Ah, I see and understand more clearly now. Thanks for putting it that way, and I apologize for missing it previously.
I only just noticed I messed up the quoting in my first post so it was hard to see that I had written anything. It's fixed now. I also edited the post you just replied to after you replied, giving the calculation I used to determine the stake and payout multiplier. Now speaking just about martingales, eliminating the all-in, 1 bet approach. Is it more profitable to have a shorter martingale such as the 2 bet sequence, or say have a 10 bet sequence? Logic is telling me that perhaps the 2 bet sequence is better than the 10 bet sequence, but I could just be misled. For all I know, they have the same probability factor.
The more steps you break the bet down into, the less you are expected to risk, and so the greater your chance of winning. I believe that in the limit as number of steps approaches infinity, the amount risked approaches zero, your expected losses approach zero, and so your chance of winning approaches your chance of winning with a single bet on a zero house edge game. But let's keep that quiet, eh?  |
|
|
|
So the martingale has a better probability for turning 1000 into 1010, but how does the math change if you were to try to go from 1000 to 2000? I wonder if the martingale would still have a higher chance of winning than a single bet?
Yes. No matter what you're trying to do, two bets are better than one. I posted previously about how to turn 1 BTC into 2 BTC, and have modified the quote here, multiplying everything by 1000: If you want to double your money, you have a higher chance if you place multiple bets than if you place a single bet. You have to pick the right multiple bets of course.
It's really quite easy to demonstrate:
If you place a single bet, then the chance of doubling your money is 49.5%.
Now consider this 2 bet sequence:
1. bet 414.21356 BTC with payout 3.41421356x and chance 28.99642866% to win 1414.21356 BTC for a profit of 1000 BTC
2. if you lose, bet 585.78644 BTC at the same payout and chance to win 2000 BTC for a net profit of 1000 BTC.
Your overall chance of success is 49.58492857%. That is higher than 49.5%.
(Note that those bets aren't exactly available on Just-Dice, since chance is only available to 4 significant figures, but that's just a nit-pick. It's still possible to double your money with a higher than 49.5% chance using 2 bets, and not using 1 bet).
In both cases you're going to run into the 'max profit' limit on Just-Dice, but we can ignore that for the purposes of this discussion. If you're wondering where I got the numbers from, here's the calculation. "have" is how much we start with, and "gain" is how much we want to win. We calculate "stake", which is how much to bet on the first bet (we bet the rest on the 2nd bet if the 1st bet loses) and "payout" which is the payout multiplier for both bets: >>> have = 1000
>>> gain = 1000
>>> stake = math.sqrt(gain*(gain+have)) - gain
>>> payout = (gain + stake) / stake
>>> stake
414.2135623730951
>>> payout
3.414213562373095 |
|
|
|
Another feature request (this one with low priority):
I would like if I could deposit directly from inputs.io without having manually fill out the ID each time.
Since my inputs email is the same as the one I used with Just-Dice it could detect me as the sender without the transaction note.
If you click 'deposit' on Just-Dice and then "using inputs.io", it will fill in your userid for you on inputs.io. I don't think it's a good idea to assume that you're wanting to deposit to the account with the same email address as your inputs.io account name, because maybe you're trying to deposit on behalf of someone else. Or maybe you have multiple Just-Dice accounts. |
|
|
|
|
From Sunday onwards, there will be an ad rotation on Just-Dice. There will be 5 ads in total, with 2 of the 5 being shown on each page load.
This auction is for one of the spots. The winning ad will be shown 40% of the time.
If any bidder wishes to retract their bid given the changed terms, that's fine. Please post saying whether your bid stands or not.
|
|
|
|
I may need to give it another shot. I invested .15 when I checked it 2 days later I only had 0.07 left. I don't think it likes me
I think you must be remembering it wrong. Nobody ever lost anything close to 50% of their investment. |
|
|
|
Just dice keeps taking my money, never won anything but half of what I lost. Also did the invest thing, steadly loosing money
When you invest in Just-Dice, you're effectively sitting on the black line in the chart below. It goes up and down, but mostly up:  |
|
|
|
Yes, and that is a problem when the money of the 'house' is not involved. I couldn't care less if Stunna plays his own game, but dooglus playing JD and I will refrain from visiting that site.
I have played a little Just-Dice in the past. I make a point of never playing from an account that isn't called "dooglus", so people can see it's me playing. Using a different name would feel wrong. And of course I never look at the server seed, since that would allow me to cheat. I figure if I was dishonest I could use random other accounts and slowly bleed the site dry, so investors have to trust that I won't do that, or not invest. My stats: bets:1,614 wins:652 losses:962 luck:101.25% wagered:36.32049978 (profit):0.89308763 |
|
|
|
Any card that isn't specifically mucked by another player could be audited... I think. So that would be: the players own cards, the burn card, the flop, turn, and rivier cards (maybe), any card that makes it to a showdown, plus any remaining undealt cards in the deck. That's quite a few cards that could be audited. The audit wouldn't be airtight, but I see it as a step in the right direction.
It looks like you are trying to invent mental poker. Would you like some assistance with that? |
|
|
|
I bet you can all guess just how much fun doogie is at Christmas time!
Have you even considered the risk that Santa switches out your cabbage patch kid for a pair of socks at the last moment? Christmas is provably unfair. |
|
|
|
Every bet will, on average, make -1% of the amount wagered. This is true no matter what the sequence. To get the total average profit just add up all the bets and multiply by -1%.
Not quite true - if you look a few posts above I derived the expected profit for both an unbounded and a bounded martingale sequence without house edge and it's not the sum of all bets, which is what I think you're saying it would be if there was no house edge. Your derivation suffered from an off-by-one (fencepost) error. The expected return from a game with zero house edge is zero however you play. |
|
|
|
Similarly, if I state my goal is either to double my money or go bust on just-dice, the chance that I double my money with one bet is 49.5%. If I bet 1/10th of that on the same bet until I either double my money or go bust, the chance is higher I go bust (not going to waste my time in R to tell you the odds...)
People keep saying that, but they are wrong. If you want to double your money, you have a higher chance if you place multiple bets than if you place a single bet. You have to pick the right multiple bets of course. It's really quite easy to demonstrate: If you place a single bet, then the chance of doubling your money is 49.5%. Now consider this 2 bet sequence: 1. bet 0.41421356 BTC with payout 3.41421356x and chance 28.99642866% to win 1.41421356 BTC for a profit of 1 BTC 2. if you lose, bet 0.58578644 BTC at the same payout and chance to win 2 BTC for a net profit of 1 BTC. Your overall chance of success is 49.58492857%. That is higher than 49.5%. (Note that those bets aren't exactly available on Just-Dice, since chance is only available to 4 significant figures, but that's just a nit-pick. It's still possible to double your money with a higher than 49.5% chance using 2 bets, and not using 1 bet). |
|
|
|
For example, if a bettor plays a 50% chance to win game and starts with a = 1 and stops betting after the n = 9th loss in a row, the total expected profit is the expected profit from up to 8 losses (and then a win) + the expected profit of greater than 8 losses in a row: E(profit) = Pr(losses in a row <= 8 )*(1 - p)/p - Pr(losses in a row > 8)* sum(2^0+2^1+...+2^9)
= (1-(1 - 0.5)^9) - (1 - 0.5)^9 * 1023
= (1-1/512 - 1/512 * 1023)
= - 1
So in this particular case, the expected profit is -1, (even before the house edge is taken into account). You've found a betting strategy for a 0% game which gives a non zero expectation? When that happens, your math must be wrong. In this case, the 9 losses in a row are 2^0, 2^1 .. 2^8, which sum to 2^9-1 or 511, not 1023. E(profit) = (1-1/512 - 1/512 * 511) = 0 |
|
|
|
As we are on feature requests, one that I'd like would be to place a bet but it gets executed at a delayed random time within parameters we can set, so say any day this week I can wake up to see that the bet got executed, for better or worse, but I don't know when that will happen exactly.
That's possibly open to abuse. Suppose you place a large bet to be executed some time in the next week. The site could check your seeds and see that you're going to win the next 2 bets and lose the 3rd. It could deliberately wait and see if you're going to waste the two winning bets on low-stake bets, then "randomly" let the big bet happen using the losing lucky number. So I guess I'd have to assign the nonce to the bet when you placed it, not when the bet happened. And then you see your bet results out of order. I'm not sure there would be any demand for such a feature anyway. What's the use case? Does anyone like waiting uncertainly for a package to arrive in the mail? Wouldn't you prefer to know exactly when it's coming? |
|
|
|
And auto invest is a really good idea. Dooglus can we get this feature please?  Yes. I'm thinking that rather than have "auto-invest deposit addresses" and "regular deposit addresses", you just have deposit addresses, but there's a setting on-site for "auto-invest new deposits" which you turn on or off as you like. When a deposit arrives on any of your deposit addresses, it's auto-invested if that checkbox is checked. Would that work for you? |
|
|
|
I want to send regular deposits to a certain Just-Dice account. Are the deposit address permanently reusable? Can I send over and over again over several months to the same deposit address?
Yes. |
|
|
|
It is possible to reduce the casino edge by just betting less, as per the 2-composite bet example Dooglus explained above. I asked a friend to formalise the proof - here is his paper [ link]. If only you hadn't said it reduces the edge... The edge is 1% and not subject to change. It's possible to bet less, and so reduce expected losses. |
|
|
|
Dear Friends, Watching that so far discussion about martingale stuff reminded me about an interesting text I once read. The topic is well known (progressive systems do not work the way we all want), but the math is strong in order to explain that. It's named: "Mathematical Proof that Progressions cannot overcome Expectation."I leave here the direct link to it: http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htmAnd there is still more about progressive systems here: http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/progress.htmEnjoy it! I've read them before. Note that I'm not saying martingale overcomes expectation. The expectation is that you lose 1% of everything you bet. What I am saying is that martingale allows you to achieve your goal of turning X into Y without having to bet the whole amount X every time you try. Since you expect to bet less than X, you expect to lose less than 1% of X, whereas if you bet the whole X in one go, you expect to lose 1% of X. Having read the those links, do you agree with me, or everyone else? It feels like I'm on my own here (but also right). I wonder if this is how Dabs feels? |
|
|
|
Investors ----> J-D Bankroll ----> Dooglus Coinbase Account -----> Dooglus Bank Account -----> Dooglus in Bora-Bora drinking Mai Tais with Deb in a grass hoola skirt
So much easier to follow than that monstrosity pirateat40 put together.
I notice you leave it ambiguous as to which of us is wearing the grass skirt. I saw a bit of talk in the on-site chat today about how Deb and I hadn't been online, and invested had just hit 40k so that must be our "trigger point" and we're doing a runner. In fact our dog was sick and we took her into the vet in town. I checked in to the site several times, refilled the hot wallet twice, spoke in the chat, etc. I'd like to be able to take the occasional day to attend to non-site things without it causing a panic. Maybe in time I'll be able to... I'd hope not to have to announce it here that I'm going to be offline for a few hours. I guess it's a testament to how available we have made ourselves to the site's players and investors that they notice when we take a day away! |
|
|
|
Does anyone know how much pirate is estimated to have stolen, and the dollar value? I thought it was more than 100k BTC, but I may be wrong.
If I remember correctly, somewhere around 500,000 btc. This was when it was trading around $10, so $5,000,000 total. In the SEC statement regarding Pirate, I believe they said he only profited around $170,000. Either he threw most of it away trying to trade on exchanges, or there is still a large majority of it out there hidden by Trendon Shavers. I used to track the weekly interest payments on the blockchain. According to my records, the biggest payout was on 2012-07-31 and totaled 29185.16076506 BTC. If that was 7% of the total invested then the total was 416930 BTC. Though I expect a lot of people were auto-reinvesting their profits. My notes for that week (txid and comments): b84e5514ae74800bd8e3acc81ccfcf7a587cc1eef03e574f2dfcb522ec66e9f0 2012-07-31 01:03:39 - day late 4196499760499d01540ad45f0a63ce6d3a39dde7433d20f79510a7963a1d4334 2012-07-31 01:07:31 - day late 45d3a306da46063a8fa5f67174da1579e7bab285cb4695f405b2edc4e858f203 2012-07-31 01:15:22 - day late 17d7fb6637030fede7ca22ca3ed34a209c7d60f85b731f0cd6e1a9d221c148a9 2012-07-31 01:17:17 - day late 6efc289539e7c07b4eb3ee728a15eef7516d97b574233c011a6c55a72ee7a70d 2012-07-31 15:39:55 - day late (payb.tc's interest) b57bd54995da4354cc05571dff7369794929c263789850a66da57a1ecfa75007 2012-07-31 22:26:56 - day late (rest of payb.tc's interest?) |
|
|
|
Your correct that my first statement was wrong. But your simple example is not a martingale sequence.
Are you telling me that betting 1, stopping if I win, and doubling to 2 if I lose isn't a martingale sequence? I would say it's a 2-step martingale sequence. I can show the same effect with longer sequences if the 2-step one doesn't convince you. The effect (martingale is better than single bet) becomes more pronounced the more steps in the sequence. I believe that for a martingale sequence EV will be less than 0.99 B, where for the martingale case B is the starting bankroll.
I know you do, but unfortunately it's not true. It always feels rude to me to tell people they're wrong. But it doesn't seem right to leave them believing falsehoods either, so I'm kind of stuck not knowing what to do other than to say "you're wrong" and try to explain why. But I already explained why ("the equivalent martingale sequence expects to bets less and so expects to lose less") so no tw I'm really stuck. If the martingale is risking the same amount, and potentially winning the same amount, then its EV is greater than 0.99 B. That's what the post you're replying to demonstrated. And now I feel like a meanie. Edit: and am also a little concerned that the peopleperson most aligned with my views according to recent posts is Dabs! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
