Yea, but the site was beaten by the whale. Measuring from the day the site climbed back into the black, it turned 1.356% profit (better than 1% expectation).

Period 1: 20 Jun through 04 Oct 2013
wagered: 3,940,640 BTC
profit: 525 BTC
BTC/USD: 105.85 to 120.66

Period 2: 05 Oct 2013 through 23 Jun  2014
wagered: 1,369,938 BTC
profit: 18,573 BTC
profit %: 1.356%
BTC/USD: 120.66 to 608.36

The investor who suffered through period one would have broken even would have done so while BTC was stable against the dollar.
The investor who capitalized on period two would have earned a healthy 1.356% while at the same the value of BTC relative to dollar went up 500%

It's really a mathematical question, but it wouldn't work "in theory". "In theory" if you had an unlimited money supply, then "in theory" your losing streaks could be infinitely long.

Martingale doesn't make the odds any better, nor do they make them any worse. The problem with it is it encourages you to divide up your bankroll into the smallest possible bits. That is bad because it makes it harder to accomplish a given objective (say to double your bankroll).

Just Dice had a martingale player win an unprecedented 32 times in a row. "In theory" those odds are comparable to winning the Mega Millions Jackpot. But he won less than 5 cents because he was playing martingale.

Pa lottery sales were $3.7 billion last year, of which they gave slightly over $1 billion to programs that benefit Pennsylvania’s elderly population.

The kicker is that administration costs were over $40 million. Now you just ran a game where the theoretical house edge was 1%, but in actually ended up 0.356%. Your administrative expenses were 10% of that number.

So there administration costs were over 1%, and they have no fear since they don't use a RNG. There should be a government organization to protect citizens from that kind of thievery.

Wait a minute ....

This gisting is difficult to read sometime. It sounds like he is saying that it is relatively easy to build a copy of Satoshi Dice, but because if inherent distrust of the operators  it is difficult to get players.

I have no idea what he is talking about on the end.

Perhaps it would help to go over the facts again. When the site began on 22 June 2013 dooglus freely acknowledged that he could easily construct an inside job and quietly tap the site in a way that no one would notice. He wanted people to understand that investing in JD required the maximum level of trust.

So by 13 July 2013 nakowa wins big, taking the profit to negative numbers.

What is more likely? Nakowa was a big player who won big, or dooglus decided to abandon his ability to subtly tap the account in favor of sending all his investors into an uproar.

The principal part of the law is that it regulates Bitcoin as a Money Services Business. As such it would be subject to the requirement to report to the government cash transactions over CAD$10,000. I am sure that dooglus is hoping that the holders of roughly 16 accounts that are over that amount will withdraw their bitcoins before the law goes into effect.

If that happens, the idea of creating an escrow for thousands of accounts of very small value , many of which will never be settled, may be better deal with legally by considering them as personal loans.

I don't see how he can answer that question on a forum without putting himself in jeapordy. How can he interpret a law that hasn't gone into effect?

The 16 ppl with accounts of 15 BTC or higher total 2095 BTC. I am sure he is doing everything in his power to get these accounts off the books.

Then there is a group of 90 accounts of 1-14 BTC which total 257 BTC.

The final 3782 accounts of less than 1 BTC total 114 BTC. Obviously some of these accounts are just dust. Clearly some people have lost track of dust.

Sounds like you have over 300 BTC in denominations of less than 2BTC. That will be a nice tip for your work/

"As of January 31, 2003 all of Canada's financial institutions:, including banks, credit unions, money services businesses, foreign exchanges and securities dealers, will be required by law to report large cash transactions in excess of 10K CDN to Canada's Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center (FINTRAC)."  Transfer of 10K and above across Canada's borders are also required to be reported to CRA since 2003.

It still seems like you had better do everything possible for those accounts of 15BTC or higher/

Hopefully the top 20 investors will come quickly. In the US any cash transfer of over $10K must be reported to the IRS. I presume there is a similar rule in Canada. It would just invite unwanted attention.

The remaining accounts sum to more than a quarter of a million, but probably most of those will be claimed within the week

In hindsight it would have been better to have something on the website that says anything below 1 BTC has a shelf life if not divested in 30 days.

It looks like you have 3781 investments averaging about $20 apiece, but totaling over $70K. You can't really give it to charity since people could come and claim in six months, and keeping it could get you in trouble to some zealous investigator. It would be a shame to ruin a clean operation over such a relatively small amount of money.

I wouldn't be surprised if you have a few thousand small accounts that don't get claimed within the month.

It's the dark side of the gambler's fallacy. Some people think they are 'due' and if it doesn't happen they think someone is to blame.

In general you can never eliminate the variance completely unless you turn it into a carnival game. Perhaps if you do it again you can raise the house edge and reward the investors who stay in for the long haul and don't run when there is a big downturn. With a bigger HE there is also less variance. But if you can't kick yourself for not having a 2% HE, as the threat never goes away.

Look at Blackjack. I know that if you use basic strategy you can get under 1% house edge with most games, but many people don't use basic strategy. But more importantly people don't play their bankroll through one time, they gamble repeatedly with their winnings.

Nevada statewide made 11.87% of the money put down on it's 2,703 blackjack tables winning $1.084 billion in the last 12 months. But even with that kind of advantage, you still have whales that turn individual casinos upside down once in a while.

The problem is that if you do the math, it doesn't prepare you. I think I got a good feeling from reading Double or Nothing. It almost ripped their friendship up. The one partner wanted to keep decreasing house edge and raising bet limits so that they would be considered hands down the best place for whales. The other partner was having a nervous breakdown.

There's always that nagging feeling that maybe it isn't a fair game. Even if you can't figure out how, you are lying awake at night wondering if they found a way.

It sounds like Deb had more trouble than you did with the potshots. At the risk of sounding sexist, men sometimes can simply look at the personal attacks as the price of being the point of the spear, but women have a harder time.

I saw an interviewer asked President Bush just after he left office if it was difficult to take the personal jabs. He just said it was to be expected, but Laura perked up and said it bothered the hell out of her.

If you have an investment over $400K and you don't look it once a week, that is just God telling you that you have too much money.

But seriously, people can't be that oblivious. I have to believe your balance will be below 100BTC in a few days.

A few days later the bank made 2,722 in one day. Since I am sure betting was not uniformly spread throughout the day some hours may have jumped up 300 BTC. Someone who was invested at 7K BTC would easily have as much as 20% of the Bank. So a change of 7 BTC in two hours would not be particularly shocking.


Those are the kinds of things that psychotic people say. You need some serious help.

So beyond those 10 accounts you still have over 800 BTC left. Is that spread over 50 acounts or 1000 accounts or 5000 accounts?

I don't know how much trouble you have to go through to track accounts of less than 1 BTC.

Especially since they do it over and over again and win, so it starts to feel like you are printing money. The story behind that bet was that he started as an investor with 2200 BTC. He lost 500 BTC of his investment when Nakowa was on a winning streak. Then he withdrew his remaining investment (2200-500=1700 BTC) and wrote his address on paper.

The paper ended up in the dumpster, and he spent a long time retrieving it. The pain and anguish made him reckless and he made 26 bets with large probabilities of winning increasing his 1700 BTC to 7000 BTC.

He started to withdraw the money, and sometimes in the course of a 2 hour period he put it back into play and on the 27th play he lost it all. His public statement was "Ouch!", and "at least I set a record". Considering those 7K BTC briefly surged to over $7 million and would be worth well over $4 million today, I would consider him a zen Buddhist.

Can you open doge-dice and limit investments under one account to 100,000,000 DogeCoin? Surely the government doesn't expect you to try and correlate different accounts to look for potential common ownership. How would you do that anyway?

The restriction would by definition be small enough so that there were no suspicious activity of interest to the government. At least some of the smaller players would have a clean well lit place to go.

It's not a question of what can be done, it's a question of responsibility of the web site owner. If the website owner is responsible to ask for a name, and he gets dozens of names generated from a random number generator, is it his responsibility to go through names and see if they realistic names?

In the USA there is an upper limit for private cash transactions. It is $10,000 . Now there are plenty of illegal cash transactions in amounts below $10K, but the government requires you to report to the IRS a cash transaction of $10K or more. There is no presumption of illegal activity. You might pay for an old sports car in cash for some amount over $10K. There is nothing illegal about buying the sports car, but it is illegal to not report the transaction to the IRS.

I am not sure of the law in Canada. Now $10K < 17 BTC. So if dooglus is required to register with the Canadian government every investor deposit of 17 BTC or more, than he probably can't function.

If a more reasonable sum is determined, than he may have a workable business. As of the last report, these are the top investors in doge-coin (expressed in BTC)

693.71
670.22
248.39
233.82
215.62
213.95
189.59
147.65
132.59
116.08
107.97

If he can meet government regulations by restricting investments to the dogecoin equivalent of under 100 BTC, and is only forced to produce a list of investment or withdrawals on demand then he might have a working business model that could operate under the radar.

While some people will be reluctant to turn bitcoins in doge-coins, there may be enough to restore business. Doge-dice made 2200 BTC equivalent in profit, which is a little more than 1/8 of the profit of JD. I don't know how long Doge-dice has been operational.

In general, the government will have to win cases to establish precedents. They are much less likely to go after a dogecoin operation for one of the first test cases. Who wants that story in the news.

If you just open up doge-dice and keep investors below the equivalent of 50BTC would that drop below the suspicious level.

while not on the level of JD, it would still be a decent passtime and a good investment opportunity, I counted only 11 investors on doge-dice with over 100 BTC invested, and only 13 with between 50BTC and 100BTC.

195,160 BTC wagered
2,272   BTC profit

I'm sure he's weighing his options. Look at it this way. the Canadian government may decide that dooglus doesn't have to collect personal data on investors of 100BTC or less. Now as of his last report, the investors under 100 BTC summed to only 10,723 BTC out of the bankroll of 53,280 BTC.

Now could he open Just Dice with a 10K bankroll (max profit of 50 BTC). Absolutely. Plus dooglus can't be responsible for people who open up multiple accounts of one satoshi less than 100 BTC.

Personally, I think JD would be more profitable with a smaller bankroll. I think that even with a 50 BTC or a 100 BTC limit, there would be plenty of activity, and return for the investors would be higher since they are split among a smaller group.

Look at the numbers for doge-dice. I know they are very small compared to just-dice, but note that profit is 50% bigger than invested. For just dice the profit was much smaller than the amount invested because of whale activity. If you were an investor of JD for under 100 BTC you would have been smarter to pull it out and invest in doge-dice (assuming bitcoin doesn't keep inflating).

BTC
195,160 wagered
2,272 profit

611,254,823 bets