The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

if he is deluded he will end up broke, ok, and if he is cheating?

<cake> more players = easy solution to get around the max profit restriction

Actually no. From my understanding, LRUSD was an "imaginary internet currency" and not backed by actual USD. Yes, exchangers would trade it for USD, but there was no actual reserve guarantee. That is what makes this case so interesting. Liberty Reserve was basically a centralized version of bitcoin.

Very disappointed that the max bet went down

Increasing the house edge would have been also not great but much less worse in my opinion.

It's like a business refusing customers vs a business raising it's price.

Thanks 01BTC10.

We actually solved the mystery a few pages back.  If the shift of the bet outcome column that produced the crazy odds was forward in time, it would have meant that there was only a ~10^-650 chance that Nakowa wasn't cheating (and it would have meant he was purposely leaving a clue behind).  But since the shift that produced these odds was backwards in time, it just meant that Nakowa was adjusting the size of his bet based on the outcome of the previous few dice rolls.  So we gained some insight into his strategy.

Except its not a flaw because he will bust eventually. Unless the RNG is insecure.

See my post above about different investor risk levels, can you code that? It would allow us to choose our own returns. The house edge would be a function of all the investors participation.

If Nakowa really found a flaw then lowering the max bet change nothing except slowing down the site loss. If he didn't found any flaw then it will only slow down the profit of the house.

Considering Gox is the biggest and oldest exchange and has been around from when BTC was worth pennies to what is now a billion dollar market, you must be crazy to think they are not cash rich.

Do you believe that Coinlab acted in bad faith since the beginning? Why are they withholding the money that does not belong to them?

Dooglus, choose either 1% max profit or 0.5% max profit and let the math work. He will not stop playing so that means he will eventually lose everything.

Max profit at 75 btc is far too low in my opinion. The investors can divest if they want. No need to protect us, we know what we are getting ourselves into.

I have reduced the max profit to 0.25% of bankroll for now, to prevent, or at least slow, the ongoing bleeding of funds.

When I've found the best way of implementing higher house edge for higher risk bets I'll put it back to 1%.

This shouldn't affect nakowa's play, since he's playing within his self-imposed 50 BTC limit today anyway.

One minute later there's a pending deposit of 1000 BTC to the account.

He never surrenders.

20:29:20 (153338) <percent> -976. OK I surrender.

At times I was sure SatoshiDice was being cheated.  It turns out I just don't know how to tell.  I've accused nakowa of cheating before and offended him by doing so.  Not directly, but something along the lines of "The strategies you've outlined to me don't work, yet you continue to win every day.  You must be cheating, right?"

I currently believe his success is the result of having a big enough bankroll to be able to keep playing until his random walk gets him where he wants to be, coupled with quite unusual luck.

As an aside, what do we think about chat censorship?  In particular the incessant begging:


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!

You're right.  I need to work out how to change the rules.

I'd like to increase the house edge for large bets.  But how exactly?  The people betting 500 BTC at 98% are getting a pretty bad deal already, and don't need the house edge increased.  So it shouldn't be based solely on stake.

Perhaps on potential profit?  But then I'm stuck.  Profit depends on payout, which depends on house edge, which now depends on profit.  That's a confusing circular dependency.  How do I communicate that to the player via the interface in a clear way?

If they're martingale betting, 49.5% for 2x, bet 32 BTC and lose, then hit 'x2', the potential profit of the next bet is 64 BTC, so the edge needs to go up.  Do I just quietly adjust the 2x to 1.9x or whatever?  Then if they win, their win doesn't cover the previous losses.  Or do I adjust the chance of winning?  Or prompt for which to change?  Or have two separate tables, one with a 50 BTC max profit and 1% house edge, and another with the full 1% max profit but higher house edge?  Or should the house edge increase linearly with potential profit?

I'd like to get it right, so as not to overwhelm the players with too many changes.  I would appreciate any feedback.

soooooo is it a gambler's fallacy to invest when the profit of the site "is down" by over 5,000?  

I'm not sure about that.  I've seen it mentioned a few times recently, also in connection with how the Kelly criterion doesn't apply to Just-Dice because the house can't decide when to stop playing.

Nakowa doesn't stop playing.  He pauses to sleep when he's ahead, but then he plays again.  As far as the numbers are concerned his bets are a single continuous stream.  He's playing right now.  He didn't "quit when he was ahead", he just paused for some hours.

Checking the logs, actually he's not playing at the moment, because he busted:


So he's 'paused', waiting for his next deposit to confirm.

But my point is, being able to chose when to stop isn't an advantage for the players compared to the site, unless they really stop, and nobody with a similar bankroll appears to take their place.

Thanks.

But what option do I have other than paying out?  Who would play on a site which doesn't pay out if you get too lucky?

Blocking him is an interesting one.  Personally I would like if I could stop him playing.  But I can't, since he constantly switches accounts and IP addresses, and also the majority of investors seem to welcome his play, expecting him to lose everything one day.

Shutting down is always on my mind.  But again, investors want the chance to win their coins back.  I would encourage those who have had enough carnage to divest - like I did!

Nakowa is playing as I write this - he's currently "percent (153338)":


He seems to be on a mission to demonstrate that he doesn't need to bet more than 40 BTC at a time to win.