Yeah tomorrow (after some cuts :S ) new list will be made with all members that will stay. PS: I was just talking with Stunna about that . |
|
|
|
" You seriously fail. " --(your mod) Arrogant  Stop being a whiner and dont gamble with more than you can afford to lose! tl;dr nice gif! i loled  Hehehe... I get this thread in my list of replied so i check it from time to time. And this gif is just awesome !  So true !  Btw PD mod here . |
|
|
|
I'm still Stunna'd by the implications of all of this.
This guy gives away (what appears to be) several bitcoin on a monthly basis for displaying a signature. That means the site revenue must be huuuuuge!
So my question is, who exactly are all these bitcoin-carrying idiots obsessed with virtual dice gambling?
I've never clicked on that ad once, never will.
I understand people look to "get rich quick" in a million different ways here, but you still have to have a certain amount of intelligence in order to operate a bitcoin account.
So how are people smart enough to understand how to get a hold of some bitcoin yet dumb enough to gamble it away on a computer program designed to lose? Makes no sense.
I've heard PD has a bankroll of 240k BTC (Not sure if thats true or not ) but I don't think Stunna has to worry about the signature campaign to much... After Just-Dice went down he must control most of the market, DiceBitco.in is ~1/15th the size of what Just-Dice was Some say that Stunna is Satoshi Nakimoto .... And that his site is hosted on the moon ... All we know is ITS CALLED THE PRIMEDICE !  |
|
|
|
U failed to understand the psyche of big earners. Big earners are big adventurer by nature (unless they are salaried people).
Who is "U"? I can't believe that I'm answering this but.. "u" is a slang for "you" on internet. What is probably yourself that he mentioned in his post. Because of replying to this post Stunna should consider u as a "Not so constructive" poster ...Just Kidding Hehe , so far cuts are happening on sr members, not sure if he will cut off , and how much of hero members . But i rly think this is not such a bad thing. Using ur ref link in sig might make u huge amount of money. Or might show that nobody actually click on that signatures and that all this advertising WAY to overpaid . Paying 30+ btc per month for this is just ridiculous , and we will probably see that after 1 month of using ref links in sig. Or people will earn huge from theirs refs and prove that it was actually worth it. I rly don't have idea how it will turnout. |
|
|
|
I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.
It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.
It's good to see you say that. I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights. It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors. It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them. It seems like this is mostly resolved. Dooglus has once again helped out a site and Stunna has said he'd make it right. It's really nice to see some professionalism on the forums. Stunna maybe you can just keep PD2 up for awhile longer and see how many accounts were effected? Then you could post the user names of who may have coins coming to them and ask that they send you their login credentials (ID # and password) or log into oldprimedice to collect their funds? Dooglus, I, for one, get your point. The rounding error was most pronounced at the high odds bets. I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct? However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge. Thanks to you both. Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better. Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback. Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever . |
|
|
|
There goes my dream of becoming a big earner for primedice.  Hehe ... Don't give up so fast mate. When i found pd i was looking for faucets to earn couple of $$$ per month. Now im earning like 1+ btc per month and didn't typed captcha for months . This month i actually earned almost 2 coins . But yeah this was special month . Just don't give up , work hard, be truthful and honest and u will get there. |
|
|
|
I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised.
Why do you and Stunna keep repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% higher than advertised? I just gave lots of examples of what the house edge actually was: The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets. Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance. On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were). That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge. Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge: >>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055 You even replied to that post, and yet keep on repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% too high. One the 0.01% game the house edge was 50.5%, which is 49.5% too high. On the 0.1% game the house edge was 5.95%, which is 4.95% too high. Sorry to keep repeating this, but I'm not sure why you aren't getting it. Do you not understand what I'm saying? Or do you think that if you keep repeating yourself then people will believe you? The chance of winning a bet was 0.005% lower than advertised. That doesn't mean the house edge was 0.005% too high. The house edge was too high by an amount which depends on the chance of winning. When the chance of winning is meant to be 0.01%, reducing that by 0.005% is halving the chance of winning, and so increasing the house edge to 50.5%, not to 1.005%. Oh sorry , i thought u posted that house edge was 1.005% on average ? I understand that on 9900x house edge was 50.5% . Which is big mistake on devs account . :S . Now its sorted but biggest problem is how to make it right, coz its rly hard, and i know Stunna wants to do it . We talked about it. Making pd3 house edge 0.91% somewhat did that ? Right ? And if he can't find a way to refund that particular players that are affected he will just giveaway that coins to the community ? I think that is pretty cool from him. |
|
|
|
But Primedice isn't as simple as Just-Dice...
I don't think that's true. Just-Dice was doing a lot of pretty complex stuff, keeping track of 1000 different investors, and distributing the profits and losses of every bet in proportion to the size of people's investments. PD has a bunch of "fluff" like achievements and levels, but none of it is really very important to the actual game. As I understand it they're just a bunch of extra counters per player which affect how much the faucet pays you. Yeah that is true, but design , and animations , makes it more pleasing and inviting. Also Chat commands: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg8349172#msg8349172Makes player stay on the site, tips option , transaction log, and all other stuff. Jd is alot different , when players invest in the site they are almost part owners , and they want to promote, they want to advertise, they want to be active on it and so on. So its alot easier when u have army of investors trying to bring as much players on the site as possible. All bugs will be sorted out eventually. |
|
|
|
I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.
It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.
It's good to see you say that. I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights. It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors. It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them. That's why i asked u how would u handle it, he doesn't have email probably like from any of them, also alot of them might not be active, and those who still are they made new accounts on pd3 . So i would say its almost impossible to contact them and refund them even if he finds them all . |
|
|
|
U failed to understand the psyche of big earners. Big earners are big adventurer by nature (unless they are salaried people).
Who is "U"? That asicminertube campaign basically ripped off pd sig design . U should let them know pd actually paid for that signature design so they should at least ask Stunna if they can use it . |
|
|
|
[...]
Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.
I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.
I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply . That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true. I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look. Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post. I also said "it could be more or less"... Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here. Edit: QFT It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.
What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.
With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.
37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier. Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4. I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it. It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue. Just have a happy hour, announce it well in advance so no one can complain about missing it. My understanding is that it's 37500 bets that were affected if every bet made actually has a lower chance of winning than advertised. Don't forget about the little people! I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised. Just my 2 satoshis. |
|
|
|
Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.
I think you still misunderstand the situation. The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets. Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance. On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were). That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge. Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge: >>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055 Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem. I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims. I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply . That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true. Same as 1% house edge even in long run might not be even close to that, as i think it was the case with jd ? On jd house got only like 0.3% profit right ? |
|
|
|
What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.
That's a reasonable argument. The site is indeed provably fair, and he did get a fair roll. The documentation is wrong about just how that fair roll happens, and indeed the methods (for there are 2 - one in words and one in code and they're different) described in the documentation both would lead to unfair rolls if they were actually how things were done. So all that needs to happen is for the documentation to be fixed and everything's fine. I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc? Well jd did not change much. PD3 is made from scratch , so yeah i expected some issues at the start. |
|
|
|
If only verification documentation is wrong what it seems to be than i guess its not that bad situation ?
I don't know if it's that clear cut. If you launch a site with the documentation saying "we are provably fair because we do A, B, C to generate your rolls" but what you actually do is "A, B, D", then when the outcome of A, B, C and A, B, D differ, such that the player would have won if you did what you said you were going to do, but he loses because you actually do something different... then it seems like he has a winnable case there. He took you at your word that you were doing A, B, C but it turned out you weren't doing that at all, and the difference caused him to lose. I think dev has that already updated but as i said he wasn't online for whole day , he shoulda pushed some other updates today also .
I think the code snippet was updated recently. It was just updated wrongly, making it even worse than before since now it often computes very low rolls, like the 00.02 in the case that brought the error to light. What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed. I personally feel that your point about the "difference' causing him to lose is invalid, would he have adjusted his client seed etc knowing that the system used was different? This only seems to be important after the fact given that he lost. I'm doing my best to provide a fair experience, I'm also working on code so I can be less reliant on developers to solve these sorts of issues. At the end of the day though his roll was fair and unmanipulated. Also coinfist is a shill for another casino: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=365873;sa=showPosts (Notice all his posts are him screaming that PD is a scam in all caps) I'm not refunding him 0.01 which he lost placing a 100% fair bet. He literally created his forum account to simply type anti PD posts. Instead of proving that the verification section text was incorrect you should instead try and prove that he did not get a 100% fair bet. Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly. Actually i think it was 1.005% ? |
|
|
|
If only verification documentation is wrong what it seems to be than i guess its not that bad situation ?
I don't know if it's that clear cut. If you launch a site with the documentation saying "we are provably fair because we do A, B, C to generate your rolls" but what you actually do is "A, B, D", then when the outcome of A, B, C and A, B, D differ, such that the player would have won if you did what you said you were going to do, but he loses because you actually do something different... then it seems like he has a winnable case there. He took you at your word that you were doing A, B, C but it turned out you weren't doing that at all, and the difference caused him to lose. I think dev has that already updated but as i said he wasn't online for whole day , he shoulda pushed some other updates today also .
I think the code snippet was updated recently. It was just updated wrongly, making it even worse than before since now it often computes very low rolls, like the 00.02 in the case that brought the error to light. Tnx for explanation dooglus. |
|
|
|
This is like PRC's "sjess" problem all over again, only worse.
Interesting
OK, so it's a different situation. At PRC dice they designed a bad provably fair algorithm that rolled 'high' too often, implemented the bad design perfectly, someone discovered it, exploited it, profited, but wasn't allowed to withdraw. At PD here the provably fair algorithm was bad during beta, I pointed it out, they fixed it, but didn't update the documentation or the verification script. I pointed that out and they tried to fix the verification script but got that wrong. So PRC had a bad design, correctly implemented and correctly documented. PD had a good design, correctly implemented but poorly documented. I expect Stunna would argue that the site is working as intended, that only the documentation is wrong, so "suck it". Except he'd use better words. If only verification documentation is wrong what it seems to be than i guess its not that bad situation ? I think dev has that already updated but as i said he wasn't online for whole day , he shoulda pushed some other updates today also . |
|
|
|
Why does PD3 even offer pvp if there's no house edge? Just wondering what's in it for them, as they say.
Bit more interest from the players. Fun for players. Nothing much, just that buzz about pd pvp . |
|
|
|
Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that. Explanation please?
That has happened with me as well. Says three refs but only two show up. Happy to know it's not just me. Waiting for explanation please. That's weird , probably has to do with issue i told torba to fix , like if u have more than 30 refs it won't show them all , so he will make scroll there , but for that idk what could be. But ur ref is probably there in db, so that should be an easy fix. As for that bet , i will try to figure it out while we wait for dev or somebody else to see whats up . |
|
|
|
My commission is updated now to 20% so should be fun to see how it will go in the next few days . Is the 20% applied only to your new future ref earning, or is it applied retrospectively to all your ref earning? Only to new earnings . I earned 0.34btc with 10% commission. |
|
|
|
Stunna,will you pay me the posts from 7.17-8.17?
This is a topic for sig campaign: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291387Lol i just sent 0.015 btc tip to one of my refs, now everybody wants to be my ref Hahaha... LOL guys it doesn't work like that . Joe made me 0.044 btc and i sent him only small part of that back . If it makes you profit why wouldn't you send part of the profit back to all your new refs? But if you say it won't work like that for you, then.... Guys, that is exactly how it works with me! Sing up under my ref and I will tip 30% of my profits back to you!30% back link: https://primedice.com/?ref=HoldaajaLOL , it doesn't work like that , i meant u can't just register under my ref and expect me to pay u LOL . Ofc as u see when my refs make me profit i send them like idk depending how much they need , i would give them up to 80% back depending on how much they earned me. But i won't get much refs , i hate to post ref links . I have ref link in my sig only . Actually you did post your ref link in this thread when PD3 came out And you might not have much refs but you have got a lot commission from them. I haven't got nearly as lucky as you:  Yeah i did once . But that mostly doesn't work. . My commission is updated now to 20% so should be fun to see how it will go in the next few days .  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
