, since other people might be playing here too. I.e. regardless of nakowa, you should do it anyway. It won't solve nakowa's problem, but it will be good for the site despite of him. |
|
|
|
Problem is that the whole point of j-d is to gather funds from many investors, to raise a high max bet.
If he was to lower the max bet, likely he would have been able to do it with his own funds.
(as Deprived has explained many times, assuming I got it right)
While this assertion is true, I believe that JD's public funding model has at least 2 advantages regardless of maxbet : - creating a little army of advertisers (investors) - turning a portion of investors into gamblers I doubt that JD would be where it stands nowadays without this unique feature. I totally agree. Not for these exact reasons, though they are similar: the solve fact that you can be an investor, and not through a traditional share-system, rather through a bankroll, is so innovative that brings automatic success. But I've also not seen you, dooglus, take the possibility seriously that he has exploited your site.
[...]
As a potential investor / sender of money to your site, I find that confidence worrying.
I'm also a bit concerned about this. While I think it's more likely he's just been quite lucky (<2% chances, IIRC), I find a bit disconcerting that absolute confidence everything's fine and site hasn't been cracked. dooglus should put out a bounty to prove the RNG is flawed. allow people to benefit financially without losing their soul...
Doesn't make much sense: if you find a flaw, you can exploit it and make much more. Of course there are people that wouldn't do it, but still... |
|
|
|
Can the manual withdraw limited please be increased and/or lifted?
+1 |
|
|
|
I think this is irresponsible at this point, max bet should be lowered to protect investors in my opinion.
Problem is that the whole point of j-d is to gather funds from many investors, to raise a high max bet. If he was to lower the max bet, likely he would have been able to do it with his own funds. (as Deprived has explained many times, assuming I got it right) |
|
|
|
I think MPOE-PR was talking about the fee to get your asset listed, not the transaction fees...
Ah ok, well that would be far easier because 35 * 5 = 175 bitcoin. I am sure thats possible to refund.  Obviously those fees have already been distributed as dividends. |
|
|
|
|
A tactical voting small problem: since the motions are both up and its current results are already public, if I prefer to be listed on Exchange B, while Exchange A is clearly winning, it might be convenient for me on the other motion to vote to close the fund (even if I actually wanted to keep it open).
Not that it can be solved now, nor that it is really important to solve it.
(just for the record, using Condorcet might have solved this, but it wasn't possible of course; also this could have been theoretically solved by either posting the "which exchange" motion after the other one, or by hiding the votes)
|
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the whale's win today (conclusion: he had a 67% chance of pulling it off).
The whale can STOP betting when he chooses, so the probability of what happened today is not as low as it seems. I haven't dug up the exact numbers, but let's assume:
1. He wanted to win 2500 BTC (after which point he would stop gambling)
2. He was willing to go down as much as 10,000 BTC before giving up
3. He was betting 200 BTC each time and always attempting to 2X his bet (this just simplifies the simulation).
I ran the following Mathematica code:
In[6]=
bankroll := 10000;
target := 2500;
n := 10000;
bet := If[Random[] > .505, 1, -1]
outcomes = Table[profit = 0;
While[profit < target && bankroll > -profit, profit += 200 * bet ];
If[profit > 0, 1., 0], {n}];
100 * (Plus @@ outcomes)/ n
Out[6]= 67.23
So, 67% of the times that he applies this strategy he would earn his 2500BTC target before going bust.
This is a very interesting take. Unrelated fun fact: while I don't think he's cheating, it is worth noticing that if he was cheating, then pretending to be victim of a gambler's fallacy (like he is doing) is actually a great tactic to go unnoticed. |
|
|
|
|
I own only 1 share, which I kept mostly for getting the email notifications of the dividends.
I really don't want to bother "getting in line" making you transfer this when you have people with much larger transfers waiting, so if you are confident that you will be able to process it "eventually", I'd gladly wait for everyone else to be processed and stay last-in-line.
This, assuming you spend much less than 6 minutes for doing this transfer, otherwise it's not worth it and I'm not going to waste your time.
|
|
|
|
Damn. That guy knows how to bet.
Nope. He's just lucky. Or he's cheating. No other options on the table. |
|
|
|
Of course it is simple. When Dooglus provides me an updated total betting history of nakowa, we can do a shuffle analysis and see for real. Last time I did it when he was up 4000 BTC, it was around 7% chance.
5% chance is 1/20. Many people here will be familiar with dice. Roll a 20 sided dice, get a 20 --> 5% chance. You know, it happens. He critted just-dice. |
|
|
|
I think he caused a big chunk of the price drop with his relentless bearish posting in this thread.
I'd rather say that the price going up was also caused by all the loads of people pushing it here (and they were all wrong, apparently). Oh, maybe AM will surprise us and really deliver an incredible Gen2 or whatever... but I'm no longer optimistic about that. The main reason is the lack of updates following plenty of updates we had before. The only reason that comes to my mind to stop giving regular updates is that there are bad news and you don't want to share them. (this is still much better than lying, of course) |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
Please can someone give me an update. I'm a bit lost to whats going on?
BTCT.co is closing so what happens to our shares?
I doubt I goto sell off before it closes so what do I need to do?
Can someone advise pls..
Ta..
Try reading the last few pages, maybe? |
|
|
|
I've already delta-hedged all my remaining options, so the execution is just a formality. Theoretically there is still black-scholes value associated with the options; if the price went back above my target, I could sell back out of the delta-hedge and become net short again.
However, the counterweighting factor is the risk associated with holding options on an imploding exchange. That alone isn't enough to make me execute yet, but now that I consider I am also trapping the money of the people that wrote me options on BTCT, that is enough to compel me to execute the remainder later today.
Sorry, by the way. I don't enjoy taking people's money. At least you did a little better than you would have if you bought another share outright.
Thank you : ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
