Yay, bitcointalk is back up. Dooglus, have you thought about implementing my method for risk management of investors?
I wish there was a clearly best way of implementing variable risk for investors. Can you explain why 'your way' is better than the way I've described? I think the main difference between the two ways is that I'm saying that every bet should be shared between investors according to how much they are willing to contribute to the maximum profit on the site, and you're saying that investors should share the action only based on their amount invested, disregarding how much each is willing to risk. Is that a fair summary of our positions? |
|
|
|
Funny stuff if you ask me. And I have to say I'm glad to see Nakowa talking some sense, despite of the chance of recovering the losses being smaller without him gambling.
Here are his stats on the new account: wagered: 366.42000000 bets: 30 profit: -120.00000000 losses: 20 wins: 10 |
|
|
|
Was nakowa invested when mechs won?
He had 20% of bankroll, which means he would have lost over 400+ to mechs
Great, that just means Nakowa will come and win another 400 from us to make it up... While I was away from the cold wallet, nakowa ended up with a balance of over 10k BTC which I was unable to cash out for him. Instead he invested it, and asked me to block his account from betting, which I did. So yesterday after mech's win, he was unable to use those 10k BTC to try to win his lost investment back. He asked for a withdrawal while I was sleeping last night, but had reinvested it by the time I woke up. I imagine sooner or later we'll be online at the same time, he'll withdraw, make a new account, redeposit, and try (and probably manage) to regain the coins mechs took from him. The chance of turning 10k into 10.4k is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Looking at the raw bet win/loss numbers, players are winning about 48.5% of the time, so JD is doing a bit better overall than it should.
Did you see that you can change your chance of winning? You can bet at 10% chance of winning and get 9.9 times your stake back if you win, for instance. That's why players are winning 48.5% of all bets - because the hard to win bets are slightly more popular than the easy to win bets. |
|
|
|
Doog, let me ask you a question just made to you on the chat and that peaked my interest: are you acting like the funds on the bankroll were 100% yours, or not? I wonder that too. Normally casinos use their own money to fund their roll, and thus they protect it. In this case, your profit is in the commissions and you are actually totally divested. If that's your business model, I'm fine with it. I would just like to know if: a) are you acting like the money in the bankroll was yours? Not 100%, but at least 50% - I make this differentiation because the "dilution" part is one of the things that is killing investors with losses. if not: b) what would you do if a big part of the casino's roll was yours? No FUD intended, and no harsh feeling from me, but for me the fact you are 100% divested is very telling, and I'm very interested on your reasoned answers on the above. Thank you for addressing our concerns, as always... I missed that question in the chat so thanks for pointing it out. If the funds on the bankroll were 100% my own, I would have shut the site down by now. I would have lost enough already. I wasn't expecting variance to be this much of a bitch at all. I was expecting ups and downs, but not like this. For the first couple of months I felt like the bankroll was mine. I couldn't sleep with the worry that it would be lost. I have found that the only way I can relax is to stop worrying about the bankroll. It's not healthy for me to be constantly stressed about the ups and downs of the site's bankroll. I'm still happy to see it go up, and sad to see it go down, but I'm not as attached to it any more. I think it helped when I put the max profit down to 0.25% and got a massive "no, put it back, we want the variance" from the majority of investors. It made me realise that the investors know what they're doing, and that I don't have to baby them. I still sometimes feel like the best thing to do would be to shut the site down, but then I remember that the investors want the chance to recoup their losses. Having said that, I was watching mechs almost lose everything just now, and hoping he wouldn't. It would have been great for the house if he had lost it all, but so sad for him too. I hope that answers your question, and isn't too disappointing. |
|
|
|
too small house edge, Doog....
Notice he was betting whole numbers of chance to win. If the house edge was 10% instead of 1%, he would have bet the same chances to win, with the same results. The payouts would have been a little lower, but he still would have doubled his 1700 BTC. Of course if the house edge was 10% instead of 1%, his investment would probably have not gone down*, so he wouldn't have withdrawn it to an address on a paper wallet that he then had to spend 2 hours digging through a dumpster to locate, and so wouldn't have got into the state of mind where repeatedly risking it all seemed like a good idea. So maybe you have a point. * it would have stayed at its initial value, because nobody would be playing on the site |
|
|
|
He just made the ten twelve biggest bets since Just-Dice started. Previously the biggest bet was Vinka's 640 BTC at 90% which lost. 2013-10-02 07:34:43 *** fuckit (169618) [#148575723] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:34:53 *** fuckit (169618) [#148575921] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:35:39 *** fuckit (169618) [#148576957] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:42:12 *** fuckit (169618) [#148584193] bet 2170.97057849 BTC at 92% and won 165.18255156 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:43:30 *** fuckit (169618) [#148585325] bet 2336.15313005 BTC at 92% and won 177.75078975 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:48:30 *** fuckit (169618) [#148590355] bet 2513.9037274 BTC at 92% and won 191.27529235 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:49:13 *** fuckit (169618) [#148590882] bet 2513.9037274 BTC at 92% and won 191.27529235 BTC *** 2013-10-02 07:51:02 *** fuckit (169618) [#148591949] bet 2896.4543159 BTC at 92% and won 220.38240367 BTC *** 2013-10-02 08:01:57 *** fuckit (169618) [#148601047] bet 3116.83674877 BTC at 93% and won 201.08624487 BTC *** 2013-10-02 08:12:54 *** fuckit (169618) [#148612542] bet 3317.92314519 BTC at 93% and won 214.05956096 BTC *** 2013-10-02 08:19:29 *** fuckit (169618) [#148618898] bet 3533.97982021 BTC at 95% and won 148.79913916 BTC *** 2013-10-02 08:21:04 *** fuckit (169618) [#148620446] bet 3682.77897204 BTC at 95% and won 155.06436614 BTC *** Then he withdrew: https://blockchain.info/tx/fa6b05b537f1341cbf3c10c74088badb9489a2f282adf17caa99c30f1db55068biggest bets in last 52 weeks
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| betid | bet | profit | chance | uid | date |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| 148620446 | 3682.77897204 | 155.06436614 | 95 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 08:21:04 |
| 148618898 | 3533.97982021 | 148.79913916 | 95 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 08:19:29 |
| 148612542 | 3317.92314519 | 214.05956096 | 93 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 08:12:55 |
| 148601047 | 3116.83674877 | 201.08624487 | 93 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 08:01:57 |
| 148591949 | 2896.4543159 | 220.38240367 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:51:03 |
| 148590882 | 2513.9037274 | 191.27529235 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:49:14 |
| 148590355 | 2513.9037274 | 191.27529235 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:48:31 |
| 148585325 | 2336.15313005 | 177.75078975 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:43:31 |
| 148584193 | 2170.97057849 | 165.18255156 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:42:13 |
| 148576957 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:35:40 |
| 148575921 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:53 |
| 148575723 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:43 |
| 14740956 | 640 | -640 | 90 | 12 | 2013-07-07 18:03:05 |
| 7093577 | 561.29526541 | 5.72750179 | 98 | 35 | 2013-06-29 04:59:20 |
| 13865610 | 500 | 50 | 90 | 12 | 2013-07-06 04:06:40 | |
|
|
|
-snip-
And now:
-snip-
biggest bets in last 52 weeks
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| betid | bet | profit | chance | uid | date |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| 148576957 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:35:40 |
| 148575921 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:53 |
| 148575723 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:43 |
| 14740956 | 640 | -640 | 90 | 12 | 2013-07-07 18:03:05 |
That guy really wants to lose it, doesn't he? I guess... 00:42:14 *** fuckit (169618) [#148584193] bet 2170.97057849 BTC at 92% and won 165.18255156 BTC *** 00:43:32 *** fuckit (169618) [#148585325] bet 2336.15313005 BTC at 92% and won 177.75078975 BTC *** 00:48:31 *** fuckit (169618) [#148590355] bet 2513.9037274 BTC at 92% and won 191.27529235 BTC *** 00:49:14 *** fuckit (169618) [#148590882] bet 2513.9037274 BTC at 92% and won 191.27529235 BTC *** |
|
|
|
Hey, Doog.
Please update the investor balances as it's two weeks behind.
I might add that the sums of (at least) the last two balances (8 & 15 sept) don't add up. The sums I get are 51902.59070647 and 52879.66747491 respectively. I don't list amounts less than 0.0001 BTC, but the total includes them. Does that account for the difference? |
|
|
|
00:01:01 (12141) <mechs> So I just spent 2 hours in a dumpster
00:01:05 (12141) <mechs> literaly
00:01:13 (12141) <mechs> and FOUND THE FUCKING PAPER WALLET!
And now: 00:34:44 *** fuckit (169618) [#148575723] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC ***
00:34:48 (145724) <fsh> ROFL
00:34:54 *** fuckit (169618) [#148575921] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC ***
00:34:54 (139385) <R> Omg!!!
00:34:55 (145724) <fsh> rofl
00:34:58 (145724) <fsh> this is the shit
00:35:03 (152350) <JimC> HOLY SHIT
00:35:02 (145724) <fsh> thats what im talking about
00:35:16 (145724) <fsh> you figured it was lost anyway haha
00:35:18 (145724) <fsh> now STOP.
00:35:27 (145724) <fsh> haha
00:35:33 (139385) <R> Was that mechs??
00:35:41 *** fuckit (169618) [#148576957] bet 1767.51587669 BTC at 92% and won 134.4849098 BTC *** biggest bets in last 52 weeks
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| betid | bet | profit | chance | uid | date |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------+--------+---------------------+
| 148576957 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:35:40 |
| 148575921 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:53 |
| 148575723 | 1767.51587669 | 134.4849098 | 92 | 169618 | 2013-10-02 07:34:43 |
| 14740956 | 640 | -640 | 90 | 12 | 2013-07-07 18:03:05 | |
|
|
|
Ok I misspoke. So far it has been negative EV for the investors that have been invested non stop
I think you're still misspeaking. So far it has been negative for them, but not negative EV. The expectation was positive, but the actual result was negative. |
|
|
|
I am not really familiar with server management or anything, but I am guessing this is not a reasonable option due to the potential increase in server load.
I think the main problem with this "choose a percentage" scheme is that it causes huge swings in the bankroll: A day-trader divests, causing every other investor's share of the bankroll to increase (percentage-wise). All the ones who have set a percentage then auto-divest to get their percentage share back to the amount they requested. This magnifies the effect of the day trader's divest, since now all the percentage investors divest in unison. All the regular non-percentage investors are affected even worse than under the current system. So there's an incentive for them to become percentage investors too. Eventually everyone is a percentage investor, causing all investors to invest and divest in unison, resulting in massive volatility in the bankroll. Maybe? |
|
|
|
Also Dooglus, I would suggest making investors pay for each divest they do. However give every user 1 free divest per day.
This will stop the daytraders that are creating more negative EV for the long investors, and also its still fair to those people that needs quick access to their coins. A non day trading investor will not have used up their free fee and thus have nothing to worry about.
I don't agree that daytraders are creating negative EV for long term investors. By being divested part of the time they increase the long term investor's share of the profits, increasing their EV. It's common for players on the site to invest between playing sessions. I don't think it's fair to penalise them doing so by charging them an extra fee each time they divest to play. It makes them less likely to play at all. |
|
|
|
In a recent PM to me (maybe a week ago), mechs told me:
(06:49:06 PM) mechs: if I thought you were running a scam, I would be nice, divest, and then bad mouth you
I don't get the impression that's what he's doing, but it's an interesting possibility.
I'm so sick of this shit... 00:01:01 (12141) <mechs> So I just spent 2 hours in a dumpster 00:01:05 (12141) <mechs> literaly 00:01:13 (12141) <mechs> and FOUND THE FUCKING PAPER WALLET! 00:01:25 (94995) <BinaryReign> Woooooohoooooo yay mech 00:01:25 (149364) <natasha> grats! 00:01:37 (139385) <R> Congrats!!! 00:01:37 (11) <BuyActivemining> for a piece of paper worth a house I would have jumped into an outdoor shitter 00:01:37 (160228) <puckles> lol 00:01:39 (94995) <BinaryReign> thank god eh? lol 00:01:45 (160228) <puckles> that was scary 00:01:51 (139385) <R> My heart was racing when I read the news 00:01:59 (12141) <mechs> Guys, I did put in the code correctly into withdrawal. But Doog still got the last withdrawal address and exported it there 00:02:00 (94995) <BinaryReign> me to banker lol 00:02:05 (11) <BuyActivemining> time to take a roll and celebrate mechs  00:02:22 (70603) <life> so withdrawal address on this site is not functioning? 00:02:28 (139385) <R> Yeah, it's your lucky day 00:02:34 (12141) <mechs> I did not make an error, the withdrawal mechanism is buggy or Doog made an error and somehow usedmy last wothdrawal address 00:02:35 (147184) <Ramona> mech... here people was asking what you was going to do if not able to recover that wallet 00:02:52 (147184) <Ramona> so now that all happy, enligh us 00:02:54 (10160) <MiningWeTrust> I find that story hard to believe 00:02:54 (12141) <mechs> Ramona: honestly? I already reconciled it was gone. 00:02:58 (147184) <Ramona> what was you going to do 00:03:01 (10160) <MiningWeTrust> but I'm glad you get your coins 00:03:03 (149364) <natasha> that would totally suck if withdrawl not working 00:03:07 (12141) <mechs> thx everyone 00:03:23 (12141) <mechs> but it is really bad....I did not make an error. I copy/pasted 00:03:25 (11) <BuyActivemining> what a windfall  00:03:26 (12141) <mechs> I double checked it 00:03:27 (11) <BuyActivemining> rain! 00:03:35 (147184) <Ramona> LOL 00:03:33 (11) <BuyActivemining> *giggles* 00:03:38 (12141) <mechs> I put in google auth code. And Doog sent to a old withdrawal address 00:03:54 (12141) <mechs> which I had just thrown out this MORNING! 00:04:08 (147184) <Ramona> so you would have simply accepted a quarter milion dollar lost without any consuguence ? 00:04:11 (149364) <natasha> if this is bugged, there could be other bugs too I'm meant to believe that once, and only once, the withdraw form ignored the value typed into it and decided to use a different address? |
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the flood of posts. I've been offline most of the day again today, and had to catch up all at once. I should be online more from now on.
|
|
|
|
Doog: I mentioned this earlier, maybe it was too stupid to deserve a response but could your software and historical rolls be audited by a trusted third party (such as the one used by pokerstars which gave me this: PokerStars shuffle verified by Cigital, PokerStars submitted extensive information about the PokerStars random number generator (RNG) to Cigital. We asked this trusted resource to perform an in-depth analysis of the randomness of the output of the RNG, and its implementation in the shuffling of the cards on PokerStars) or does that lead to potential exploitation as well?
It's not stupid, no. The site uses the standard OpenSSL RAND_bytes call for its randomness. http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/RAND_bytes.htmlI'm not sure what Pokerstars' claim is worth. Their game isn't provably fair. There's nothing to stop them submitting a fair RNG for auditing and then using a different, corrupt RNG to deal their games. Like when a company keeps two sets of books - one to show the auditor and one that tells the truth. I'm not suggesting Pokerstars is corrupt (though it's an accusation I see a lot), but the fact that they have a good RNG doesn't prove that they don't also have a bad one that they use exclusively. |
|
|
|
So is that mech's fault? I'm confused who is at fault.
He claims he entered a different withdrawal address than the server saw in his request. I don't see how that's possible. It looks to me like he put the address he wanted into the 'emergency withdrawal' field, then clicked 'withdraw' and let it default to the last address he had put into the withdrawal address field, which was an address he used to control but no longer does. In a recent PM to me (maybe a week ago), mechs told me: (06:49:06 PM) mechs: if I thought you were running a scam, I would be nice, divest, and then bad mouth you I don't get the impression that's what he's doing, but it's an interesting possibility. |
|
|
|
What if instead of investing a specific amount of bitcoin, there was an option to invest a specific percentage of the bankroll? For example, as others change their investment, yours would automatically adjust stay the same percentage
What if 3 people each set it to 50%? I worry the server might explode. I'm being silly, but you see my point? Each person with a fixed percentage automatically increases their investment when anyone else increases theirs in a never-ending feedback loop? I guess ultimately some of them reach the limit of their bankroll and don't get the percentage they requested. It could work that way. |
|
|
|
graphs should be automated.
investing/divesting should be made easier and faster. (allow remove 2fa for invest/divest only)
multiple chats should be implemented. (one with only investors, one for just high rollers)
return to 1% max profit
no invest/divest fees
flat fee on just profits, even as high as 25%
rewards for high rollers (special colors, characters, names, free rolls, separate chat, etc)
no specific order.
JD should be known for it's simplicity yes, but that doesn't mean a lack of innovation.
of course this is not a democracy. there are no votes. just opinions.
Thanks for your opinions. I do take note of them all, and have a long list of things that need doing. I'm sorry I'm not making much progress on that list. Incidentally, you can configure which things require 2FA codes on the account tab. It's quite possible to set it to require 2FA to divest but not to invest, for instance. Take a look. |
|
|
|
I am prepared to lose the entire investment without BKing myself - even if Doog ran off with the coins or was robbed, or etc. "Or etc." indeed. Is there any chance you can regain access to your old paper wallet? The house luck suggests a 0.51% historical edge which is perplexing to me after 150M bets.
I addressed this yesterday. Did you see it? This is the URL in case you didn't: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242962.msg3274813#msg32748132 of the first million bets at 0.0001% won. That means that a full 1 million of the site's 150 million bets were twice as "lucky" as they should have been. Water that extra 100% luck down by a factor of 150 and you get 100%/150 = 0.66%, giving a total luck of 100.66%. So just one of those two wins at 0.0001% has kept the luck up above 100% since the first week of operation. The fact that the actual luck is currently 100.49% means that ignoring those two wins at 0.0001% the players are actually *less* lucky than they should have been. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
