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

[seuntjie]

It's possible he's using dicebot and the bot failed to connect for some reason and tried to unsuccessfully reconnect a few times, or he might have written his own bot or used another bot that runs on jdcapi (like tigers bot) that handles disconnects/reconnects incorrectly or tries to log into a whole bunch of accounts too quickly.

I just had another player complaining that the bot had lost all his balance, and that the same numbers were being rolled several times. Turns out the bot is showing the same bet multiple times:



Not sure what's going wrong, but it also seems to be skipping some bet sizes, and resetting on loss sometimes. Maybe it's user error, but it's odd how the same bet shows up multiple times.

It looks like there's an error in JDCAPIs reconnection logic. It seems like the socket gets a disconnect message or experiences an error, so the bot tries to reconnect, but the socket stays connected. Meaning a bet is placed via the newest socket but the messages are received from both sockets, so the bet is shown twice in the bot. This will cause issues (as shown in the screenshot above). This is a very recent issue

I'd suggest people avoid using dicebot on JD until I get this fixed.

[1715203949]

1715203949

[gkcheetah]

It's possible he's using dicebot and the bot failed to connect for some reason and tried to unsuccessfully reconnect a few times, or he might have written his own bot or used another bot that runs on jdcapi (like tigers bot) that handles disconnects/reconnects incorrectly or tries to log into a whole bunch of accounts too quickly.

I just had another player complaining that the bot had lost all his balance, and that the same numbers were being rolled several times. Turns out the bot is showing the same bet multiple times:

https://i.imgur.com/2Vh6wtq.jpg

Not sure what's going wrong, but it also seems to be skipping some bet sizes, and resetting on loss sometimes. Maybe it's user error, but it's odd how the same bet shows up multiple times.

am using the same autobet settings for more than two days...i didn't change any settings....but within 2 seconds the bets repeated continuously and went to empty.....i dont even have time to understand what happened.....and am not using anyother bots and anyother scripts for betting....

[emsjvh]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?



You've been around since 2013

[dooglus]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

[seuntjie]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

Some people seem to enjoy botting more than playing by hand

[Dabs]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

Some people seem to enjoy botting more than playing by hand

You can't roll a million bets in 5 days by hand.

[Invulner]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

Some people seem to enjoy botting more than playing by hand

You can't roll a million bets in 5 days by hand.

But you're essentially making yourself lose more at a more guaranteed chance because the sample size is so large with bot betting. When you manual bet you can win in the short term but with botting you are almost guaranteed to lose.

However i guess the attraction for people is to program a "failsafe" algorithm that will beat the house - which is, i'm sorry to say, impossible for now unless you cheat the house.

[tspacepilot]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

In fact, it *is* guaranteed to lose in the long run, as long as you choose a sufficiently large interpretation of 'long run', like, say, infinitely large. 

[organofcorti]

Any plans of adding auto-rolling?

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

In fact, it *is* guaranteed to lose in the long run, as long as you choose a sufficiently large interpretation of 'long run', like, say, infinitely large. 

doog's use of "almost" is correct in this case.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

"In probability theory, one says that an event happens almost surely (sometimes abbreviated as a.s.) if it happens with probability one."

[Dabs]

It doesn't have to be so large. I think I lost after 1.3 million bets. It was fun. (And, it was other people's money, who willingly gave it to me to do a million bets.)

[dooglus]

doog's use of "almost" is correct in this case.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

"In probability theory, one says that an event happens almost surely (sometimes abbreviated as a.s.) if it happens with probability one."

That was a happy coincidence. I almost surely wasn't thinking of that definition when I used the term.

[tspacepilot]

(And, it was other people's money, ...

That always makes gambling more fun!

[organofcorti]

That was a happy coincidence. I almost surely wasn't thinking of that definition when I used the term.

Ha!

[dooglus]

From the CLAM thread:

Doog, JD has some bugs now

It turns out when I designed the JD database I thought 2.1 billion bets would be more than would ever happen. We just hit 2.1 billion bets (2^31) so things stopped working.

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

[jpcfan]

Thanks doog.


Make JD Great Again!

[BayAreaCoins]

From the CLAM thread:

Doog, JD has some bugs now

It turns out when I designed the JD database I thought 2.1 billion bets would be more than would ever happen. We just hit 2.1 billion bets (2^31) so things stopped working.

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

Why would you put a limitation like that in the first place?

Seems like it would just be an extra line of code to go in.

[tryphe]

From the CLAM thread:

Doog, JD has some bugs now

It turns out when I designed the JD database I thought 2.1 billion bets would be more than would ever happen. We just hit 2.1 billion bets (2^31) so things stopped working.

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

Why would you put a limitation like that in the first place?

Seems like it would just be an extra line of code to go in.

Because

Code:

INT32_MAX = 2147483647

and people love using small default size variables. I actually joked that this would happen a few months back, however I thought I was wrong because you can enter any number in just-dice.com/roll/<number> etc. 1029381803572348957394875348975 and it doesn't complain. So I didn't say anything. *shrug*  

[dooglus]

Why would you put a limitation like that in the first place?

Seems like it would just be an extra line of code to go in.

Database rows are typically a fixed length. Why use 8 bytes per betid if you think they will always fit into 4 bytes. When you're storing 2 billion of them it makes a difference. Either way you need to decide what size each field in each database table needs to be.

[dooglus]

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

It turned out it was going to take about 8 days to fix the database table that contains the old bet archive. So rather than waiting for that to happen I made a new empty bet archive table. Betting is active again now, but you won't be able to look up details of old bets until I migrate them into the new table.

That will happen gradually over the coming weeks (and hopefully not months, but we'll see...).

None of the data is lost, it just needs a little massaging.

[Invulner]

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

It turned out it was going to take about 8 days to fix the database table that contains the old bet archive. So rather than waiting for that to happen I made a new empty bet archive table. Betting is active again now, but you won't be able to look up details of old bets until I migrate them into the new table.

That will happen gradually over the coming weeks (and hopefully not months, but we'll see...).

None of the data is lost, it just needs a little massaging.

Nice, good to see that the betting is back up again.

Will enjoy another degenerate session hopefully soon, haha. Always enjoyed gambling my funds away on JD