You forget that just-dice is the oldest and most established dice site at all
When Just-Dice first launched, there were at least 4 other dice sites already running: * satishidice * primedice * coinroll * btc-dice That last one was a straight satoshidice clone, and I may have got its name wrong. Since then satoshidice and coinroll have changed hands, and btc-dice has gone away (I think). PrimeDice is still around, and seems to have taken up most of the volume left behind when Just-Dice stopped accepting Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.
Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise you had to choose per app_id. And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
It seems to be OK now. A couple of days ago the file was twice the size that it is now. I made a local copy of the site using wget. The app.js file is 230548 bytes, with a timestamp of Jan 7 00:01 I just made another copy now using the exact same command. The app.js file is 115274 bytes, with a timestamp of Feb 7 06:49 Edit: I see the date on your post above as "Today at 06:46:14 AM" - so whatever you did 3 minutes after posting that fixed it. I ran the command at Feb 7 07:18, so I guess you last modified the app.js file about half an hour before I re-downloaded the file. I'm not sure what I can screenshot, but here's some proof that the old app.js was doubled up: $ wc -l app.js
7670 app.js
$ grep -n flatuicolors app.js
1:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
3836:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
$ grep -n "'INIT_CHAT', data" app.js
3832: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
7667: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
$ echo $((7670 / 2))
3835
$ head -n 3835 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ head -n 3835 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
|
|
|
|
Having everything in there twice means the app can process things 2x as fast  You know, like a poor man's multi-threading...if one function is busy handling something, just hand it off to its twin. That's genius. I wonder how well this technology scales up. Could I copy/paste sha256() a few million times to make a massively parallel mining app? |
|
|
|
I'm in the process of dropping the maximum "offsite multiplier" for investors on Just-Dice. About a year ago now I introduced the idea of " offsite investing". The idea was to allow investors to effectively risk coins that they hadn't deposited, with the goal of allowing them to take most of their CLAMs off the site and stake them in a local wallet. CLAM was far too centralised, with some 70% of all the CLAMs sitting in the Just-Dice bankroll, and I was hoping this would help address that problem. What actually happened was that almost nobody took any of their coins off the site, and everyone just used the offsite investing feature to massively increase the risk they were taking. So now we find ourselves with around a million CLAMs in the bankroll, and a maximum profit of 400k CLAMs. A single lucky bet could wipe out almost half of the bankroll. This seems like a bad idea, for various reasons; a) In order for investors to get any reasonable share of the site profits they have to dangerously over-extend themselves, risking far too much just to keep up with the other investors. b) If any lucky player ever did with the 400k maximum profit, they wouldn't be able to sell their coins for anywhere near as much as they might expect. c) Any attempt to dump 400k CLAMs on the exchanges would crash the market hard. So I'm going to be reducing the maximum offsite multiplier in stages. The maximum just dropped from 100x to 50x in the last hour, and so the maximum profit per bet is now down to 213k CLAMs. I will continue to drop it over the next few days until it is down to 10x. That will mean investors can risk no more than 5% of their coins per bet. I expect the max profit even at 10x will be in the region of 50k CLAMs, which is still a very competitive amount to be able to win. |
|
|
|
i am very love with just-dice.com,, everytime i am online, first i typo is that site and gmail  long live just-dice.com Just-Dice.com loves you too. What is your userid on the site?  |
|
|
|
Is there a problem with blocktree.io? I can connect, but don't get any pages returned. $ wget -S http://blocktree.io/
--2016-02-05 14:18:31-- http://blocktree.io/
Resolving blocktree.io (blocktree.io)... 144.76.64.123
Connecting to blocktree.io (blocktree.io)|144.76.64.123|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... Read error (Connection reset by peer) in headers.
Retrying.
--2016-02-05 14:18:37-- (try: 2) http://blocktree.io/
Connecting to blocktree.io (blocktree.io)|144.76.64.123|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... Read error (Connection reset by peer) in headers.
Retrying.
|
|
|
|
I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.
I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app. I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight? |
|
|
|
It was pointed out to me that both the Just-Dice threads have been moved into the same sub-forum. The other thread (for investors) used to be in the Securities sub-forum, and this one (for players) was in the gambling section. Now that they're both in the same place I guess it makes sense to lock one of them - so I'm locking the other one. The other thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242962 |
|
|
|
Good job, maybe it's time to withdrawal!
Yeah, well done Randall. I'm not sure about your strategy of giving all your winnings away, but whatever makes you happy! It was pointed out to me that both the Just-Dice threads have been moved into the same sub-forum. This one (for investors) used to be in the Securities sub-forum, and the other (for players) was in the gambling section. Now that they're both in the same place I guess it makes sense to lock one of them - so I'm locking this one. The other thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613 |
|
|
|
Here is another suggestion: FFS, hire somebody who know what is he doing to manage your poker room!.
Great advice. You've given away so much money in the poker promotions, and it's all for nothing if you're going to end up chasing the players away by continually making the games less attractive without warning. |
|
|
|
So in many ways, you tend to see volume go up when players are lucky, and volume go down when players are unlucky And since the house edge on bustabit is lower than on primedice players on average are able to bet more on bustabit than on primedice with the same size deposit before going bust. |
|
|
|
Min 4 it mean the game will start if 4 or more players are registered in S&G less than that the game will not start and max 6 it mean max amount player registered in that game.
And i think there is something wrong with that tournament
So if it starts as soon as the 4th player registers, how will there ever be 5 or 6 players? Is there late registration? I don't see it mentioned. |
|
|
|
Now it's time for us to play some tourneys  Dooglus I'm ready for a 5m BTC heads up if you aren't too scared  It's on. Edit: the new S&G games look a little weird. They have broken registeration start dates, and min/max players. Don't they just start when they're full? What does min 4, max 6 mean for this game? Before:  After:  |
|
|
|
In a case where a player's bankroll is higher than the site bankroll, wouldn't such a system maximize the risk (along with expected profit)? Is that desirable, say, against a 1% fixed max profit?
The charts I posted assume the player has an infinite bankroll, and makes a max bet every time. ie. I'm already assuming the player(s) have more than the site. Am I correct to say that in such a case, an investment in bustabit would be safer than one in moneypot?
That would depend on how bustabit sets its maximum bet. I think Ryan sets it way too high most of the time relative to the site's bankroll. I expect he's operating way past the peak on the chart, and maybe has a negative expectation of log bankroll growth if everyone was to max bet all the time. But it's not (last i heard) open to public investment, and he's aware of the risks, so what can you do? Edit: What would be the max bet (on a 1% HE) on a 999x line on a 100BTC bankroll? I think it would be higher than LB's..
It would depend hugely on the other numbers in the payout table. The Kelly calculation is dominated by the more common payout multipliers. |
|
|
|
Can someone summarize why the bet went through? Was the bet supposed to go through?
The bet went through because the site was using the Kelly criterion to decide how much of its bankroll to risk. The Kelly criterion tells it to risk 35.3% of its bankroll when playing the 'red' line (with 121x max payout). People are familiar with dice site style betting, where there are only two outcomes (win/lose). In that case Kelly tells us that the percentage of the bankroll to risk is the same as the percentage house edge. It's quite different for plinko games where there are a range of outcomes. In that case Kelly tells us to risk more than (house edge)% of the bankroll. See my most recent two charts. Risking 35% hits the peak of those charts. Risking only 1% gets you far lower expected log growth. you are saying that risking 40% of the BR would be optimal but half = 20% would also be acceptable? did I get this right?
It appears that 35.3% is optimal (for the 121x red line - it differs vastly depending on the line we're talking about). And looking at the chart, it looks like risking half that doesn't reduce the expected log growth by a whole lot. what about those 83% or 99% KC risk for the plinko game?
Those were for different payout lines. The 83% was for the 'orange' line, and the 99% was a silly extreme example where all the payouts were very close to 1x and the true house edge was much higher than 1% (since the player isn't really risking most of his stake at all when there's no chance of losing most of it). The orange line pays out like this:
if r >= 26333 and r < 39203: p = 0.4
elif r >= 14893 and r < 50643: p = 1
elif r >= 6885 and r < 58651: p = 1.1
elif r >= 2517 and r < 63019: p = 1.2
elif r >= 697 and r < 64839: p = 1.5
elif r >= 137 and r < 65399: p = 2
elif r >= 17 and r < 65519: p = 3
elif r >= 1 and r < 65535: p = 9
else: p = 23
and when I ran a simulation I got a plot of return against risk like this:  It peaks around 83% as expected. Risking half that looks like it gets you around 60-70% of the expected growth. |
|
|
|
I modified the simulation to it's running the 121x "red" plinkopot line:
r = random.random() * 65536
if r >= 26333 and r < 39203: p = 0.3
elif r >= 14893 and r < 50643: p = 0.5
elif r >= 6885 and r < 58651: p = 1
elif r >= 2517 and r < 63019: p = 1.4
elif r >= 697 and r < 64839: p = 3
elif r >= 137 and r < 65399: p = 5
elif r >= 17 and r < 65519: p = 13
elif r >= 1 and r < 65535: p = 47
else: p = 121
and generated some plots of the average log bankroll growth against percentage of bankroll risked. It takes a lot of rolls to get a good smooth curve, presumably because of the high variance of the 121x payout. First attempt:  Second attempt:  Both show that risking somewhere around 40% of the bankroll per game is optimal, but that risking half that isn't anywhere near half as bad. |
|
|
|
yes the player could make 99,999 losing bets in a row but as it is a bet of 1 in ~30k he could still win the outer with his first few bets or even more than once in his first few bets. why should a casino take such a high and risky gamble?
Because it maximises the expected growth of the logarithm of their bankroll. IMO a casino should never take such a high risk gamble with a possibility to get wiped out in one bet.
And they never do. The only time you risk 100% of your bankroll on a single event is if the house edge is 100% - and in that case the player is guaranteed to lose. as I posted before I don't know any land based or online casino beside MP that is taking such a dangerous risk.
Then there are lots of places leaving money on the table. to me it looks like that this high risk KC handling is only for plinko or does MP have other games with such high risk payouts? maybe the previous MP owner could answer this question.
If somebody wants to bet with a 99% house edge against them on a dice game, MP will happily risk 99% of its bankroll on that bet. An example of such a bet: you roll a number in the range 0.00 to 99.99. If it's less than 5.00 you double your money. Otherwise you lose. You have a 1 in 20 chance of doubling your money, and a 19 in 20 chance of losing it. Those are horrible odds for the player, and great odds for the house. The house has a 90% house edge. What percentage of your bankroll would you risk taking such a bet, if you were the house? The correct "Kelly" amount is to risk 90% of your bankroll, since the house edge is 90%. (RTP = 5 * 2 = 10%) I ran a simulation, having the house risk different percentages of its bankroll from 0% to 99% while the player max-bets against them 1000 times in a row. Here's a chart of the average of the log of the house bankroll for each percentage risked:  Notice how the house does best when it risks 90% of its bankroll per bet? That's the point. Edit: I re-ran the simulation, but for a 1% house edge bet. The variance is a lot higher, due to the smaller house edge, but the basic features of the curve are clear enough: risking 1% is optimal. risking 2% gives you a zero expected growth of log(bankroll), and higher than 2% risk is actually bad for business:  |
|
|
|
the problem I see with this bet is that even the chance is 1 in ~30k the user can win it in his first bet before the 29,999 losing bets. or what do I miss here?
What you're missing is that on the other hand the same guy could make 99,999 losing bets in a row and never hit the 121x payout. It's a gamble, and nobody is saying the investors always win. By using the Kelly criterion the house is optimising the expected returns for the investors. That doesn't mean the investors won't be making a loss at times. |
|
|
|
could you add a shapeshift widget to just-dice? would make deposit easier
I just did. It's in the same place as you see your deposit address. Either click the 'deposit' button, or type /dep or /deposit in chat to show it. You may need to refresh the page before you see the ShapeShift button by the way. |
|
|
|
Where's the beans?
Really, doog? ;( Also, by default we ship the beans ground, as you saw in the coffee can pic. No, not really. I was trying to be funny but having an off day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
