How lucky one needs to be to beat expectation with 40k?
Lets bet 400 on >50.5 say 10000 times. We only need to win 5100 times, right?
No, I don't think that is right, for two reasons: 1) if you win 5100 times, you win (5100*400)-(4900*400) = 80k. Not 40k. So you're off by a factor of two there 2) if expectation is to lose 25k, to beat it by 40k you 'only' have to win 15k. That means winning 5018 times (5018*400 - 4982*400 = 14400) So you 'only' need to win 5018 and lose 4982 to be around 40k better than expectation. How likely is that to occur? Is that the 2.1% on that histogram we always see posted? |
|
|
|
Lastly, this has been a gut-wrenching experience as an investor. I was prepared for losses, but not for the amounts sustained for 3 reasons:
1. The speed and improbability of the losses. We have huge losses that occur in very short order
2. Magificaition of losses inflicted upon passive investors at those who successfully "day trade" their investment. These investors sustain bigger losses than the site
3. Much harder to get back to even since investor take losses and then get diluted by new investor (or day trading ones) after the drop. In the last example, Nakowa brought the site down to 36k BTC and then invested over 12k himself diluting all other investors by over 25%. He causes losses (due to whatever improbable mechanism) on his wagers and then he profits from the sites over the smaller wagers which tend to behave +EV. It seems Nakowa has been able to overcome the +EV for his large bets for whatever reason (variance, luck, a good system, a flaw in RNG or cheating)
At the very least, the risks of points 2 & 3 should be added to the FAQ in the name of full disclosure. I must admit my morale is shot to hell at this point looking at 30%+ losses and greatly diluted bankroll percentage due to all the reinvestment (by nakowa and daytraders).
Please, please take this in the spirit in which it's intended. I'm not trying to mock you. Mechs, in all honesty, I think you really should consider divesting, or at least severely reducing your investment. You don't seem to take this well. I sympathize with you. I once played poker pretty regularly, and I was decent at it. Eventually I made my way up the limits a bit, but then I had a string of bad beats at a couple grand a pop, and I realized it was too much, I couldn't take the swings. So I stopped and played less regularly, and only 1-3NL $100 max tables. Here on Just Dice, same deal, I'd love to put in a hundred BTC, but it's too much risk for me. So I was at 15btc for a while, and with the recent variance I dropped to 10. I'm in it more because I find the website to be fascinating than because I think it's a rock solid investment (in fact, I think investment is a misnomer here). From your postings I think it's abundantly clear that this is too much risk/variance for you. Maybe just re-invest when there's variable risk, or doog drops to 1/10 kelly or something. But not your full stack of Bitcoins. I think your reply was very polite. I went into this investment realizing I could lose coins - even all of them due to fraud. I did not anticipate the amount and speed through "normal" gambling activity since noone could predict a Nakowa and the results he has had. The max profit did not really enter into the equation when first considering this investment since I figured noone would be spamming 300+ BTC bets. Obviously, in hindsight, this was an incorrect assumption. My dilemma, like the majority of investors (esp the passive ones), is I am already significantly down in my investment but I do believe in the math. To quit when down due to variance is the exact opposite thing to do. I am prepared to lose the entire investment without BKing myself - even if Doog ran off with the coins or was robbed, or etc. It just that we are so far from what would be considered likely results that it is hard to reconcile. And when you are 35% down and getting constantly diluted, it is frustrating indeed. The house luck suggests a 0.51% historical edge which is perplexing to me after 150M bets. Anyway, I know I am merely vocalizing the concerns of many other investors and concerns Doog himself has brought up. |
|
|
|
A wagered amount of 3,773,544 with a house edge of 1% implies expectation of bank profit of 37,735.
JD is 40,000 below expectation. That is 3-4 Nakowas. Rather strange.
Everyone agrees the results are improbable. The question is is it so improbable it more likely their a fault with the RNG or a cheat of some sort. |
|
|
|
I don't like the investment fee, I think investment should be encouraged by being totally free.
On the contrary, I'm entertaining the idea that a divestment fee applied on profit only could be good for the long term investors and thus the Casino. It would be a fee independent from the weekly one, and it could be redistributed between investors that did not divest, being a reward for maintaining a stable roll for the Casino. At first sight it seems to me a nice way to minimize the risk of "bank run", which was the main concern during nakowas winning streaks.
I like a divestment fee and it should only kick in if you divest more than once every 10 days. |
|
|
|
Currently at 1.1BTC. My wager: we hit 0.55BTC on any of the three (soon to be two) main exchanges - haverlock, bitfunder or btct before we hit 2.2BTC. Basically I bet we will go down 50% before we double. Anyone want to take that bet for 1BTC?
I think it will go even lower. Ditto. Listen, if they fall so behind they can neither sell or mine at a profit, they will go to 0 after they pay out any residual profits in a final dividend. This really is a all-or-none situation hence the volatility Makes sense to me. I personally believe that AM will not hit 0, they will pull something out and manage to hold a spot at the Big Boys table. The amount of time it takes them to establish that could easily bring the price below 0.5฿. This is make or break and the price is screaming that reality. +1 The only way to really know if it going to 0 is to know what FC really up to. Unless you have insider info, that is all just hunches and guesses. |
|
|
|
ok so, I think, in short, if he also invests, i.e. has a strategy for gambling and investing, and also has more coins than the house, then he practically controls it. He almost is the house then. But usually houses don't gamble. No wonder why people feel cheated.
Also because he gambles large amounts himself he has first-hand (or rather zeroth hand) knowledge about when to invest or divest, i.e. can react the fastest. It's like insider trading.
He fully divests when he gambles I think. The problem is the "low bet" action which tends to me profitable he dilutes other investors out to capture. His "high bet" action when he invariably wins at he is divested for and the passive investors see their exposure increase up to 50% between him divesting and active investors divesting. If he has 50% bankroll, does that change the house edge for him. No but it has seemed to allow him to overcome the house edge through a mixture of persistent and variance. You would think you could replicate the results with someone with a 1000 bankroll and making bets of 20, as the same with him with a 10,000 bankroll making bets of 200. However, whenever I try to do so in simulators, I cannot get Nakowa's results even after 100 trials. Of course at 1000 and 10000 trials we can get the same results, so his results not impossible but merely improbable. The problem is it is enough to raise serious doubts for investors. Especially since other sites such as coinroll.it and primedice are profitable with a serious edge. However, they do have a much smaller max bet (3 BTC and 40 BTC respectively). I honestly do not understand it from a mathematical perspective beyond saying improbable occurances occur often at J-D, especially for Nakowa. The site's user luck of 10.49% after 150million bets is also strange since it is an effective historical house edge of 0.51%. I know Doog made some changes to the RNG to try and increase the randomness though arguable it the changes should make little difference. If there a entropy problem, it is in the server seeds and not the algorithm. |
|
|
|
The only way to make fair to investors is to pull the random number from a provable RNG such as a hardware one. Services such as random.org offer this. Of course, this translate CP risk from the OP now to a different 3rd party. Also, you would not have the standard type of provable fairness, though any player could audit random.org (or any other true RNG service) to prove the #s are fair to the player in that way. I think that would satisfy most players. Not sure if more investors would prefer blinding the OP to the random numbers but transferring it to a 3rd party.
lets say it would be possible and it would give players, the OP and the investors a fair shot, why not test it over a week or even more (for example) and lets see how the whale will perform, or he will not show up at all. sure the whale could come and play and could have luck or he will lose and say goodbye because he has no chance without a cheat he might have. the question what OP and investors should ask themselves is if it is worth to have a whale with a cheat and losing all the money to the whale or to recover with the time without the whale (cheat). sure it is not proven yet that the whale has a cheat. but the signs are more and more pointing in this direction. therefore a test period where the player, OP and investors are Provably fair could clear things up. just my 2 cents The problem is Dooglus will resist saying how do you know random.org will not cheat. What would be your counter to that? I would say that if random.org is accepted by all investors it should be fine for Dooglus because he is not invested and if he is invested I would ask him to divest for the given time because he and the whale are the real winners for now. I think that random.org can close tomorrow if they would cheat or let it happen. also it would be good for Dooglus(JD) reputation and it will give a big advertisement bonus for JD. the other question is are You sure that random.org is the only solution? No there are other true random number services. Random.org just one of the best known ones [/quote] |
|
|
|
Currently at 1.1BTC. My wager: we hit 0.55BTC on any of the three (soon to be two) main exchanges - haverlock, bitfunder or btct before we hit 2.2BTC. Basically I bet we will go down 50% before we double. Anyone want to take that bet for 1BTC?
I think it will go even lower. Ditto. Listen, if they fall so behind they can neither sell or mine at a profit, they will go to 0 after they pay out any residual profits in a final dividend. This really is a all-or-none situation hence the volatility |
|
|
|
The only way to make fair to investors is to pull the random number from a provable RNG such as a hardware one. Services such as random.org offer this. Of course, this translate CP risk from the OP now to a different 3rd party. Also, you would not have the standard type of provable fairness, though any player could audit random.org (or any other true RNG service) to prove the #s are fair to the player in that way. I think that would satisfy most players. Not sure if more investors would prefer blinding the OP to the random numbers but transferring it to a 3rd party.
lets say it would be possible and it would give players, the OP and the investors a fair shot, why not test it over a week or even more (for example) and lets see how the whale will perform, or he will not show up at all. sure the whale could come and play and could have luck or he will lose and say goodbye because he has no chance without a cheat he might have. the question what OP and investors should ask themselves is if it is worth to have a whale with a cheat and losing all the money to the whale or to recover with the time without the whale (cheat). sure it is not proven yet that the whale has a cheat. but the signs are more and more pointing in this direction. therefore a test period where the player, OP and investors are Provably fair could clear things up. just my 2 cents [/quote] The problem is Dooglus will resist saying how do you know random.org will not cheat. What would be your counter to that? |
|
|
|
ok so, I think, in short, if he also invests, i.e. has a strategy for gambling and investing, and also has more coins than the house, then he practically controls it. He almost is the house then. But usually houses don't gamble. No wonder why people feel cheated.
Also because he gambles large amounts himself he has first-hand (or rather zeroth hand) knowledge about when to invest or divest, i.e. can react the fastest. It's like insider trading.
He fully divests when he gambles I think. The problem is the "low bet" action which tends to me profitable he dilutes other investors out to capture. His "high bet" action when he invariably wins at he is divested for and the passive investors see their exposure increase up to 50% between him divesting and active investors divesting. |
|
|
|
Did anyone try to explain to nakowa that the site can't possibly be rigged at all because math?
This guy is rich, so his logic is "Fuck logic". I wonder if his system would continue to work with a smaller max bet. I mean he ran a bot for 12 hrs straight mostly spamming max bets and wound up 2000 ahead. |
|
|
|
|
Currently at 1.1BTC. My wager: we hit 0.55BTC on any of the three (soon to be two) main exchanges - haverlock, bitfunder or btct before we hit 2.2BTC. Basically I bet we will go down 50% before we double. Anyone want to take that bet for 1BTC?
|
|
|
|
Is ASICMINER ever going to stop going down?
I think this ends at 0 if they fall enough behind that their miners unprofitable to produce. |
|
|
|
Everyone calling just-dice a scammer.
I mean I just bet , 1 out of 17 was higher than 50 , 16 of them were lower , I won 1 out of a million once but my luck was still %313 , think of how unlucky I need to be in order for that to happen , but it still happened , do I call them a scammer? Well I kinda do , but in your way , I mean you guys create conspiracy theories and all , I just bluntly say they are screwing us in front of us , but at least they are not hiding it right? Its called house edge, if you win long enough you lose all. Simple as that.
It's provably fair, the only part you can't prove is that someone else doesn't know the secrets. In that aspect it may be better to gamble than invest because when you invest there's no provably fair. I don't think it is ever a good idea to gamble  But I don't think Nakowa knows them. He is just a lucky guy, who for some reason, can't take his money and run. He has no reason to leave when he 16k up all-time and consistently winning. If he lost a big chunk he would stop, at least for a while. Then again, if he ever loss, he would accuse the site of cheating. He just that type of guy. Good results are skill, bad results in a rigged game. |
|
|
|
Isn't there a way to set up a server that generates the server seeds and sends them to just-dice, but that doesn't allow those seeds to be read out ahead of time, i.e. before they are sent?
You'll always have an entity that is able to determine the server seed. Can you explain why that is the case? Isn't there a way to set up as a system that, once it is running, doesn't allow changes to it anymore, i.e. it does what it needs to do (sending server seeds, reveal one if asked by player), but doesn't allow additional changes or attempts to read out data? If that is a problem that is provably impossible to solve (say, a know problem in CS), then I'm not going to continue arguing of course To calculate the result of the roll, the server MUST have the server & player seeds, and the nonce. With those three pieces of info it calculates the hash and generates the pseudorandom variable. The service is called "Provably Fair" because it is fair in the sense that since we have the hash of the server seed ahead of time, we can see that the server did not alter the server seed to alter the result of the roll. However, that doesn't protect you from the server (or someone with access to the server, such as [theoretically] Dooglus or a hacker), from knowing the server seed, and thus knowing what number will roll each time, thus allowing that person to bet in such a way that they eventually come out a winner, even if they win/lose in the right proportions and make their play seem random. I AM NOT TRYING TO SPREAD FUD. I am simply explaining the weakness of the system (Again, Dooglus said this stuff himself at the beginning of the thread). There are ways of avoiding this situation where the server knows the server seed before you choose hi/lo, but it involves using, for example, the blockchain, since that is a trustless source of consensus. The way it works (I know some sites do this), is that you chose your roll (hi/lo) or whatever before block T is found, and then after the block T comes out, the roll is calculated as Hash(part of block T, client seed,....) etc. The problem is this is slow. If you want the fast style of play like in JD, then you need trust, ** as of right now **. If you can find a way to keep the fast style of play and make the system trustless, that would be an amazing innovation. I don't think it'd be correct to say it's impossible, it simply hasn't been developed yet. Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I should also say, I trust dooglus. It's more out of curiosity that I'm wondering if a trustless system not involving the blockchain could be set up... Can you explain what is wrong with the following set-up: 1) the rng server/seed server 2) the usual just-dice server 3) the player. the rng server allows exactly the following 3 calls made from outside: - give me a random number (including a timestamp and a hash of the server seed that was used) - reveal a server seed (this call be made exactly once per seed, the 2nd time it returns "already revealed") - shutdown (needs a password, only dooglus has it) Gambling works as follows: Player sends player seed and some 'bet identifier' to the seed server. Seed server generates a random number and sends it to player and just-dice server. Just-dice server does the rest (size of bet, storing the result, adding/deducting amount from players account etc). Say an attacker wants to know the server seed you are using. He can ask the server to reveal it, but you will be able to tell afterwards (since the server doesn't allow revealing more than once). It doesn't prevent cheating in this way, but it makes it visible. Say an attacker somehow intercepts the random number generated by the seed server. That's where the time stamp could help I think: tampering will take time, which will show itself in a delay between time stamp and bet executed on the just-dice server. How to prevent reading out information if you have physical access to the server? Don't know if that's possible. Is there a way to encrypt more or less the entire execution of a program? The only way to make fair to investors is to pull the random number from a provable RNG such as a hardware one. Services such as random.org offer this. Of course, this translate CP risk from the OP now to a different 3rd party. Also, you would not have the standard type of provable fairness, though any player could audit random.org (or any other true RNG service) to prove the #s are fair to the player in that way. I think that would satisfy most players. Not sure if more investors would prefer blinding the OP to the random numbers but transferring it to a 3rd party. |
|
|
|
The fact is confidence in the site amoung investors is falling precipitously. When investors all leave, the site will die. Also, Dooglus' rep will be badly tarnished whether the allegations are true or not due to their statistical improbability. Also, just as an observation, it is interesting at 0.25% we immediately became profitable and at 0.5% investors again losing badly. Also the luck of the players at 100.49% after 150 million bets is odd since that implies an historical effective edge of 0.51%. I think the plan to add a variable risk profile for investors will siginificantly increase complexity and variance for individual players. I am in favor of keeping things simple with a fixed max profit per bet. Our direct competitors who are trustbred are coinroll.it (3 BTC max profit) and primedice (40BTC max profit). We are not over 250 BTC. At the very least, we should increase the house edge for larger max profit bets. It will still put us ahead of the competitors. Lastly, this has been a gut-wrenching experience as an investor. I was prepared for losses, but not for the amounts sustained for 3 reasons: 1. The speed and improbability of the losses. We have huge losses that occur in very short order 2. Magificaition of losses inflicted upon passive investors at those who successfully "day trade" their investment. These investors sustain bigger losses than the site 3. Much harder to get back to even since investor take losses and then get diluted by new investor (or day trading ones) after the drop. In the last example, Nakowa brought the site down to 36k BTC and then invested over 12k himself diluting all other investors by over 25%. He causes losses (due to whatever improbable mechanism) on his wagers and then he profits from the sites over the smaller wagers which tend to behave +EV. It seems Nakowa has been able to overcome the +EV for his large bets for whatever reason (variance, luck, a good system, a flaw in RNG or cheating) At the very least, the risks of points 2 & 3 should be added to the FAQ in the name of full disclosure. I must admit my morale is shot to hell at this point looking at 30%+ losses and greatly diluted bankroll percentage due to all the reinvestment (by nakowa and daytraders). |
|
|
|
Again my losses grow and my break even point increases in relation to the house profit... Yesterday at this exact point in house profit my losses were lower, and BTW my share in the house roll has been diluted dramatically.
That is because after nakowa damaged the house for another 1500, he then invested 12k into the site |
|
|
|
How about introducing "copy trades" like many forex brokers are offering. at JD it would mean "copy bets"
How does it work - do the copy bets get the same rolls as nakowa? If not, I don't see anyone wanting to do it, and if so, we would quickly exceed the max profit per bet. What do casinos do about that? If I'm betting max bet on a blackjack hand, is a spectator allowed to bet on my hand as well? Probably it's only allowed if the total bet doesn't exceed the table limit, right? Worst. Idea. Ever. |
|
|
|
Dooglus. That 3.6m total wagered is an impressive number. It might be more impressive PR-wise to put a US$ equivalent of it in the top right. Ticking over like the US debt clock  it could attract media attention. It does not make any sense to convert all btc wagered at current btc/usd price. If btc price double up, the amount wagered (in usd) should not change. It would make sense to take the current btc/usd price of every bets, and make a cumulative number. But it would be very difficult, and I am not sure that it will be possible to calculate it for past bets. You could say amount of BTC wagered converted to current value in USD. Why USD? That shows at least a minimum level of support for the U.S dollar. Why not BTC converted to gold (troy) ounces? THe USD is currently the most international currency so it will reach the widest audience. Only gold bugs undersrand troy ounces |
|
|
|
The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%. This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%. With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%. Is that logic correct? If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?
If I understand things correctly, the luck percentage has the house edge built in already. The luck percentage displayed shows how many rolls you have won compared to how many you 'should' have won. The luck percentage should, over time, be very close to 100%. Really? I think luck is supposed to approach around 101%. Dooglus made a comment about it being above 101% before. I thought luck is deviation from expected results. So with enough wagers, it invariably trend towards 100% It is not take into account bet sizes, only outcomes so it should have minimal effect from variance. It is a good test of how well the RNG is working. I feel like after 146 million wagers, a player luck of 100.49% seems high. Not sure how one would go about testing that. If I remember well, doog explained once that the luck % had been boosted by numerous successful very low odds bets. Variance. Variance everywhere ! That makes sense with 1 million bets, not with nearly 150 million |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
