Investors took the risk when they let Nakowa win 13,000BTC, and now they have no chance to see that risk through to the end.
Dooglus changed the max profit without any warning. Thats not fair to investors. He could have at least said 'hey, im thinking about doing this, or that.'
He could have set up a poll on the site where 1BTC in investment = 1 vote or something like that
Poll could have been for: 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, etc.
I'd be willing to bet 10BTC that most investors are not happy with the change.
So Nakowa logs on, invests 20000 BTC and votes against. |
|
|
|
some investors will wait ages to recover their losses as everyone will invest back now  Exactly, those who stayed are going to wait ages for recovery, while those who left and go back now are going to benefit from the lower variance! Insane. Then Doog should cap investment amount and allow those with investment losses to invest before those who do not. But it would be complicated to implement. |
|
|
|
he'll never come back again; that's it; some investors will wait ages to recover their losses as everyone will invest back now The fact so many divested and noone was reinvesting under the old rules shows it was not viewed by anyone as a good investment anymore. |
|
|
|
18:36:09 (153338) <percent> I'm DONE. pulling back 2976 coins. NEW RULES KILLED ME.
UTTERY STUPIDITY TO CHASE THE WHALE AWAY.
WE WOULD HAVE BEEN +10,000 TODAY.
You want to invest in a site which can swing 10,000 BTC per day on a 30k bankroll? Most do not nor was that the intended design. |
|
|
|
<percent> banker: I was beaten already. REMEMBER: the rules changed during the course of my play. I HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO PLAY MORE IN THE FUTURE.
Congratulations. The whale is walking away with investor profits. As far as I know casino's in the real world do everything they can to keep whales playing
Indeed. Changing max profit in the middle of the session of the BEST customer we have (yes: Nakowa is our BEST customer, even if he is way up ATM) was a stupid move indeed. As I wrote a few posts back, its obvious he would have felt cheated, which is not good at all. Again: guys, just let math do its thing... Ideally Dooglus should have done this when he was not betting. |
|
|
|
Dooglus,
First, I really like what you have done with just-dice and you seem like a very honest guy which is the reason I'm invested and I would not be invested in ANY of the other Bitcoin casinos out there but:
As an investor I have to say I am a little bit disappointed you didn't try to consult with us before lowering the max limit seeing how much we are impacted. Because it's going to take us much longer now to make up for our losses. It might be impossible for some if the BTC/USD price goes up..
That said, I also think that 1% was way too high and it should have been 0.5% max and it was a mistake. But.. changing it now, you took away our chance to make up for our loss quickly and you give an incentive to new people or people who divested to get back in as investors thus lowering our profits.
I don't think Nakowa will play again unless we go back to 1% which considering is current bankroll might be too risky for us. So you should freeze out any new investors/new investments for a while at least till the bank goes back in green. Also I would be against the idea of banning people like Nakowa from just-dice. We can't ban people for being lucky!
I agree with most of this. But I am being selfish since I have big losses and hate being diluted in my investment now that the parameters finally being adjusted to reduce variance. Feels like should be some reward for loyalty of staying invested through the last week. |
|
|
|
Considering he lost 3k now, the site would have been up 7k again if max bet wasn't changed (3k*4=12k, so +7k starting from -5k). Bad timing ^^'
Math never lies - on the contrary, decisions based on emotions are -EV. Nakowa is a delusional gambling addict who believes he found a "system" to "spot patterns", therefore I will never understand why we decided to lower the max profit precisely when he was in the middle of a session. That sucks, from one side he might feel cheated and he might stop playing JD because that, and IMO the rational thing to do would have been to let him keep playing as he used to. And BTW, he is used to win, and I'm quite sure that as soon as he started losing BIG he would have started to take very bad decisions based on emotions. Now we "protected" him by lowering the maximum amount he can lose in a single bet. I forced myself to stay invested the whole time because divesting while being down wold have meant staying behind with certainty. Trust the math and wait. I would be very disappointed if the new rules now make the whale swim away. You cannot run the site based on keeping one player. There is no future to the site then. |
|
|
|
Considering he lost 3k now, the site would have been up 7k again if max bet wasn't changed (3k*4=12k, so +7k starting from -5k). Bad timing ^^'
Math never lies - on the contrary, decisions based on emotions are -EV. Nakowa is a delusional gambling addict who believes he found a "system" to "spot patterns", therefore I will never understand why we decided to lower the max profit precisely when he was in the middle of a session. That sucks, from one side he might feel cheated and he might stop playing JD because that, and IMO the rational thing to do would have been to let him keep playing as he used to. And BTW, he is used to win, and I'm quite sure that as soon as he started losing BIG he would have started to take very bad decisions based on emotions. Now we "protected" him by lowering the maximum amount he can lose in a single bet. We protected the whale and the investors, it is a decision which only decreases variance but the odds unchanged. He can bet with a bot 3 bets per second - so 225 BTC per bet. Manually he can do 75BTC per second easily. All that was reduced is variance until a higher edge can be put into effect for very large bets. |
|
|
|
18:09:34 (153338) <percent> I HAVE ONE LAST TRY. AND I THINK I WILL NOT WIN HERE ANYMORE.
Well there you have it folks. The whale will quit now because the max bet is too low and he thinks he can't 'win' anymore.
Now investors only have to wait ages to try and recover their losses.
Congratulations.
Given Nakowa's words worth, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Moreover I believe that the maxbet limit is still open to discussion. If i was in charge, I would've left max bet @1%, but that's obviously not the case. I think variable edge is a very bad idea. It will only serve confusion and bad advertising. You've set a new standard with 1%... going backward is not a good idea. If you want to give up 1% max bet, I advise to at least allow 100-150 amounts. Hundred is a psychological cliff, and gives an adrenaline rush. 100s will also provide the "Whoooaaa !" effect on spectators. I bet there's an increase in JD frequentation since the beginning of Nakowa's gambling and media coverage. Cursious spectators come to see the whale, and that is also something good ! If they speculate but do not bet, it is just free entertainment |
|
|
|
Agreed. Max bet at 1% was the only real chance of Nakowa going busto when he starts with his 300BTC bets. I'd rather lose my whole investment because of an incredible (and very unlikely) strike of bad luck, than just taking down the max bet which practically means that we won't be recovering our losses for months...
You are forgetting a very important benefit of lowering the max bet. With a lower max bet he will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is. Depending on how large you currently think the chances of him cheating is, it might actually be +EV to let him continue with a 0.25% max bet... I've watched Nakowa gambling, and I'm obviously not 100% sure that he is not cheating, but I'm willing to bet my whole investment (which anyhow I can afford to lose) on the fact the he is NOT cheating, and thus I'd let him play with max profit 1% of the bankroll until he eventually go busto with his 300BTC bets. In fact, today I've watched him for at least 2 hours in a row. He is losing big time at the moment. I have the impression that if the max profit would not have been lowered, today he would be down many thousands and not just a few hundreds. I have the impression he would have started to push the max bet to recover his losses, which he is actually doing with 60BTC and 70BTC bets (the actual max profit), which eventually would have led him to lose a lot more. Of course this is wild speculation and impossible to know, but given the fact that nakowa has already won +15k coins from the site when the max bet was 4 times higher, lowering the max bet in my opinion is something that plays in his favor, because he won't be able to lose everything as easily as he won it - in fact it will be 4 times harder for him to lose everything, than it was to win it in the first place. That's how I see it... He is down 1000 BTC, he would bet that amount in 5 second before. The change has reduced variance. Sure, but our only chance to quickly recoup the 25% losses Nakowa inflicted to us in just a few days was precisely variance, and lowering the max profit to 0.25% just killed that chance. I see this matter very coldly: nakowa is either a) cheating, or b) a degenerate gambler that won't stop until he loses everything. After having analyzed both the character and his "gambling style", I see no evidence whatsoever for a), and anyhow if he is cheating lowering max bet won't help at all. On the contrary, I've seen a LOT of evidence for b), both in what he writes ("I'm not a gambler", "I spot patterns", "it's difficult to quit when you always win", etc.) and in how he plays, and thus I'd coldly and rationally prefer to let math and gambling addiction do their thing until the law of big numbers takes us where we should be. Unfortunately math has been unkind to J-D - I think we should give up the idea of getting it all back quickly. We need less variance so the #s can eventually work in J-D's favor over the long-term without the bankroll being devestated and investors fleeing due to short-term variance. |
|
|
|
Agreed. Max bet at 1% was the only real chance of Nakowa going busto when he starts with his 300BTC bets. I'd rather lose my whole investment because of an incredible (and very unlikely) strike of bad luck, than just taking down the max bet which practically means that we won't be recovering our losses for months...
You are forgetting a very important benefit of lowering the max bet. With a lower max bet he will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is. Depending on how large you currently think the chances of him cheating is, it might actually be +EV to let him continue with a 0.25% max bet... I've watched Nakowa gambling, and I'm obviously not 100% sure that he is not cheating, but I'm willing to bet my whole investment (which anyhow I can afford to lose) on the fact the he is NOT cheating, and thus I'd let him play with max profit 1% of the bankroll until he eventually go busto with his 300BTC bets. In fact, today I've watched him for at least 2 hours in a row. He is losing big time at the moment. I have the impression that if the max profit would not have been lowered, today he would be down many thousands and not just a few hundreds. I have the impression he would have started to push the max bet to recover his losses, which he is actually doing with 60BTC and 70BTC bets (the actual max profit), which eventually would have led him to lose a lot more. Of course this is wild speculation and impossible to know, but given the fact that nakowa has already won +15k coins from the site when the max bet was 4 times higher, lowering the max bet in my opinion is something that plays in his favor, because he won't be able to lose everything as easily as he won it - in fact it will be 4 times harder for him to lose everything, than it was to win it in the first place. That's how I see it... He is down 1000 BTC, he would bet that amount in 5 second before. The change has reduced variance. |
|
|
|
A big +1 to this!!!
This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.
But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.
This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.
Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved. Any strong counterarguments against that? Let's keep things simple - complex systems lead to unintended consequences. Having a sliding scale house edge complicated enough without also have the bankroll percent sliding as well. Right, simple I would not exactly call your solution  Well simpler would be to just have the house edge jump to to 1.5% above 50 BTC, but then we will see lots of 49.999 BTC max profit bets lol. If it gradual, many whales will go above it. |
|
|
|
WHY IS THE MAX PROFIT SET TO 0.25%  This is totally unfair to investors who want to win back their losses from nakowa. This is the first mistake I've seen dooglus make and I hope he fixes it soon. It's totally unfair. Investors are welcome to withdraw their money at any time if they don't like 1%, but its not fair to lower it. At least give investors an option as to how much risk they want to take! I thought the first mistake was when he gave Nakowa 1300 BTC freerolls and then spend a day before deciding to roll back those bids? |
|
|
|
My initial plan was to allow each investor to choose their own house edge and risk level and have them form a market like on an exchange, so the player gets matched by whichever investor(s) are offering the lowest house edge(s). This would result in competition between investors to get gambler action and cause the edge to be the lowest available anywhere. I wonder how such an idea would go down. It would probably result in a few crazy investors offering very low edges, and leave the sensible investors getting matched by none but the biggest bets. (Like how when you ask for more than the current market rate on MtGox when selling coins, you only get matched by the big buy orders).
that would be cool, I love the idea of a market for house edge... You could also do a market for variance: Have a slider for people to choose what their own personal "maximum bet" is (in percentage of bankroll). All of that gets pooled together to be the site's max bet, and returns are proportional to that. Someone that wants low variance can choose 0.1%, someone more aggressive can choose 1% (and someone that wants to really gamble can go > house edge%). This is a way to have investors have a decentralized vote on what the minimum bet should be. Investors would be basically running their own dice site! Investors set their personal edge AND the variance! A big +1 to this!!! This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it. But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out. This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site. Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved. Any strong counterarguments against that? Let's keep things simple - complex systems lead to unintended consequences. Having a sliding scale house edge complicated enough without also have the bankroll percent sliding as well. |
|
|
|
My initial plan was to allow each investor to choose their own house edge and risk level and have them form a market like on an exchange, so the player gets matched by whichever investor(s) are offering the lowest house edge(s). This would result in competition between investors to get gambler action and cause the edge to be the lowest available anywhere. I wonder how such an idea would go down. It would probably result in a few crazy investors offering very low edges, and leave the sensible investors getting matched by none but the biggest bets. (Like how when you ask for more than the current market rate on MtGox when selling coins, you only get matched by the big buy orders).
that would be cool, I love the idea of a market for house edge... You could also do a market for variance: Have a slider for people to choose what their own personal "maximum bet" is (in percentage of bankroll). All of that gets pooled together to be the site's max bet, and returns are proportional to that. Someone that wants low variance can choose 0.1%, someone more aggressive can choose 1% (and someone that wants to really gamble can go > house edge%). This is a way to have investors have a decentralized vote on what the minimum bet should be. Investors would be basically running their own dice site! Investors set their personal edge AND the variance! A big +1 to this!!! This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it. But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out. This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site. Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
img
That doesn't make any sense, why would he wait 2 rolls for everything? It doesn't make sense to me either. I think I either made a mistake, or there are errors in the file I downloaded from dooglus. If you look at Nakowa's actual bet data, he makes a bunch of small bets mixed in with his large bets. If you take his actual data, but just shift one colum so that he wages what he actually wagered 2 rolls earlier, then most the losses line up with the small bets and most of the profits line up with the large bets. This should be statistically impossible. So either I made a mistake, there is an error in the file, or the seed was known by Nakowa and he left a clue for us to find. Nothing impossible, but how improbable is it? 5%, 1%, 0.001%? There is a certain point of improbabiltiy that the chance of a server seed compromise would be more than dumb luck but we need to see the stats to prove it. |
|
|
|
I bought a few more shares at <2.
The divs alone are worth it at this low price.
Only if the dividends are maintained. I think with bitfury shipping and more of the competitors with October/November shipping dates, ASICMiner does not seem to be giving out news indicating it will be able to keep up with this next generation. It was easy when their competition was BFL and Avalon (2 poorly run companies), but now serious competition has come and minig about to be commoditized. You can quote me on this - Asicminer is at 2.2 right now. It will see 1.2 BTC before 3.2 BTC. I'll quote it. Gentlemans wager of 1 BTC? You pick the exchange. I am more like 0.5 BTC sure;) BTCT the exchange on the ASICMINER-PT shares. I win if any trades for 1.2 BTC before 3.2 BTCYou win if vice-versa deall? Sounds good! No short selling on your part. I'll keep to my word. If you worried, we can escrow the bets. Hey kibble, I won our bet! We hit 1 BTC yesterday (below the 1.2 BTC I called before 3.2 BTC). Pay up:) |
|
|
|
Dear Dooglus,
Please explain whether or not we can advertise on your website our sites that do not compete with just-dice (such as our flash casino).
Kind regards,
betcointm
Hi Betcointm, Dooglus does not regularly check this thread since he is very busy with the site. I suggest you either PM him, email him at doog.justdice@gmail.com or go to the J-D chat room since he often there. Maybe if you send him the banner ad and link you intend to advertise on J-D for him to review, he will change his mind. Email is probably your best bet. Until Doog posts here or lets me know otherwise, 2.5 BTC remains the top bid. mechs |
|
|
|
|
Teppy is the current top bid for 2.5BTC
Time remaining:
Timer removed. End time: 2013-09-30+00:00:00UTC
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
