Thank you

Does that make Just-Dice "the most popular Bitcoin betting game in the universe"?

The previous "most popular Bitcoin betting game in the universe" has less than 6 million bets after more than a year of operation... 

It's unlikely, but by no means impossible.  I don't want to be in the position where I have to say "sorry, I can't pay your interest because I risked more than I could afford to risk".

1% is apparently the optimal amount to risk per event when the house edge is 1% (if you want to maximize the log of expected bankroll growth - or some such).  That's how I chose it.  It turns out that it's pretty rare for people to bet more than 1 BTC per roll, let alone 500 BTC, so it's pretty much academic at this point.

If I was just in this for the money, the rational move would be to hike commission rates drastically.  The site doesn't need anywhere near as much investment as it currently has.  But I enjoy having lots of small investors, and giving lots of people somewhere fun to invest.

The old magic is still strong:

That address is a deposit address for account 105793.

You weren't logged in as 2700 when you requested a deposit address, so the site made you a new account.  Your deposit is waiting for you in that account.

If you can't access it, email the address at the end of the FAQ tab and I'll have you sign a message with the address you deposited from and then transfer the coins to your real account.

If I was to borrow 50,000 BTC and guarantee to pay interest on the loan, I am at great risk of defaulting.  The site risks up to 1% of the whole bankroll on every dice roll.  That means that a lucky player can do massive damage to the bankroll pretty quickly.  I don't want to wake up one morning and find that I only have 30k left of the 50k I borrowed, and have to come up with the extra 20k from somewhere, plus interest.  I don't have that kind of money.  If I did, I wouldn't need investors at all.

So instead I ask the investors to assume all the risk, in exchange for 90% of the net profits the site makes on their coins.  That way I don't have to worry about losing to big players.

There's a single bankroll, which grows and shrinks as players gamble.  So in a sense investor profits are compounded, but they're all compounded together, so each investor's share of the bankroll stays the same (until the next invest/divest action).  The maximum profit per roll is calculated per roll, as 1% of the current bankroll, so you only notice the "compounding" effect when a player is placing max bets (which almost never happens).

Is it time?

I think when you're trying to disguise that your slot machine keeps 12% of wagered amount, saying "88% payout" does the trick.

If you're trying to advertise that the payout is good, "1% edge" looks better than "99% payout".

For example, comparing JD to SD:

* 99% vs. 98.1% makes them look similar - both close to 100%, but
* 1% vs. 1.9% makes it look like JD is about twice as good as SD

But maybe that's just me.

I hope you get over the sinus troubles soon mem.

If there's anything I can do to help with list v3 let me know!

I've not, and it's an interesting question.

I don't know of a short yet accurate way of expressing what the 99% would mean.

"up to 99% payout" makes it sound like that's the most you can win.  But some people receive 200% payouts.

"99% expected payout" is mathematically correct, but only for a precise definition of 'expected', which is contrary to the layman's understanding of the word.

SatoshiDice always used to say "over 98% breakeven odds" which is as far as I can tell either completely meaningless or inaccurate.

I guess we could say "99% RTP" and hope people know it stands for Return To Player - but probably not many do.

It's hard for me to know what "most people" would understand best.  I've been around this stuff too long.

It was even suggested we should advertise "0.6% historical house edge", since the house has retained less than 0.6% of the total wagered over the course of 98 million bets...  but that seems a little deceptive.

I added a section at the bottom of the 'invest' tab giving some signature code that can be used on these forums to advertise the site.


It's in investors' interest to try to attract more players to the site.

No, but if you need a list of your bets I can provide it to you.

I was negatively impacted by this.  One of your regular players, SWS, came over to Just-Dice when he couldn't play at PrimeDice and has consistently beaten the house.

I demand compensation! 

I didn't ever plot that data.  Mostly because it would look very much like this:

  http://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=14o7zMMUJkG6De24r3JkJ6USgChq7iWF86

That's the cold wallet address, where the majority of the invested coins are stored.  The rest, which I need for day-to-day withdrawals are elsewhere, but a chart of invested amount over time would look very similar to that chart.

Coinbase are often very slow to send coins when you ask them to.  Probably the delay was caused by that.

We get this question all the time at Just-Dice.  Coins sent from CoinBase regularly take several hours or more before the transaction is broadcast to the bitcoin network.  I've no idea why that happens, but almost every time someone complains "my deposit didn't go through" I investigate and find the answer is "CoinBase didn't even send the transaction yet".

They're not on the site, but I generate them on an almost daily basis and post them in the on-site chat when asked.

'celeste' is by far the biggest player we've had so far.  For a while he was betting 222 BTC (close to the max bet at 2x at the time) over and over, and at one point hit it 9 times in a row, costing us around 2000 BTC of profit in just a few seconds.  There's a screenshot in this article:

http://coindesk.com/bitcoin-gambler-cheats-satoshidice-competitor-just-dice-out-of-1300-btc/

(Don't mind the sensational headline - I accidentally forgot to debit his account 1300 when he cashed out.  He then proceeded to play and lose the 1300 that shouldn't have been in his account, and I 'rolled back' the bets he made, so effectively those bets never happened and nothing was lost)

Yeah.  The profit line is the total amount the site has won from gamblers since launch.  So it's also how much the investors would be up if I didn't charge commission.

The 1% line shows 1% of the total amount wagered.  The site has a 1% house edge, and so the 1% line is where we would expect the profit line to be.  As you can see, we're nowhere near it, due to a bad run against "celeste" early on.

The "1% - 3900" line is parallel to the 1% line, but 3900 BTC lower.  After being 4k down, we expect to stay 4k down.  The law of large numbers says that profits will approach 1% given long enough, but that's not because the 4k shortfall gets recovered, it's because the 4k shortfall becomes increasingly insignificant as the profits increase.  Plotting the 1% line on all the charts would cause lots of the detail to be lost, so I draw in a parallel line, closer to the actual profit which allows you to see how we're doing this week relative to how we 'should' be doing.

Is that clear?  I can try again if not.

Maybe some charts will help give you a sense of how the site profits tend to move around:

1. all time



2. the last month



3. the last 2 weeks



4. the last few days



I've changed the graphs so they plot the profit every 10 seconds (it was every minute before, which was causing lots of spikes to be missed out) and also the vertical gridlines are aligned with commission runs on the first 3 charts.

Oh that's good then.  That was my biggest concern about advertising at the Silk Road site.

It's been a long time, but here's an update: