Ahhh.  Very good...

It looks like it's still confusing.  Someone just bet 100 BTC when the pot was 42.1294.  If they win, they'll get 92.1294 BTC back (half of their bet goes into the pot they can win), for a loss of around 8 BTC.  And if they lose, they won't get anything back.

It's a lose/lose proposition.

Why was the "under 64000" bet retired?  It was one of the more profitable bets for the house.

And what happened to the progressive bets?  Two of the three have disappeared from the site overnight, including the one with the 98% RTP.

Yes.  Almost caught up now.

The following are still outstanding:


Are they on your radar too?

I checked the first 3 and they don't have unconfirmed payments - it looks like you didn't process them yet.

These are still pending and more than 2 days old:

After 0.9 come 0.10 and 0.11; they're not decimals.

It occurred to me that it was their way of taking a profit.  But if that's the case, why have they lowered the max bet and kept it low?  It doesn't make any sense to be decreasing the bet sizes as the profits grow.

Almost all bets eventually get paid.  It's not unusual for different bets in a single transaction to be processed at different times.  I've no idea why that happens.

We discussed this a couple of days ago.  I thought the rules had changed since then to allow hitting split aces, but I guess not:

So how does the client know what its cards are if they are sha256 hashed with the session key.  sha256 is a one-way hash.  Does it have to brute-force them?  Seems unlikely, especially for omaha where you have 4 cards, not just 2.

I noticed a few months ago that the flash client communicates in plain text with the server, but didn't do anything with it.  I think at the time it was sending my hole cards in the clear too, but maybe that's changed now.

I don't understand what you're talking about when you say you could use sha256 though.

No, it just chokes apparently at random on a very small percentage of transactions.  I don't know what causes it - I occasionally post a list of outstanding transactions, and fireduck sometimes fixes them.  I posted a list yesterday, but they're still not fixed.

Yes.  Everyone can see "address A bet X BTC and asked for their winnings to be sent to address B".

Not ideal for money laundering!

Yes, that's what I mean.  The graph is right, but a little out of date.  Here's an up-to-date one;

The 0.05240186 payment is your winnings from this bet.  You bet 0.04 on "lessthan 48000" and won:

  http://www.satoshidice.com/lookup.php?tx=5df14eb7a279fb557dea1afae70cdcca23bfe6821c55ae9553dbc18904f2640a

Your winnings of 0.0787528 appeared in the same block.  Look at the 'transactions' tab.  Do you see it there?  The 'overview' tab that you showed us only shows the 3 most recent transactions.

Here's an interesting graph:



It splits the profit/loss into that caused by bets under 4 BTC and that caused by bets of 4 BTC or more.

There's a marked difference.  Small bets are very profitable.  Big bets are very expensive.

If it weren't for the big bets, SatoshiDice would be almost 4000 BTC up by now, but instead they're 500 BTC down.

Everything was looking fine until the first week of June.  Since then there's been a big difference between the profitability of "big" and "small" bets.

Edit: fixed the graph.  the >= and < labels were the wrong way around

It looks like you're still missing bets:


It doesn't seem to be just that the payment isn't confirmed, because the bets aren't in your database at all as far as I can see.

I think a pretty small percentage of the population would know what 6.2e-07 ฿ means.

Provable fairness is a nice feature.  Most people won't ever check it, and those that do won't check many hands, but it's reassuring to have it there.


That's funny.  I'm not doing too well so far.  I blame it on the positive house edge - they shuffle the deck before every hand, can you believe it???