But the downsides are obvious, (no newbies can participate, only forum members can participate)
... and most importantly it doesn't solve the problem, because the site operator can register a new forum account and post an address from there. |
|
|
|
i would like to try nickname lurk
He'll need your wallet or casino deposit address too I think. |
|
|
|
This looks familiar; another "lessthan 24000" martingale loss, doubling the stake on each loss: Tue Nov 27 19:29:28 2012 <24000 209864 7f710e5937b8d7ce:2 1E55c3rfWqEvcME4pusz2HfpuVizuRjRUo BET 16.00000000 LOSE -15.92050000
Tue Nov 27 19:29:28 2012 <24000 209864 dd2131d4b79068b1:1 128s6PBQsmmBpCYga21HirurLUP9fjD5ic BET 32.00000000 LOSE -31.84050000
Tue Nov 27 19:31:05 2012 <24000 209863 2d099ca8343a5dd1:1 18yGYQqEfsDV5yWEKUKXHeHA89R6cGbcQo BET 64.00000000 LOSE -63.68050000
Tue Nov 27 19:29:28 2012 <24000 209864 23404200ecee0770:1 16EtbAx1nWbeaHQoqZBMeNpkh65EpgndzB BET 128.00000000 LOSE -127.36050000 |
|
|
|
He's obviously been listening to too much Pink Floyd while tripping.
Buy your own bike with the money you're making from selling your (and your "friends") possessions you little parasite.
I've got a bike.
You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings,
and things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it. |
|
|
|
A simple 0 bug that actually benefits the player you describe as "faulty". Oh well, you cant please everyone I guess. Moving along.
I would say that running a game that puts the odds in favour of the player rather than the casino is a fault, yes. It's not a fault I dislike, as a player, but it's still a fault, and a reason to be somewhat suspicious of the rest of the code. It indicates a lack of thorough testing at least. A simple simulation would have picked up that one of the bets was achieving a negative house edge. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I think its a little ridiculous you want me to look at thousands of transaction logs just because you "think" you had 84 chips and your account balance shows 82 chips.
I trust my software, and I have plenty of reason to trust it since 2004.
I didn't realise it would involve looking at thousands of logs. I was kind of interested to know how good your logging is, and whether you would be able and/or willing to respond to such a request. Has your software had the "payout on 0" bug since 2004 do you think? I wouldn't be so quick to trust software that is known to be faulty. |
|
|
|
Well, not necessarily true. Odds are Odds. But when other people are playing this could increase or reduce your result.
I would compare this to satoshidice. Odds, Luck, and amount of players can manipulate the result if that makes sense.
I don't think satoshidice is a good example. Whether I win or not is completely determined by the txid of my bet and the day's secret. It doesn't matter when during the day I send my bet, how lucky I am feeling at the time, or how many other people are playing. Whether my transaction is a winning one or not is already determined by the laws of mathematics. At any fair casino it shouldn't matter how many other people are playing at the time either. I should have a 12 in 37 chance of winning 3x my money whenever I play a column in (single zero) roulette whether I'm playing alone or with 5 other people. That's kind of what "fair" means. |
|
|
|
Can you see what happened to the other 2 chips?
It's not a big deal - they're free chips anyway, and worth about 1 cent each, but it's concerning that my balance would change like that.
It is not possible for a balance to "just change like that". So what happened? Do you have logs? Can you see the numbers I got on the roulette wheel? My 1st spin in the last 12 hours was 5, and my 116th (and I think final) was 15. Do you have both of those in your logs? Is there anything before or after those spins? |
|
|
|
|
I was playing earlier. I stopped after 116 roulette spins, 2 chips each, all on the 3-36 line.
80 losses, 36 wins, ended up with 84 chips. (100 - 80*2 + 36*4 = 84)
Just logged back in and have only 82 chips.
Can you see what happened to the other 2 chips?
I'm pretty sure I quit after my 80th loss, with a balance of 84.
It's not a big deal - they're free chips anyway, and worth about 1 cent each, but it's concerning that my balance would change like that.
|
|
|
|
Doog is a hero member, maybe it was to get one last bit of credibility before he ran off. Only thing I can think of.
During the 5 hours that I was waiting for the MtGox withdrawal to go through, I looked back through the thread, thinking I'd probably been ripped off, and noticed how few posts almost all the previous satisfied customers had, and thought it was possible they were all sockpuppet accounts. Thing is, most of the orders which haven't been filled were placed while I was still waiting for payment. My post was still saying "hey, I didn't get paid yet" when those orders were placed. |
|
|
|
The combined total amount not paid for now is well in excess of 35BTC (mine was 30BTC alone). I imagine he had a swell of orders from all of us at once and then, after seeing the total he could make (I'd estimate we're looking close to £700 here - maybe more) for 'free' without giving the BTC he saw the opportunity as too good to miss. He's been on the forums multiple times since and hasn't responded to anyones PMs.
It's possible. Another factor that made me believe he was honest is that I PMed him asking for 50 BTC, and he replied that the maximum was 35 BTC per customer at the moment. What kind of scammer turns down free money like that? I understand it's necessary in the early stage of running a Ponzi scheme, but not in this case. |
|
|
|
That's quite much true, ie this is more question of opinion. The functionality of bitcoin practically would not change and current algorithm is very good. Just being as pragmatic as I am, I would have done it differently.
We can argue as to whether Nite69's way would have been better or not, but now that the network is already up and running it would be dangerous to make such a change. Old clients would reject blocks which meet the new difficulty requirements but not the old ones resulting in a hard split of the blockchain. Any marginal improvement the change might bring is certainly offset by the difficulty of getting all the old clients updated. |
|
|
|
Hi
Been 48 hours since I transferred £100 to him for a purchase of BTC. I'm assuming I won't be getting my BTC, I was originally going to purchase £200 worth, just glad I didn't.
Farmacist
I sent £255.50 for 35 BTC on Saturday 24th Nov and received the coins 5 hours later. There was a delay due to him using MtGox as his wallet, apparently. It seems I was one of the last to receive coins, and don't understand why he would send me the 35 BTC if he was intending to run off. The amounts owing all seem to be less than 35 BTC. It doesn't make sense to me that he would honour the big order and run off with the smaller ones. But it is odd that he's no longer responding to PMs or on his thread. |
|
|
|
Hmm... For a "successfull" Martingale shouldn't you take the win odds into account?
Like for a 50% win odd you double each time you loose. For a 25% win odd you have to multiply your bet by 4, etc?
If you multiply your bet by a little more than you "should" then the amount you end up winning 'when' you eventually win goes up each time. This presumably makes the player feel better. Suppose you start at 0.01 BTC, play the 2x bet, and double your bet each time until you win. If you're unlucky and it takes you 10 times before you win, you'll have bet 10.24 BTC on your 10th bet, and end up winning just 0.01 BTC overall, and you might feel like the reward wasn't worth the risk. If instead you multiplied your bet by 2.1 each time, you'll end up winning significantly more. But you'll reach the maximum bet or run out of funds more quickly too. |
|
|
|
Results: 2012-Nov-27 09:44am (up to block 209848)
Address Target Should Win | #Bets | Win | Lose | Refunds | BTC In | BTC Out | Refund | Profit | RTP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1dice1e6p 1 0.00002 | 46115 | 0 (0.00000) | 45622 | 493 | 281.83 | 0.01 | 55.33 | 281.81 | 0.007
1dice1Qf4 2 0.00003 | 2445 | 0 (0.00000) | 2343 | 102 | 37.83 | 0.00 | 11.94 | 37.83 | 0.005
1dice2pxm 4 0.00006 | 4040 | 0 (0.00000) | 3997 | 43 | 50.25 | 0.04 | 6.39 | 50.21 | 0.086
1dice2vQo 8 0.00012 | 5170 | 2 (0.00039) | 5123 | 45 | 80.93 | 16.08 | 5.65 | 64.84 | 19.872
1dice2WmR 16 0.00024 | 6365 | 1 (0.00016) | 6324 | 40 | 175.64 | 4.31 | 12.60 | 171.33 | 2.456
1dice2xkj 32 0.00049 | 7909 | 3 (0.00038) | 7894 | 12 | 483.81 | 303.41 | 1.29 | 180.39 | 62.714
1dice2zdo 64 0.00098 | 10055 | 10 (0.00100) | 10019 | 26 | 760.63 | 135.65 | 55.64 | 624.97 | 17.834
1dice37Ee 128 0.00195 | 12225 | 23 (0.00189) | 12141 | 61 | 1691.51 | 1293.35 | 48.26 | 398.15 | 76.462
1dice3jkp 256 0.00391 | 13302 | 62 (0.00467) | 13223 | 17 | 1877.64 | 2647.97 | 13.12 | -770.32 | 141.026
1dice4J1m 512 0.00781 | 21102 | 161 (0.00763) | 20927 | 14 | 3609.09 | 3448.94 | 9.35 | 160.15 | 95.563
1dice5wwE 1000 0.01526 | 52845 | 815 (0.01543) | 52017 | 13 | 10969.49 | 10625.90 | 1.80 | 343.59 | 96.868
1dice61SN 1500 0.02289 | 18348 | 440 (0.02399) | 17899 | 9 | 5964.47 | 6236.25 | 15.00 | -271.77 | 104.557
1dice6DPt 2000 0.03052 | 29190 | 918 (0.03146) | 28266 | 6 | 6703.30 | 6236.19 | 9.24 | 467.10 | 93.032
1dice6gJg 3000 0.04578 | 19543 | 904 (0.04629) | 18625 | 14 | 8082.22 | 9271.96 | 24.99 | -1189.73 | 114.720
1dice6GV5 4000 0.06104 | 24036 | 1478 (0.06150) | 22553 | 5 | 5425.26 | 4937.34 | 31.20 | 487.92 | 91.006
1dice6wBx 6000 0.09155 | 27153 | 2563 (0.09447) | 24568 | 22 | 11871.82 | 12504.31 | 7.01 | -632.49 | 105.328
1dice6YgE 8000 0.12207 | 110757 | 13570 (0.12255) | 97162 | 25 | 17153.72 | 15084.97 | 0.00 | 2068.74 | 87.940
1dice7EYz 12000 0.18311 | 31308 | 5831 (0.18638) | 25454 | 23 | 11726.21 | 11878.31 | 14.50 | -152.10 | 101.297
1dice7fUk 16000 0.24414 | 130702 | 31785 (0.24327) | 98873 | 44 | 81340.55 | 80649.25 | 566.80 | 691.29 | 99.150
1dice7W2A 24000 0.36621 | 97224 | 35766 (0.36810) | 61399 | 59 | 79478.52 | 80392.99 | 212.64 | -914.47 | 101.151
1dice8EMZ 32000 0.48828 | 707862 | 345676 (0.48869) | 361678 | 508 | 411753.36 | 407435.87 | 2923.44 | 4317.48 | 98.951
1dice97EC 32768 0.50000 | 281526 | 140343 (0.49891) | 140959 | 224 | 267146.91 | 261061.46 | 1709.79 | 6085.45 | 97.722
1dice9wcM 48000 0.73242 | 194211 | 142828 (0.73575) | 51298 | 85 | 187316.23 | 183947.70 | 704.58 | 3368.53 | 98.202
1dicec9k7 52000 0.79346 | 22192 | 17666 (0.79656) | 4512 | 14 | 31835.28 | 31739.39 | 1187.00 | 95.88 | 99.699
1dicegEAr 56000 0.85449 | 20790 | 17806 (0.85758) | 2957 | 27 | 32360.90 | 32001.13 | 400.00 | 359.76 | 98.888
1diceDCd2 60000 0.91553 | 15593 | 14283 (0.91658) | 1300 | 10 | 27092.75 | 27009.82 | 0.00 | 82.92 | 99.694
1dice9wVt 64000 0.97656 | 9245 | 8906 (0.98041) | 178 | 161 | 19505.11 | 19165.88 | 239.21 | 339.22 | 98.261
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
small (bets < 4 BTC) | 1860653 | 751507 | 1107266 | 1880 | 451965.06 | 442563.85 | 163.18 | 9401.21 | 97.920
big (bets >= 4 BTC) | 60600 | 30333 | 30045 | 222 | 772810.31 | 765464.77 | 8103.70 | 7345.54 | 99.050
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1921253 | 781840 | 1137311 | 2102 | 1224775.38 | 1208028.62 | 8266.88 | 16746.76 | 98.633
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD Profit before fees: 16746.76008966 BTC (1.367%)
Cumulative Fees Paid: 1115.45767500 BTC
SD Profit after fees: 15631.30241466 BTC (1.276%)
----
Since Satoshi Dice started, there have been:
Blockchain Tx: 6428939 : SatoshiDice Tx: 3554143 (55.3%)
Blockchain MB: 2726.7 : SatoshiDice MB: 1454.4 (53.3%)  |
|
|
|
The reason, why my utterings do NOT contradict the "each bet has an expected return of 0" is,
that you are only caring for those points in time, when an equilibrium of losses and wins is reached.
Yes, that's right. The reason I was caring most about those points in time is I was thinking those were both the most common points, and also the "average" points. The most common difference between "heads" and "tails" is 0. And for every positive difference, there's an equally likely equal and opposite negative difference. So if I'm losing at this central common point, then the +ve and -ve on either side cancel each other out, and I have a net -ve expectation. That was my reasoning, but the bolded part is incorrect. Because the profit when I have N more wins than losses is approximately twice the size of my loss when I have N more losses than wins. So the +ve swamps the -ve and makes up for the loss I suffer at the central "common" point. In real life, however, you just don't get infinite credit, so at some time you will be just broke,
and no longer able to continue playing. And that's where you'll indeed *never ever* get another
lose/win-equilibrium.
Right. In real life you get 100 chips. Now just suppose you had found a roulette game, for example, where they accidentally paid out 3x on a 13-in-37 shot (paying out as if the probability of winning was 0.33333 when it's really 0.35135). The odds are slightly in my favour, but I only have 100 chips. What's my optimum betting strategy to minimise my risk of ruin, and maximise my expected return? When I played yesterday I was thinking it was best to bet 2 when my balance was over 73, and 1 otherwise. But I kept crossing the 73/74 line, and after a couple of hundred spins I had won and lost the same number of spins, but my balance had gone from 100 down to 70 or so. That's why I started this thread - I couldn't get my head around having had luck that felt like it should be break-even, but I'd managed to bet my way into a loss with it. There are 20 ways in 6 bets of having 3 wins and 3 losses: WWWLLL 2 4 6 4 2 0
WWLWLL 2 4 2 4 2 0
WWLLWL 2 4 2 0 2 0
WWLLLW 2 4 2 0 -2 -1
WLWWLL 2 0 2 4 2 0
WLWLWL 2 0 2 0 2 0
WLWLLW 2 0 2 0 -2 -1
WLLWWL 2 0 -2 -1 0 -2
WLLWLW 2 0 -2 -1 -2 -1
WLLLWW 2 0 -2 -3 -2 -1
LWWWLL -2 -1 0 2 0 -2
LWWLWL -2 -1 0 -2 -1 -2
LWWLLW -2 -1 0 -2 -3 -2
LWLWWL -2 -1 -2 -1 0 -2
LWLWLW -2 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1
LWLLWW -2 -1 -2 -3 -2 -1
LLWWWL -2 -3 -2 -1 0 -2
LLWWLW -2 -3 -2 -1 -2 -1
LLWLWW -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -1
LLLWWW -2 -3 -4 -3 -2 -1 5 break even 9 lose 1 6 lose 2 0 bring a profit Here are the other combinations of 6 bets. First the ones where I win more times than I lose: WWWWWW 2 4 6 8 10 12
WWWWWL 2 4 6 8 10 8
WWWWLW 2 4 6 8 6 8
WWWLWW 2 4 6 4 6 8
WWLWWW 2 4 2 4 6 8
WLWWWW 2 0 2 4 6 8
LWWWWW -2 -1 0 2 4 6
WWWWLL 2 4 6 8 6 4
WWWLWL 2 4 6 4 6 4
WWWLLW 2 4 6 4 2 4
WWLWWL 2 4 2 4 6 4
WWLWLW 2 4 2 4 2 4
WWLLWW 2 4 2 0 2 4
WLWWWL 2 0 2 4 6 4
WLWWLW 2 0 2 4 2 4
WLWLWW 2 0 2 0 2 4
WLLWWW 2 0 -2 -1 0 2
LWWWWL -2 -1 0 2 4 2
LWWWLW -2 -1 0 2 0 2
LWLWWW -2 -1 -2 -1 0 2
LLWWWW -2 -3 -2 -1 0 2
LWWLWW -2 -1 0 -2 -1 0 and then the ones where I lose more times than I win: WWLLLL 2 4 2 0 -2 -3
WLWLLL 2 0 2 0 -2 -3
WLLWLL 2 0 -2 -1 -2 -3
WLLLWL 2 0 -2 -3 -2 -3
WLLLLW 2 0 -2 -3 -4 -3
LWLWLL -2 -1 -2 -1 -2 -3
LWLLWL -2 -1 -2 -3 -2 -3
LWLLLW -2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -3
LLWWLL -2 -3 -2 -1 -2 -3
LLWLWL -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -3
LLWLLW -2 -3 -2 -3 -4 -3
LLLWWL -2 -3 -4 -3 -2 -3
LLLWLW -2 -3 -4 -3 -4 -3
LLLLWW -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 -3
WLLLLL 2 0 -2 -3 -4 -5
LWWLLL -2 -1 0 -2 -3 -4
LWLLLL -2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
LLWLLL -2 -3 -2 -3 -4 -5
LLLWLL -2 -3 -4 -3 -4 -5
LLLLWL -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 -5
LLLLLW -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -5
LLLLLL -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 Summary: #W < #L: 22 combinations, losing a total of 83 chips
#W = #L: 20 combinations, losing a total of 21 chips
#W > #L: 22 combinations, winning a total of 104 chips |
|
|
|
Atleast in physical blackjack without an autoshuffler counting cards and alering bets accordingly is a valid strategy to attack the houses edge.
Of course, if the odds change as you play then you want to bet more when the odds are in your favour, and less when they're not. But what I'm talking about here is a fixed odds game. |
|
|
|
[...] U have to attack someone to get a letter.
Bigger fish = better odds to get a letter after an attack (even unsuccessful one). The odds scale up to 100% for the biggest fish.
I'm confused. If only the attacker has a chance of getting a letter, how can the biggest fish have a 100% chance, since he can't ever be the attacker. Can you maybe get a letter if you're the one being attacked, if you win? Maybe it's all explained on the rules page, but I still can't find it. Is it really the case that the rules aren't available until after you start playing? |
|
|
|
Just play it reverse: When you're below the 1000-line, play two coins, and when above you play only one coin per toss. -> winning strategy *lol* *JK!*
Yes, it sounds stupid, but probably is just as valid as my argument. With your scheme it takes 2 losses to fall to 999 from 1001, but only one win to recover. So it is a winning strategy. Now that's got to be wrong... Just wish I could see why! wouldn't it take 2 wins to go from 999 to 1001? you still have to pay for each bet, so each win of 2 only increases your balance by 1. AvL42 was suggesting that I bet 2 coins when my balance is less than 1000. When I'm at 999 and so bet 2 coins and then win, I make a profit of 2 coins, taking my balance to 1001. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
