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

[BayAreaCoins]

Looking strictly at the numbers as opposed to percentages, that top investor lost an equivalent of almost 6 BTC to AK, which I'm thinking is still a depressing amount to lose for any whale.  

I'm sure he will find someway to sleep tonight!  (sarcasm)

Probably just gamble that shit back.  Winning players leads to investor players.... that is when things get interesting!

[xoxoll]

If translation bounties still available, can I receive CLAM for https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.msg9867903#msg9867903

[BayAreaCoins]

If translation bounties still available, can I receive CLAM for https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.msg9867903#msg9867903

What language is that even?

[Stcgold]

If translation bounties still available, can I receive CLAM for https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.msg9867903#msg9867903

What language is that even?

Looks like ukraine

[picolo]

1000 CLAM gets you 3 CLAM/day from stacking.

The bankroll has been hit when the players won 5700 CLAM two days ago.

[xoxoll]

If translation bounties still available, can I receive CLAM for https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.msg9867903#msg9867903

What language is that even?

Sorry wrong link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.msg9867838#msg9867838
UA translation with the help of my wife.

[nicolaennio]

I have mixed feelings about the /offline idea. Surely it is innovative, but is it fair? People are allowed to lie about their offline stakes which basically means that if they lose their investment, the max bet will decrease dramatically, as they cannot fill up again with their non-existent coins.

Secondly, math tells us that 1% max bet is the fastest way to increase your profits. Now people are allowed to increase their risk (when lying) to more than 10% against their own interest (the fact that some JD investors aren't proficient in statistics was already clear though.)

In the end I find myself making a guesswork of how much I should declare offline in order to reach a 0.5% of risk that I want to afford.

[ranlo]

I have mixed feelings about the /offline idea. Surely it is innovative, but is it fair? People are allowed to lie about their offline stakes which basically means that if they lose their investment, the max bet will decrease dramatically, as they cannot fill up again with their non-existent coins.

Secondly, math tells us that 1% max bet is the fastest way to increase your profits. Now people are allowed to increase their risk (when lying) to more than 10% against their own interest (the fact that some JD investors aren't proficient in statistics was already clear though.)

In the end I find myself making a guesswork of how much I should declare offline in order to reach a 0.5% of risk that I want to afford.

Again, it's not lying. I have $100 sitting in my pocket. That's worth 0.5 BTC or 100 CLAM. I don't HAVE to hold it in CLAM *or* BTC. But if I want to, I can convert $100->BTC->CLAM->JD. That is in no way lying. It's just holding a different currency. That's what the entire system is all about.

And how is it "guesswork" to figure out how much you want to risk? Pretty simple formula that you can work out in your head within a second. Kind of funny that you bring up a lack of knowing statistics when you apparently have issues with basic mathematics, :p.

[dooglus]

I have mixed feelings about the /offline idea. Surely it is innovative, but is it fair? People are allowed to lie about their offline stakes which basically means that if they lose their investment, the max bet will decrease dramatically, as they cannot fill up again with their non-existent coins.

Who are you arguining that it is unfair to?

* the investor who is 'lying' can lose his coins pretty quickly - but he knows that going in, so that's not unfair

* the player who wins big sees that the max profit drops a lot after his win - but he just won big, so he's not complaining

* the investor won isn't lying sees his share of the bankroll diluted by 'lying' investors - but he gets to stay invested when the liar investors are forced out by a winning player, and gets a much bigger share if the winning player turns into a losing player after that

Secondly, math tells us that 1% max bet is the fastest way to increase your profits.

I think it tells us that risking 1% of your investment on every bet maximises the expected value of the logarithm of your bankroll - or something like that. To maximise the expected value of your bankroll when you have an edge you should risk everything on every roll shouldn't you? Your expected profit is 1% of the amount the player risks, so you want them to risk as much as possible against you. The reason we look to maximise the logarithm of the bankroll is that when you have 100 coins, losing 100 is catastrophic, but winning 100 isn't equal and opposite. 100 and 200 are similar amounts, one being only twice the other, but 100 is many times bigger than 0.

Now people are allowed to increase their risk (when lying) to more than 10% against their own interest (the fact that some JD investors aren't proficient in statistics was already clear though.)

In the end I find myself making a guesswork of how much I should declare offline in order to reach a 0.5% of risk that I want to afford.

We can't tell whether it's against their own interest or not, or whether they're lying, since we have no idea of the size of their whole bankroll. Most of it won't be CLAMs anyway.

If you want to risk 0.5% of your bankroll per roll, calculate the size of your bankroll, work out what that comes to in CLAMs, subtract your onsite investment size from that number, and that tells you how much you should declare to be '/offsite'. For this you need to decide what constitutes your bankroll. You'll also need to regularly monitor the situation - perhaps the price of CLAM changes, or the value of the non-CLAM part of your bankroll.

[nicolaennio]

* the investor won isn't lying sees his share of the bankroll diluted by 'lying' investors - but he gets to stay invested when the liar investors are forced out by a winning player, and gets a much bigger share if the winning player turns into a losing player after that

So if I do not want to lie on my bankroll and I do not want it to be diluted (assuming others are lying), I have to wait that a winning player 'calls' their bluff (?)

To maximise the expected value of your bankroll when you have an edge you should risk everything on every roll shouldn't you? Your expected profit is 1% of the amount the player risks, so you want them to risk as much as possible against you.

If you risk *everything* (as you are allowed to do by lying on your bankroll), you will incur in a variance which will slow down the rate at which your wealth grows. That's what Kelly's criterion is saying.

If you want to risk 0.5% of your bankroll per roll, calculate the size of your bankroll, work out what that comes to in CLAMs, subtract your onsite investment size from that number, and that tells you how much you should declare to be '/offsite'. For this you need to decide what constitutes your bankroll. You'll also need to regularly monitor the situation - perhaps the price of CLAM changes, or the value of the non-CLAM part of your bankroll.

This is the solution in any given moment. But I fear that someone over there is 'cheating' on their bankroll, putting a 10X multiplier where they shouldn't have. I also fear they can very quickly chicken out when a whale is coming and I am sleeping. And at that point I found myself with 5% risk.

[fox19891989]

i think most of this faqs were just google translated

Sniffed out a bad chinese google trans earlier.  Scammed me for 50 clam!

You should ask me to translate, I don't use Google translator, my translation service link  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759494

[picolo]

* the investor won isn't lying sees his share of the bankroll diluted by 'lying' investors - but he gets to stay invested when the liar investors are forced out by a winning player, and gets a much bigger share if the winning player turns into a losing player after that

So if I do not want to lie on my bankroll and I do not want it to be diluted (assuming others are lying), I have to wait that a winning player 'calls' their bluff (?)

If you are claiming a lot of offsite coins that you don't have, you don't get any stack reward from them and you risk to lose more if a whale wins big.

[dooglus]

This is in reply to a post on the CLAM thread.

I'm answering it here because it doesn't really belong there.

I would be in favor of not giving stacking rewards for CLAM that cannot stack but I don't feel strongly about it.

It's tricky. Suppose you deposit 100 CLAM and a minute later I withdraw 100 CLAM. I'm going to get the 100 you deposited. Should you have to wait 4 hours before you get staking rewards? I don't see why you should. The full onsite invested amount is now staking... I have things set up such that new deposits are used to service withdrawals, and so there's never a huge amount of coin 'waiting' to age.

It's almost always true that the amount of coin in the wallet that is waiting its 4 hours to start staking is smaller than the amount that is in people's balances but not invested. So you end up getting more than your fair share of the reward anyway.

What about allowing investors not to invest for bets of more than a certain number of CLAM : you could invest only for bets of less than 1 CLAM or less than 10 CLAM, if someone bets more you don't win or lose.

I don't like the idea, and it would be a real pain to implement. Currently I don't track each investor's balance, I only know what percentage of the total bankroll they own. We can handle 100 bets per second because each bet only has to update the site's bankroll, not 200 different investor balances. If each investor had a different range of bet sizes they were willing to get involved with it breaks that scheme, and I have to update all the investor balances for all bets.

What's your motivation for suggesting such a scheme? How would it be fair for you to take all the nice low variance bets and leave the more dangerous bigger bets to other people? I don't think it would be.

[picolo]

This is in reply to a post on the CLAM thread.

I'm answering it here because it doesn't really belong there.

I would be in favor of not giving stacking rewards for CLAM that cannot stack but I don't feel strongly about it.

It's tricky. Suppose you deposit 100 CLAM and a minute later I withdraw 100 CLAM. I'm going to get the 100 you deposited. Should you have to wait 4 hours before you get staking rewards? I don't see why you should. The full onsite invested amount is now staking... I have things set up such that new deposits are used to service withdrawals, and so there's never a huge amount of coin 'waiting' to age.

It's almost always true that the amount of coin in the wallet that is waiting its 4 hours to start staking is smaller than the amount that is in people's balances but not invested. So you end up getting more than your fair share of the reward anyway.

What about allowing investors not to invest for bets of more than a certain number of CLAM : you could invest only for bets of less than 1 CLAM or less than 10 CLAM, if someone bets more you don't win or lose.

I don't like the idea, and it would be a real pain to implement. Currently I don't track each investor's balance, I only know what percentage of the total bankroll they own. We can handle 100 bets per second because each bet only has to update the site's bankroll, not 200 different investor balances. If each investor had a different range of bet sizes they were willing to get involved with it breaks that scheme, and I have to update all the investor balances for all bets.

What's your motivation for suggesting such a scheme? How would it be fair for you to take all the nice low variance bets and leave the more dangerous bigger bets to other people? I don't think it would be.

I agree with the stacking system, investors have the advantage of getting stack rewards 24/7 and the stack reward on clams that are on the balance of players? By the way can you confirm this last point?
Could you tell me approximatively the average total balance of players for the last 2 weeks or now? I understand it must fluctuate a lot.

The motivation of suggesting such a scheme is that some investors are interesting about having a return with low volatility and some investors are interested about having the best return long term even if it means having a small risk of losing most their investment.
Allowing investors to choose the max profit they are "playing" would allow the prudent investors to have steady returns and the others to have a bigger return (if whales don't get lucky). I understand why it would be technically difficult to do it.

If your CLAM are only used for bets of less than 1 CLAM you would likely win everyday and if your clams are only used for bets of less than 10 CLAM you will likely never lose a large portion of your investment.

[dooglus]

I agree with the stacking system,

First off, note that the word is "stake", as in "an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise", not stack. By owning CLAM you have a stake or interest in the whole CLAM economy, such as it is, and get to earn rewards proportional to the size of your stake.

investors have the advantage of getting stack rewards 24/7 and the stack reward on clams that are on the balance of players? By the way can you confirm this last point?

It's true, the whole wallet stakes, which includes onsite investments, balances, and any commission that has been charged by the site but not yet credited to an account. The 90% of each stake reward is shared between investors in proportion to the size of their onsite investment and the other 10% goes to the site as commission. The rewards don't count as profit for the purposes of calculating commission at the end of the week, since the 10% is taken off before the rewards are distributed.

Could you tell me approximatively the average total balance of players for the last 2 weeks or now? I understand it must fluctuate a lot.

I don't track it, but whenever I look it is between 2k and 4k, usually much closer to 2k. Right now it's 2037.72475057 CLAM. I expect somebody divested and forgot to reinvest their 2k. Players don't often leave coins in their balance - they either lose them, invest them, or withdraw them. There's nothing to be gained by leaving coins sitting idle in your balance when putting them in the bankroll makes them able to receive staking rewards.

The motivation of suggesting such a scheme is that some investors are interesting about having a return with low volatility and some investors are interested about having the best return long term even if it means having a small risk of losing most their investment.
Allowing investors to choose the max profit they are "playing" would allow the prudent investors to have steady returns and the others to have a bigger return (if whales don't get lucky). I understand why it would be technically difficult to do it.

If your CLAM are only used for bets of less than 1 CLAM you would likely win everyday and if your clams are only used for bets of less than 10 CLAM you will likely never lose a large portion of your investment.

I understand that some investors don't want the risk of bankrolling large bets, but there's nobody who ONLY wants to bankroll the large bets, or to bankroll more than their fair share of large bets.

It's clearly much better to bankroll a million small bets than one big bet worth the same amount. The small bets are the most desirable.

Allowing some investors to have an unfair share of the small bets necessarily means punishing the other investors with an unfair share of the bigger bets.

[ranlo]

I don't track it, but whenever I look it is between 2k and 4k, usually much closer to 2k. Right now it's 2037.72475057 CLAM. I expect somebody divested and forgot to reinvest their 2k. Players don't often leave coins in their balance - they either lose them, invest them, or withdraw them. There's nothing to be gained by leaving coins sitting idle in your balance when putting them in the bankroll makes them able to receive staking rewards.

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

[Keyser Soze]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

[ranlo]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

[Keyser Soze]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

[dooglus]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

Yeah. All the coins in the wallet stake, but the staking rewards are only shared with the investors. If you deposit to play and leave the coins in your balance but not invested, you don't get a share of the staking rewards.

I was being asked how many coins that typically involves. I was saying "not many". We have 350k or so invested, and only 2k or so not invested. So it doesn't make a huge difference to how much you stake. It doesn't even make up for the 10% commission the site charges.

At the moment there are 1678.31637478 coins in user balances, not counting their "invested" coins. That's the lowest I've seen for some time.