Nobody could say you're not giving this at least 101% effort. 

Doing 15000 rolls of the same size and chance has an expected value that is 15000 times that of a single roll.

So unless you found a single roll with a positive expectation, this doesn't sound like a good idea.

Disclaimer: I'm relying on facts in this analysis.  Not magic, or dragons.  So it may not apply to you.

You often see that for martingale bettors.  It doesn't matter the length of the streaks so long as they can survive them; they'll be profitable until they came to a streak that busts them.

You made 2710 bets.
2005 of them were at 49.5%.

Your longest streaks are:

      9 L
     10 L
     11 W
     12 L
     13 L

That's pretty streaky for just 2005 bets.

Yes, it's when you divest, and only if you divest all your principal and some new profit.  So if you invest 100, gain 10 in profit, then divest the original 100 or less, you pay no commission until the weekly run on Sunday.

Good idea, except:

* the emergency address isn't currently locked using google-auth, so an attacker would just change it

and

* it's not set on the account in question

That's "max profit per roll", not "max bet".  You don't really need to have 38k BTC to offer 382 profit per bet so long as you don't mind a higher risk of ruin.

Both of those things are things an attacker could fake having installed a keylogger on the victim's machine.  The purpose of 2FA is to be something that the attacker can't fake.


That's fine, so long as they can provide a valid 6 digit code before I do so.

Maybe try re-encoding it to a lower resolution and trying again.  It shouldn't take more than a few hours to upload a video unless it's very long.

There are plenty of streaks of red out there too.  One day you'll hit a bad one.  When it happens please try not to scream "this site is rigged!"

If you want to tell me your userid I can take a look and tell you exactly how many streaks of each length you've had.  Are you mixing up 'hi' and 'lo', or always playing the same?  If you mix it up then you can be even more sure the streaks are entirely down to luck, since your moment to moment decisions about how to roll are entirely responsible for them (except when you roll between 49.5 and 50.5 - there's nothing you can do about those ones).

I just received an email from someone telling me they bought a new phone and so lost access to google auth, and so can't log in.

They want me to reset their google auth so they can log in again.

This seems wrong to me.  If I reset google auth on demand, what's the point of even offering it?

So please, make sure you have a backup of your google auth secret, in case you ever buy a new phone and so lose access.  If you already have google auth enabled on your account but don't have a backup of the secret, please PM me and I'll temporarily disable it so you can make a backup.

From what was just posted we can't tell anything.  50 hands is quite simply not enough upon which to draw any conclusions.

On Just-Dice about a week ago one guy hit two separate runs of 21 losing rolls in a row all within 7k rolls.  The odds against this are enormous.  But when you consider this was just 7000 of over 40 million rolls it makes sense.  Someone is going to have horrible luck at some point, just like someone wins the lottery each week even though it's unlikely for any individual to do so.

17:02:52 (9) <Dopefish> I got 40000001
17:02:58 (57018) <SoggyLettuce> 39999999

Congrats to Dopefish (who somewhat suspiciously suggested the promo ) and SoggyLettuce who split the prize.

Players are asking for a promotion for the 40 millionth bet.

I made an address (15eUfpGRrwURexYfaLgyBhUuvAdzcKNeiE) to collect donations from investors for the prize money.  We have 3 donations of 0.1 BTC each so far.

Bets of 0.0001 BTC and up qualify.  The one closest to 40m gets the pot.

I don't know, but he's not made himself known in the JD chat for several weeks now.  The pirateat40 whose name he copied is the only one anyone will think of when you mention the name.

The problem is that with a lot of strategies people use, they ONLY lose when they get a very unlucky sequence of losses.  They make a fraction of a coin over and over for hours, and then hit a very unlucky run and give it all back.  Sometimes they don't even give it all back, just some of it.  In the long run they give it all back and 1% extra.  That's the house edge at work.

If we aren't careful, we end up giving them more than that 1% back, and then the house is running at a loss.

And if we give less than 1% back, it's pretty meaningless.  Guy just lost 100 BTC after hitting a bunch of losses in a row and we give him 0.5 BTC back - is he going to be pleased?  Probably not - he's been making hundreds of large bets for hours and that 0.5 BTC means nothing to him.

That's the problem with running at such a small house edge.  Some of the time the house makes no profit at all, and when it does, it's such a small percentage of turnover that there's not much left to use in promotions.  I wonder sometimes whether it would be more attractive to gamblers if we doubled the house edge and ran more promotions with the extra profit.  Hopefully they understand that 1% is a good deal, and that that's enough.

I just noticed your signature.  While I enjoy being listed a "honorable", I'm not sure being in the same list as pirateat40 is good for anyone.  Is your list meant ironically?

No problem.

I made another list, in which only one of the two 0.0001% bets hit.

The first line looks like:

 0.0001%   0.0001 (      1 /  1014500)   98.57%

and the last line is:

                                         99.94%

Someone was asking in the chat how it's possible that the site-wide luck is still over 102% after so many bets, and requested a breakdown of luck-per-chance, so here it is:


I'm only showing chances which have had 10k or more bets.

Before generating the list I said it was probably due to vlees and nimda both hitting 0.0001% about twice as quickly as expected, and that does appear to be the reason.  1 million of the total 40 million bets have an average luck of 200% each.  Dilute that 40 times over and you get 102.5%.  Nice and tidy result. 

So the whole site's luck is still affected predominantly by a single lucky roll.  If only one of the two of them had hit the 1-in-a-million, as expected, luck would be very close to 100%.

You should be careful saying things like "I will double it for you" when it's quite possible that what you will really do is lose it all.  I just saw you bet and lose over 10 BTC in a single bet.  I don't know how big your 'DIGS' fund is, but I suspect that loss may have killed it.  It certainly wiped out any gains you made over your previous 1.4 million dust bets.

Beware of offering fixed returns, especially when those returns are made by gambling.  Gambling tends to be a gamble...