Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.
Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days. If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining. IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on. For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest. That suggestion is logically unsound. Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it. Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools: Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC Pool 2 took all action If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site. If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2. Why is pool 1 now needed? Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1. And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits. The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects: 1. It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet) 2. It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1. 3. It gives low risk investment opportunity - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2. But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist? It doesn't add to max bet. It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2. Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist. It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover. I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves. The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream? You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place. It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets. It's to cover the 200 BTC bets. And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action. I see your logic and agree with it, I was just brainstorming out loud. I still think the best strategy is to have the house edge increase above 1% for whale size bets while still staying significantly lower tha J-D competitors. |
|
|
|
|
I think 5% commission is fine if there is profits. Honestly, raising commissiom will not do him any good and not worth even discussing until the site is even profitable and there is commission worth collecting. Whether Dooglas takes 5% or 20% of my "profits" is the least of my concerns with a triple digit loss on my J-D investment portfolio
|
|
|
|
|
As the parameters currently are are set down (1% edge, 1% max profit per bet), investing in J-D is not investing in any sense - it should be called passive gambling. You have a 51% chance to win per bet, but the gamblers control when they stop. The smart ones walk away when ahead.
Or there is the way Dooglas "invests" in the site (and probably others), he invests and as soon as a whale shows up and wins a little he quickly divests locking in profit. The problem with that is:
1. You need to be on all the time on whale watch
2. It increases the risks to the "passive" investors who do not use this strategy since the risk is not shared when a whale comes in. When others divest, the exposure of those remaining is increased
The fact is we will lose nothing as long as we stay competitive with the competition. If we increase the house rake incrementally with bet size (over the max of the competitiona and always below 1.9% used by SD), then the whales have nowhere else to go.
Another idea, would be to keep everything the same but allow investors to opt out of bets over a certain amount. For example 20 BTC. So someone bets 5 BTC it is against the entire pool, someone bets 30 BTC, it is against only the pool which has not opted out of that betting range. This way it sort of imitates Dooglas' strategy with more reliability for all investors - not just those who can stay by the computer all day long on whale watch.
As things are setup here, you have to be a little bit crazy to passively invest. Now I personally am a little bit crazy, but honestly we should not call this investing. Just passive gambling.
|
|
|
|
|
The whales all vote for Just-Dice
|
|
|
|
|
He is up 5000BTC overall I believe.
|
|
|
|
Dooglas, I have a question:
Before I divested, I asked Deb if I reinvested later would my loss stay on the account so I would not pay commission until I was in profit again and she said that is correct. However, in the chat, some of the players insist that once you divest, your loss is wiped clean and when you reinvest, you pay the 5% comission since the reinvestment, regardless of whether the account itself is in profit again.
As an example, say I invested 100 BTC and lost 12 BTC. I divest the remaining 88 BTC. My account as a 12 BTC lost.
If a month later I re-invest the 88 BTC I previously divested, and then my account goes up 12 BTC to 100 BTC (my original investment) from my share of site profits would I pay any commision on that 12 BTC or not until I re-coup my original investment.
Please clarify
Your initial understanding is correct. When you divested, your "base" was left at 12 BTC. That is the amount up to which you can go without becoming due for commission. If you re-invested the 88 BTC, your base will rise by 88 BTC to 100 BTC, and so you can make 12 BTC of commission-free net profit. You'll only be charged commission once your investment rises above 100 BTC (assuming no further invest/divest operations from you). Check your 'investment' history in the 'history' tab. Your base will be positive even after withdrawing. The amount your base is higher than your current investment tells you how much more profit you can make before becoming due to pay commission. Nice. So potentially someone could sell their empty account for something shy of 5% of the 'base' figure to recoup a fraction of their loss... right? I think that is fair - it is their "loss" to do with as they please. However, it would not go for anywhere close to 5% of the base - since there is a decent chance whoever took over the account would never turn a profit. |
|
|
|
|
Dead or just under new manangement?
|
|
|
|
|
Dooglas, I have a question:
Before I divested, I asked Deb if I reinvested later would my loss stay on the account so I would not pay commission until I was in profit again and she said that is correct. However, in the chat, some of the players insist that once you divest, your loss is wiped clean and when you reinvest, you pay the 5% comission since the reinvestment, regardless of whether the account itself is in profit again.
As an example, say I invested 100 BTC and lost 12 BTC. I divest the remaining 88 BTC. My account as a 12 BTC lost.
If a month later I re-invest the 88 BTC I previously divested, and then my account goes up 12 BTC to 100 BTC (my original investment) from my share of site profits would I pay any commision on that 12 BTC or not until I re-coup my original investment.
Please clarify
|
|
|
|
So maybe you can admit that the parameters need to be changed if you no longer even invested in your own site and those who have stayed invested are down 20%? I honestly think you should both tweak the edge up and max profit down (or atleast just the max profit down) and limit new investors so us sitting on huge loses do not get diluted so badly we can never re-coup.
I can tweak both the house edge and the max profit. Lots of people will complain that we'll lose players and whales that way. Investors signed up for the 1%/1% deal, and that's what the deal still is. I don't think it would be right to change it now without consulting the investors. And I have no way of contacting the investors. I don't even know the identity of the biggest investor - I've had literally no contact from them. There are clearly people both for and against making any changes, so I think it's best to leave the parameters as they are all let the investors decide whether they want to continue to be invested. I don't see what else I can do, really. Dooglas, you are not invested in you own site! Noone else has a max profit even in the same ballpark as J-D with a 1% Edge. I am sure the big investor is not exactly happy either. It really lowers confidence a lot whent he sites owner has divested. Faith in your proclaimations is why I stayed invested and many others I am sure. Nothing lowers confidence more than the owner not believing in his own creation. |
|
|
|
wow thats pretty sick, looking at the numbers from the last 5 days the site should be up about 2500 BTC just from the whale alone. but if he keeps up playing this kind of volume as he played last 5 days i have no doubt we will get to the black numbers very soon.
He actually just cashed out, supposively for good. he is up 5000+ BTC and he walking away. Worst thing in the world, a big winning gambler with self-control. |
|
|
|
I think Dooglus actually was one of the people who divested (someone in chat said so).
In that case, it must be true. It is true. Last night as I was trying to sleep the whale came back and was making large bets again. I divested in order to try to get a little sleep. Celeste's play is crazy. Winning over 2k BTC in less than a minute by winning the max bet 9 times in a row? I don't want to be on that ride. Look at the shape of the profit/loss chart here: http://chromaticcreative.net/bitcoin/pcalc/jd.php Simply crazy. So in summary: there's a whale. He seems to be very lucky. The house edge doesn't seem to be big enough to beat him. And he bets massive amounts. Even the creator of the site isn't invested in it any more. So maybe you can admit that the parameters need to be changed if you no longer even invested in your own site and those who have stayed invested are down 20%? I honestly think you should both tweak the edge up and max profit down (or atleast just the max profit down) and limit new investors so us sitting on huge loses do not get diluted so badly we can never re-coup. |
|
|
|
|
I think Dooglus actually was one of the people who divested (someone in chat said so). I'll admit, as an investor, that does not fill me with confidence.
|
|
|
|
what if my invest goes down to 0, will it go up after the site makes it back ?
Not realistic to go to zero, but very realistic other investors will come in and dilute your stake to near zero. Your share of returns is your percentage of the current bankroll, not how much has been invested overall in the site. That helps you with the commission, but I do not see commission in the near or even far future at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Man, I am in a deep hole now as an investor - 20% of my initial investment already gone in a week. We are definitely doing something wrong with J-D.
|
|
|
|
My initial analysis of celeste's betting, based on the total betting results generously provided by Dooglus and celeste here https://just-dice.com/whale.zip. I took the bet sizes and randomly assigned the win/loss outcome assuming a 1% edge on 50/50 (I neglected the fact that some were 49.5 bets and others were 50, it would make almost no difference). After 20,000 shuffles, this is the outcome distribution, with celeste's actual outcome highlighted. In short, it is lucky (top 7% of expected outcomes), but not truly exceptional nor significantly different than the null hypothesis (which is celeste's system is = to random ordering of betting).  Hey Bug, That is a great analysis. You actually convinced me to stick with it for a while longer. I think I'll stick with it until my investment is down 25% at which point I will need to reassess. |
|
|
|
I agree, as long as we keep the tinfoil hats off (celeste has a special edge/cheat), then this is normal variance due to an abnormally large bankroll. However, it is normal variance which can scare off investors and if celeste does stop playing or continue staying lucky, can dig J-D investors in a hole too deep to earn our way out from in a sane amount of time. I just know that something needs to be changed - we do not need to have so much larger a max profit per bet than our competitors. We not even in the same universe with them - they are 3 to 5 BTC and we are 270 BTC?
Apparently dooglus derived 1% of the bankroll as the maximum bet by trial and error but as it turns out it's been mathematically proved that this is the most efficient maximum bet to optimally grow the bankroll. The proof is called the Kelly Criterion and investors have known about it for years: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/091504.aspKelly % = W – [(1 – W) / R] Where: W = Winning probability R = Win/loss ratio W = 0.505 (bank's edge) R = 1:1 (profit and loss are both equal for a 2x bet) Kelly % = 0.505 - [(1 - 0.505) / 1] = 0.505 - 0.495 = 0.01, or 1% of the bankroll. Note that a full Kelly Criterion doesn't try to minimize volatility; rather it maximizes growth in the long term. If you are a short-term investor J-D may not be the right investment for you. You might be right - my expectations were for up days and down days but not this level of volatility. What I wonder though is our bankroll large enough to support the Kelly Criteria or can we be bankrupt (or lose enough investors flee) before the Kelly Criteria can assert itself. |
|
|
|
|
Go hash yourself!
You are right though, in fact one can argue that gambling on sports is not even true gambling. It is possible to make educated guesses on who will win which of course is why different teams have different odds.
|
|
|
|
|
I think people like dice due to its simpicity and the speed at which you can make bets. I personally perfer blackjack and poker myself.
|
|
|
|
However, when a whale comes in with a huge balance of his own (such as celeste ID # 31791) then with a consistent system, seems to be able to eventually win most of the time. Celeste is smart, he walks away once he is ahead enough. Today came from 800 BTC down to 300 BTC up and then stopped betting. His bankroll seems to be close to half the size of the invested bank roll.
The problem with such players is not their "system," it's time. If she plays until she gets a little profit, then she'll get busted eventually. But since she has a big bankroll, getting her busted takes time. In other words, the consistency of winning is illusory; it's like the consitency of winning on the 98% roll. The profit would vary much smoother if there were many players like celeste. With only one, all the investors can do is to wait. Either she stops playing, or she gets busted. I agree, as long as we keep the tinfoil hats off (celeste has a special edge/cheat), then this is normal variance due to an abnormally large bankroll. However, it is normal variance which can scare off investors and if celeste does stop playing or continue staying lucky, can dig J-D investors in a hole too deep to earn our way out from in a sane amount of time. I just know that something needs to be changed - we do not need to have so much larger a max profit per bet than our competitors. We not even in the same universe with them - they are 3 to 5 BTC and we are 270 BTC? |
|
|
|
Insanity Dice has been replaced with Insanity Dice X-Treme
no... Sorry, insanity dice is a dinosaur and has been replaced by a more evolved dice game |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
