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

[gizzig]

Thanks, It is already working 

The function send_bet() not found, after correcting several features that disappeared, It is the only missing

I just brought it back for you. Reload the page and you'll be able to see it.

[anp31]

All staked clams are going to investors.Wouldn't it be better if dooglus split that 50:50 to investors and losers(negative balance accounts)
That will attract more people to the site.

[chriswen]

All staked clams are going to investors.Wouldn't it be better if dooglus split that 50:50 to investors and losers(negative balance accounts)
That will attract more people to the site.

This could very possibly be -EV for investors. Also there's only a 1% edge. Any more and gambler will have a positive edge. And I don't think you were suggesting less than 1% for losers.

[dooglus]

All staked clams are going to investors.Wouldn't it be better if dooglus split that 50:50 to investors and losers(negative balance accounts)
That will attract more people to the site.

I don't think you mean "negative balance", since nobody has a negative balance.

Do you mean accounts with a negative profit? If so, you are creating an incentive for people to create new accounts whenever they have a negative profit. It wouldn't be in the player's interest to try winning back their loss on that account - better to make a new account and play there.

Finally, how do you suggest that staking rewards are given out? Should 50% of every stake be split between all the accounts with negative profit forever?

The problem is that the investors are able to divest and earn the full 100% of their staking rewards. If they only got 50% of them by investing at Just-Dice, it wouldn't be worth their while being invested. Certainly the negative effect on investors wouldn't be offset by the small positive effect on players. Gamblers won't be impressed by being awarded a small share of 50% of 1 CLAM every minute or two. It's too small to make any difference to them.

[anp31]

Do you mean accounts with a negative profit? If so, you are creating an incentive for people to create new accounts whenever they have a negative profit. It wouldn't be in the player's interest to try winning back their loss on that account - better to make a new account and play there.

You are right.This idea makes no sense but i think JD should have reward system maybe based on wagered amount(you already creating stats for that) ? 25-50 clams out of 1200 daily will not hurt investors and should make site more attractive for gamblers.

[dooglus]

You are right.This idea makes no sense but i think JD should have reward system maybe based on wagered amount(you already creating stats for that) ? 25-50 clams out of 1200 daily will not hurt investors and should make site more attractive for gamblers.

It's a zero sum game. It hurts investors exactly as much as it benefits gamblers.

Taking 25 CLAMs per day from investors and giving it to gamblers hurts investors by an amount of 25 CLAMs per day, and benefits gamblers by an amount of 25 CLAMs per day.

I think it would make more sense to simply reduce the house edge from 1% to 0.9% and achieve a similar effect. Both take EV from the investors and give it to the gamblers. Both modify the incentives slightly to make it less attractive to invest and more attractive to gamble. But is that what we want to do?

(The average daily wagered amount is roughly 25k CLAMs, and so the average daily EV for investors is 1% of that, or 250 CLAMs; giving back 25 to 50 CLAMs represents giving up 10-20% of the house edge, making it effectively 0.8%-0.9%. Note also that under your scheme the effective house edge gets bigger as the wagered amount increases - the rewards get spread more thinly to the gamblers).

[chriswen]

You could say that if you have a certain amount of gambling losses you could apply that towards a discount on commission.

[n3o111]

nonsense post !!!  Just-dice is 100% fair. I did numerous experiment before playing on Just-dice & every time it was proved fair.

From my experiences I never see a site %100 fair. If you play long enough you will %100 lose even if you have unlimited amounts of cash.

[8fold]

nonsense post !!!  Just-dice is 100% fair. I did numerous experiment before playing on Just-dice & every time it was proved fair.

From my experiences I never see a site %100 fair. If you play long enough you will %100 lose even if you have unlimited amounts of cash.

This is not what it means to be fair. If i understand correctly, you are confusing fairness with zero-house-edge, and you think that if a site is "fair", you should not lose, or be breakeven. But you need to pay the house for the entertainment value you get out of betting, so you will never see breakeven casinos.

JustDice is provably fair and has a house edge of 1%. And because of house edge, you are bound to lose if you play long enough.

So fairness means that on the long run, the house should win 1% (and NO more) of the total wagered amount.

[chilly2k]

nonsense post !!!  Just-dice is 100% fair. I did numerous experiment before playing on Just-dice & every time it was proved fair.

From my experiences I never see a site %100 fair. If you play long enough you will %100 lose even if you have unlimited amounts of cash.

This is not what it means to be fair. If i understand correctly, you are confusing fairness with zero-house-edge, and you think that if a site is "fair", you should not lose, or be breakeven. But you need to pay the house for the entertainment value you get out of betting, so you will never see breakeven casinos.

JustDice is provably fair and has a house edge of 1%. And because of house edge, you are bound to lose if you play long enough.

So fairness means that on the long run, the house should win 1% (and NO more) of the total wagered amount.

   For the purist's out there it should probably be "100% honest".  Fair implies equal.  And we all know it's not equal with a 1% house edge. 

   It's not to say there is anything wrong with Just-dice, it's just a wording thing....       

[8fold]

it should probably be "100% honest".  Fair implies equal.[...]  

Oh I understand now what he meant. I guess it's harder for those non-native english speakers (like I am) to notice this subtle nuance of the word "fair".

Though the notion of "provably fair" got into collective consciousness with SatoshiDice, so it's almost branded at the moment. It would seem strange to change it in "provably honest", even though it may be more literally correct.

[dooglus]

it should probably be "100% honest".  Fair implies equal.[...]  

Oh I understand now what he meant. I guess it's harder for those non-native english speakers (like I am) to notice this subtle nuance of the word "fair".

Though the notion of "provably fair" got into collective consciousness with SatoshiDice, so it's almost branded at the moment. It would seem strange to change it in "provably honest", even though it may be more literally correct.

Here's what shows up when I ask Google to "define fair":



and:



So I don't know that "fair" is the wrong word. The only thing there that you might want to argue with is "equitable", although rather than meaning "equal" it appears to mean "fair and impartial". We're impartial - the 1% house edge applies to all players equally.

If the site claimed to have a 1% house edge but actually had a 2% house edge, then that's unfair. But since we're upfront about the 1% edge, I think there's nothing unfair going on, and more than it being unfair when a store marks up the price of the products it sells relative to the price they themselves paid.

[jpcfan]

[...] it fell like the luck changed since the server seed change. None of the system that we had used before worked, all goes south quick. I mean look at the site profit, changed from 80-90k to 140+k since the seed change. I don't mean this in any bad way, not critical to the site or your trust. I still like the site and you!
But it is like I said before, it's gambling, sooner or later the luck runs out, and it may or may not come back

Hope you got what I was going for

OK, thanks for explaining. The server seeds were reset on July 13th, and you're right - that is when the profit bounced off the 1% line and headed moonwards:



It's entirely coincidental, I can assure you. But now at least I know what you were referring to.

can u post updated chart please. profit has gone up the whole time since mid july.

[andulolika]

[...] it fell like the luck changed since the server seed change. None of the system that we had used before worked, all goes south quick. I mean look at the site profit, changed from 80-90k to 140+k since the seed change. I don't mean this in any bad way, not critical to the site or your trust. I still like the site and you!
But it is like I said before, it's gambling, sooner or later the luck runs out, and it may or may not come back

Hope you got what I was going for

OK, thanks for explaining. The server seeds were reset on July 13th, and you're right - that is when the profit bounced off the 1% line and headed moonwards:



It's entirely coincidental, I can assure you. But now at least I know what you were referring to.

can u post updated chart please. profit has gone up the whole time since mid july.

since the wagered is at 10m the expected profit 100k and its about 50% higher i would say thats a pretty recent chart. Doog always does fresh charts.

[dooglus]

can u post updated chart please. profit has gone up the whole time since mid july.

As Andu says, that was quite recent already, but here's a couple of new ones anyway:





Edit:

You can always find relatively up-to-date charts on the "Stats" tab at just-dice.com:

    Site profit charts:

    * recent profit
    * all-time profit
    * percentage profit

[dooglus]

Here's an unusual strategy:

[dooglus]

I just looked at the "All Bets" tab. I have it set to only show bets winning or losing 10 CLAMs or more. I saw:



It looks like he won 20 or 30 20% bets in a row - but none of his losses are showing since the losses only lost 7 CLAMs each time.

[psy112]

I just looked at the "All Bets" tab. I have it set to only show bets winning or losing 10 CLAMs or more. I saw:



It looks like he won 20 or 30 20% bets in a row - but none of his losses are showing since the losses only lost 7 CLAMs each time.

lol lucky session ;P

[dooglus]

I feel like I ought to link to this post about a massive ongoing CLAM digging session, for those who may have missed it.

[DiscoverCebu]

Here's an unusual strategy:

Seems like some kind of reverse martingale to me, with 50% or so increase on win.