Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest

[dooglus]

I am unable to access my account and have sent you a PM if that's ok.

That's fine.  It's better if you use the email address in the FAQ because that creates a ticket in the support system which we can use to track your issue.  You can also use the https://support.just-dice.com website to create a ticket.

[1715587092]

1715587092

[1715587092]

1715587092

[1715587092]

1715587092

[1715587092]

1715587092

[1715587092]

1715587092

[1715587092]

1715587092

[trout]

You always bet the same amount, but you change the multiplier.
Say you bet 1btc on 2x.
If you lose, bet 1btc on 3x.
if lose, 1btc of 4x, and so on.
If win, you go back to 2x.
(The amount you bet never changes.)
Each time you win, you balance is 1 btc up from your previous win.

I tried this for myself.  The first time I won on 3x, then on 46x, and then on 38x.

On the 3rd trial I started out betting 0.0102 on 2x, then 0.0103 on 3x, etc. up to 0.0138 on 38x. 

yep, that's a fun variation. Another is to replace the first 2x bet with some wild bet like  100x.

for me the longest run so far was up to 119x. I also won 198x once but not in a single
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.

 

[dooglus]

for me the longest run so far was up to 119x. I also won 198x once but not in a single
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.

hex wrote a bot that implemented the strategy.  It worked for a while, winning one run at something like 4806x.  But it looks like it busted after I stopped watching, with a run that didn't win after getting up over 5000x and spending all available funds.

[trout]

for me the longest run so far was up to 119x. I also won 198x once but not in a single
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.

hex wrote a bot that implemented the strategy.  It worked for a while, winning one run at something like 4806x.  But it looks like it busted after I stopped watching, with a run that didn't win after getting up over 5000x and spending all available funds.

heh. I guess the bot must have been running for a while.

[b!z]

Thanks! I figured it out. I had my username capitalized wrong.
It's important to note that account number and associated email address are not enough to login. I had forgotten that I even had a username, actually.

Oh, good.  Usernames are case sensitive.  The email address isn't used for anything other than for contacting you in case of emergency.

I found my username again. I didn't know it was case sensitive, thanks for your help.
question: is it to stop people guessing names, or are TEST and test 2 different accounts?

[DomenicoRomano]

I simulated the win ratio progression, where you try to win back your loses by leaving the bet constant and increasing the amount you win, verses a regular martingale versus a single bet.

The bank started at 1000, the risk was 0.1% of the bank with each bet or 1 for the win ratio progression.  The exit was going bust or winning 10%.  300000 runs were done for each of the progressions.

The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win.  The Martingale is slightly more expensive than a single bet, the win ratio progression is slightly less expensive.  The differences in profitability are insignificant.

-Edit-  The previous version of this post in which I said the edge was overcome was wrong.  I ran the simulation with a 0.1% edge by mistake.  This simulation is run with a house edge = 1%.


                           single bet  single bet, edge = 0  bet size progression  win ratio progression
mean number of bets                 1                     1                   428                    734
mean number of bet to win           1                     1                   443                    667
mean win                         1100                  1100           1100.740049             1100.02207
probability of win                0.9           0.909090909              0.897828               0.903173
equivalent house edge (%)         1.0                   0.0                 1.173                 0.6489

[dooglus]

I found my username again. I didn't know it was case sensitive, thanks for your help.
question: is it to stop people guessing names, or are TEST and test 2 different accounts?

Both are true.

Usernames are never shown.  It's harder for an attacker to guess my username if it uses mixed case and usernames are case sensitive than if they're not.  It never occurred to me to allow people to type their username differently and consider it the same.  That would be more work for me, and would result in less security for the users.  And "test" and "TEST" would be two different accounts, yes.  Hopefully with two different passwords. 

[dooglus]

Both the martingale and win ratio progression effectively overcome the house edge.  The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win.

I've not tried repeating your experiment, but I can't help but notice the minus sign in the 'effective house edge' row.

If that's true, you have found a way to beat the house.

I suspect in reality you just didn't run your simulation for long enough.

Which is it?  Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.

[GOB]

Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.

Understatement of the year!

[DomenicoRomano]

Both the martingale and win ratio progression effectively overcome the house edge.  The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win.

I've not tried repeating your experiment, but I can't help but notice the minus sign in the 'effective house edge' row.

If that's true, you have found a way to beat the house.

I suspect in reality you just didn't run your simulation for long enough.

Which is it?  Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.r

I would not worry.  I went to run the simulation again and noticed a typo.  I had run it with a house edge of 0.1% instead of 1.0%.  I have rerun the simulation and fixed the post.

[Mooshire]

Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.

Understatement of the year!

I beat the house all the time because I'm a sooper h4x0r.

[trout]

I simulated the win ratio progression, where you try to win back your loses by leaving the bet constant and increasing the amount you win, verses a regular martingale versus a single bet.



                          ....
mean number of bet to win
....

when calculating various characterstics of the betting strategies, you have to be careful
to check whether they are well-defined.
Specifically, expectations of some of the random variables do not exist (= are infinite),
and of course the same holds of the variance.

For example, expected number of bets to win, with 0 house edge is
\sum_{i=1}^\infty i*P(lost i-1 times)*P(won on i'th time) =
\sum_{i=1}^\infty i*1/i*1/(i+1) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty 1/(i+1) = infinity

which does not mean that on average you have to wait infinitely long to win.
It just means that the concept of mathematical expectation is not useful for
this analysis, and so emprical expectation (mean time to win) may be very misleading.

[DomenicoRomano]

I've added a column for the reverse martingale strategy: If you win you double your bet, if you lose you go back to your initial small bet.  The average win for the reverse Martingale is a lot higher than the 10% goal because the last winning bet is very big and will overshoot the 10% stopping criteria.

With the reverse Martingale most wins happen quickly, within 200 bets, most loses are tightly bunched around 1830 bets.

The reverse Martingale decreases your odds quite a bit.  It is like giving the house a 3% edge.  The equivalent odds for a single 1000 btc bet to win 1211.589806 is p = 0.817108


                           single bet  single bet, edge = 0  bet size progression  win ratio progression reverse Martingale
mean number of bets                 1                     1                   428                    734                969
mean number of bet to win           1                     1                   443                    667                384
mean win                         1100                  1100           1100.740049             1100.02207        1211.589806
probability of win                0.9           0.909090909              0.897828               0.903173           0.800097
equivalent house edge (%)         1.0                   0.0                 1.173                 0.6489             3.0611

[/quote]

[petrescuerz]

Site seems to be down. doog will be home in about 10 minutes and will take a look at it.

Deb

[RavinTavin]

A few of my regulars have been talking about this site and I think I am going to give it a shot coming soon!

RavinTavin

[mechs]

A few of my regulars have been talking about this site and I think I am going to give it a shot coming soon!

RavinTavin

Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)

[dooglus]

Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)

She also bid on the weekly ad spot. 

I'm not sure what she does is porn - I stopped in today for a bit and she was attempting (and failing) to make an origami cat...

[KingOfSports]

Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)

She also bid on the weekly ad spot. 

I'm not sure what she does is porn - I stopped in today for a bit and she was attempting (and failing) to make an origami cat...

Dooglus how dare you watch a camstripper when your in a committed relationship!

[dooglus]

Dooglus how dare you watch a camstripper when your in a committed relationship!

How dare you bet on dice when you're the king of sports? 

[Dabs]

Send your coins to me, I'll bet them for you. I'm a professional dice gambler.