That's a good point.  I don't notice those bets you make.  When you win one, then I'll notice it. 

It is good that we're able to offer 'lottery' style bets, where you can bet a dollar's worth of coin to win over $60,000.

Without the currently high level of investment that obviously wouldn't be possible.

It's not no-risk.  You must remember when investments took a hit from celeste winning 4 of 5 thousand very quickly.  That can happen again.  I have nightmares about it. 

And I think some people would definitely pull out if the commission was 50%.  It would almost halve their return which would probably make the expected return from a Just-Dice investment lower than that from a CD or various other BTC investments currently available.  So even the investors who did react emotionally (500% rate hike?  screw that!) could well leave just because there would be better deals elsewhere.

Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.  We have plenty of investment.  It's been a long time since we had anywhere near a max bet placed.

Until midnight, Sunday, UTC.

That's 5pm Sunday Pacific, 8pm Sunday Eastern.

How about if everyone copy/pastes this into their bid so it's obvious?

[code]
Timer removed. End time: 2013-09-16+00:00:00UTC

There's a checkbox at the bottom of the 'account' tab now which you can check to have all your deposits auto-invested.

So now you can invest from the comfort of your bitcoin wallet.

The minimum investment amount is still 0.01 BTC.  Deposits smaller than that will be credited to your balance, as before.

All deposits are subject to auto-investment once you check the box, including inputs.io deposits.

10k coins were withdrawn, but 3k of that was gambling winnings.  It still resulted in a 10k decrease in the bankroll, but only 7k of that was due to a divest event.

That's a minus sign: 1% minus 3900.  We seem to be sticking to that line, and we are expected to do so.

It keeps coming up on the site chat.  Most people think that we should get back to the red 1% line, but I disagree.  Once you're off the expected line by X BTC, you expect to stay off it by X BTC.  In our case X=3900 BTC.

That's not to say we won't have a whale come and lose 3900 BTC more than expected to us tonight and put us back on the red line.  But it's just as likely he'll win 3900 BTC more than expected and take us even further below the red line.

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why that's true I'd appreciate it, because I'm never able to convince the chatters that it's the case.  "But the law of law numbers says we'll get back to 1%".  "Yes, we expect to get back arbitrarily close to 1%, but we also expect to stay 3900 BTC below it.  (X-3900)/X tends to 1 as X tends to infinity".  And on it goes...

That's OK, but what if 30 people all try to bet 6.7 BTC on red on the same roll?  Maybe he limits the total bets per spin, not just bets per player, I don't know.

There were plenty of people playing.  The problem was that one of the players was playing for 100 times bigger stakes than the rest of them, and he got very lucky.  The size of his relatively few bets made all the rest of the bets statistically insignificant.

Edit: even now, if we get 5k BTC wagered in a day, we expect to profit by 50 BTC.  But the site limit allows players to win over 500 BTC on a single bet.  So a big player can come in and take (or donate) 10 days' worth of expected profits with a single click.

It confuses me when I see people saying that still.  Even if you invested at the peak before 'celeste' won 4k BTC from the site I would expect you to have been back in profit some time ago.  Here's the chart of site profit over time:



The chart doesn't show how the bankroll size has changed over time.  It's possible that you took a large share of the losses, and a smaller share of the subsequent recovery, but even allowing for that I would expect you to be back in profit by now.

Did you reduce your investment significantly at or near the bottom?  Because that would do it...

What's with the "profit when your friends are also probably winning" line?  That seems misleading.

You profit when they bet, win or lose, right?

And since you have the biggest house edge around, they're more likely to be losing than on any other dice site.

Maybe change it to "your friends will probably lose but who cares because we'll give you your cut"?

If you look at the 'bet id' column, you will see that the numbers go up by more than one each second.  There are lots of bets per second, but the site only shows one per second unless there are 'interesting' bets happening.  There's a threshold over which all bets are sent - so if someone bets 1 BTC ten times in a second, you'll see all ten of them.  Otherwise it's just too bandwidth-heavy to stream all bets to all viewers.

Lots of the bets are probably the work of bots, too.

And 4096 is what you get if you double 1 twelve times.

PrimeDice and CoinRoll both had off-chain betting before Just-Dice was launched.

And what on earth does this have to do with courtesy?  Copying JD's and others' innovations while doubling the house edge doesn't seem very courteous to me.

When I implemented betting via hotkeys I never anticipated that people would use their dicks to bet.

Here's a chart of your "performance".  It droops towards the end:

As I understand it, lots of early investors were able to withdraw much more than they deposited, yes.

I don't understand your second question.  It's not good business to mess up the calculations and allow people to withdraw other people's coins, but that should be obvious.  As to whether it's in his best interest now to try to make up the coins that may be lost, I guess that depends on a whole bunch of things.  Like how much trouble it would cause not to pay them back, how likely he is to be caught, how much he owes, and how much he can expect to make from the site if it ever starts running properly again.

I just read up on it.  It sounds like you want to put a cookie in the browser of all Just-Dice users so that you can recognise them when they later visit other sites, and target them specifically.  Is that right?

If so, that's not something we offer.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  What is a retargeting pixel?

A couple of days ago I put a load balancer in front of the site to help filter out some of the DDoS crap.  As a result the IP logging shows the same address for every visitor - that of the load balancer.  I'll fix that, but until then I don't have any idea of the unique IP addresses per day figure for the last few days.

Page views doesn't mean much at Just-Dice - it's a single page with tabs.  But here are the numbers of different IPs hitting the site per day:

Got a link?

I think the error was failing to recalculate each investor's percentage of the bankroll when new investment came in.

As a simple example.  Suppose there were only 2 investors, you and me.  We both put in 100 BTC.  The bankroll is 200 BTC and we each own 50% of it.  Then a new investor comes along and puts in another 100 BTC.  We should now all own 33% of the bankroll, but I think the software was keeping the percentages at 50%.  So you could withdraw 50% of the new bankroll, or 150 BTC, and so could I.  That would leave the bankroll empty, and the new investor would be out of luck if he also tried to withdraw.

I may be wrong.  The site's owner hasn't released any information about why he no longer has the funds available that people trusted him with, so we can't be sure what really went on.

That sure told him!

You should see how mad his ranting made Deb last night.

I won't copy her words here, but I've never seen such language from a lady before.

Almost all Just-Dice customers have been civil and reasonable, with only a few exceptions.  But this guy assuming the worst and shouting his mouth off when his $3 worth of coins went missing really bothered her.