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

[Anton Chigurh]

this is a fun game. I like how you can manually adjust your odds and payout. I am sure Bitcoin gambling sites are VERY profitable.
I want to start one, Don't know how to make one of thsese sites tho.
I lost a bitcoin in about 2 minutes playing Satoshi mines.

Damn you Satoshi mines.

[1715543749]

1715543749

[1715543749]

1715543749

[1715543749]

1715543749

[1715543749]

1715543749

[Atruk]

I think you need to get some SEO

[image]

Lol

I don't think it will be a problem very long.

[Jeweller]

Dooglus, great idea, great site.  I guess this is the inevitable result of watching S.Dice closely for a year, scratching your head, and finally going, well gee, if this made 70K BTC, I could do that...

I invested a couple BTC, and the 'house is up' number promptly went down!  I thought there was a 1% house edge!!
(I know, just kidding.  Investing is also gambling in a way, huh.  Just a bit surprising how quickly it dropped 4 BTC.  Someone got lucky... and it wasn't me.  Yet.)
(Then I started thinking, well it's up about 3% and it should only be up 1%, so I shouldn't invest until... no wait, that's just a fallacy in reverse... etc)

I wonder about the 0BTC bets.  I guess it's a cool advertising feature so that people can try it out before putting real BTC in, but what if you start getting thousands of 0-bets a second?  As an "investor" I'd like to know a little more about scaling / anti-DDOS stuff.  Also will the 1% of 1% be enough to fund the server?  And your time?  I hope so.

I'll probably just invest it, and don't particularly need the extra 0.01, but if you're still handing them out, can't really say no!
user:Jeweller ID:2090

[maryanne23]

User # 2128

Amazing site!

[frott]

Is the 0.01 still available?
User: 1864

122 2013-06-24 18:33:38 (1) manually crediting user 1864 with amount 0.01 maryanne23

User # 2128

Amazing site!

I mean, at least TRY

[MattFoster42]

User ID 672

Now happily less than 50% of the sites profit....... 

[DiamondCardz]

Is the 0.01 still available?
User: 1864

122 2013-06-24 18:33:38 (1) manually crediting user 1864 with amount 0.01 maryanne23

User # 2128

Amazing site!

I mean, at least TRY

Lmfao, good stuff.

OTT: It's a unique idea, it'll be interesting to see it pan out.

[trout]

 So I figured out that an investor can actually be losing money, even in the long-run, because of the increasing pool of investment.

Say, you invest a certain amount, and the site's profit goes down, so you loose some money.  If the total investment pool stays constant, then all you have to do is to wait: at some point, with certainty, you will regain your investment and make a profit. However, if the pool is increasing, and keeps increasing, then your share decreases and so does your profit. It is easy to see that at some rate of pool growth you will never be able to make up even a small loss.  With the current investment growth, I think the threat is quite real.

So it seems to me some sort of early-investor prioritizing is needed.

just to make sure: I'm not complaining about my investment - I'm up, thanks, dooglus!- just bringing up a concern that one can easily overlook reading the JD faq.
(In fact, I think prioritizing early investors at this point will lower my profits.)

[coco23]

I'd like to try as well

ID 2173

Best

[Bugpowder]

So I figured out that an investor can actually be losing money, even in the long-run, because of the increasing pool of investment.

Say, you invest a certain amount, and the site's profit goes down, so you loose some money.  If the total investment pool stays constant, then all you have to do is to wait: at some point, with certainty, you will regain your investment and make a profit. However, if the pool is increasing, and keeps increasing, then your share decreases and so does your profit. It is easy to see that at some rate of pool growth you will never be able to make up even a small loss.  With the current investment growth, I think the threat is quite real.

So it seems to me some sort of early-investor prioritizing is needed.

just to make sure: I'm not complaining about my investment - I'm up, thanks, dooglus!- just bringing up a concern that one can easily overlook reading the JD faq.
(In fact, I think prioritizing early investors at this point will lower my profits.)

You analysis assumes :

1) You start with a loss. (nearly all current investors are up well over EV)

2) Investment continues to increase infinitely. (this is impossible)

3) Bet volume forever lags investment growth. (extremely unlikely)

All 3 assumptions are wrong.

[trout]

You analysis assumes :

1) You start with a loss. (nearly all current investors are up well over EV)

2) Investment continues to increase infinitely. (this is impossible)

3) Bet volume forever lags investment growth. (extremely unlikely)

All 3 assumptions are wrong.

1) you are almost as likely to start with a loss as to start with a win.  So "starting with a loss" will happen to many investors, with certainty
2) Investement has been continuing to increase so far.   All "long-run" arguments assume infinite play for simplicity. For example, the argument that, with a fixed pool, an investor will make profit, also assumes that. This assumption is for simplicity only, it's easy to work out probability estimation over finite time.

3) I don't need that assumption. Bet volume is irrelevant. What is relevant is the size and volume  of the *largest bets*.  Yes, these have to increase slower then invesment. I don't see why it's "extremely unlikely" though.  The history so far is too short to make predictions, but  so far this has been clearly the case.

[MrBubbles007]

2182

[juhakall]

My user ID is 2137. 2 BTC invested

[dooglus]

Dooglus, great idea, great site.  I guess this is the inevitable result of watching S.Dice closely for a year, scratching your head, and finally going, well gee, if this made 70K BTC, I could do that...

It's the result of seeing s.dice, thinking immediately "I could do that, only I'd let the players invest" then sitting around scratching my ass for a year and doing nothing about it.  Then seeing a comment on the PrimeDice thread from Zaih when Stunna lost a bunch in the first few days, offering the site an interest free loan, and thinking "if people are willing to offer interest-free loans, maybe they'll go for investing in a dice site bankroll for a cut of the profits.  So I got coding.

I invested a couple BTC, and the 'house is up' number promptly went down!  I thought there was a 1% house edge!!
(I know, just kidding.  Investing is also gambling in a way, huh.  Just a bit surprising how quickly it dropped 4 BTC.  Someone got lucky... and it wasn't me.  Yet.)
(Then I started thinking, well it's up about 3% and it should only be up 1%, so I shouldn't invest until... no wait, that's just a fallacy in reverse... etc)

It got worse after that.  Look at this very successful martingale sequence:

#2933317: 0.00001 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00001000
#2933343: 0.00002 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00002000
#2933368: 0.00004 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00004000
#2933394: 0.00008 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00008000
#2933417: 0.00016 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00016000
#2933666: 0.00032 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00032000
#2933694: 0.00064 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00064000
#2933725: 0.00128 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00128000
#2933751: 0.00256 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00256000
#2933781: 0.00512 BTC @ 12.375% -0.00512000
#2933808: 0.01024 BTC @ 12.375% -0.01024000
#2933850: 0.02048 BTC @ 12.375% -0.02048000
#2933879: 0.04096 BTC @ 12.375% -0.04096000
#2933912: 0.08192 BTC @ 12.375% -0.08192000
#2933935: 0.16384 BTC @ 12.375% -0.16384000
#2933970: 0.32768 BTC @ 12.375% -0.32768000
#2933993: 0.65536 BTC @ 12.375% -0.65536000
#2934019: 1.31072 BTC @ 12.375% -1.31072000
#2934235: 2.62144 BTC @ 12.375% 18.35008000

I wonder about the 0BTC bets.  I guess it's a cool advertising feature so that people can try it out before putting real BTC in, but what if you start getting thousands of 0-bets a second?  As an "investor" I'd like to know a little more about scaling / anti-DDOS stuff.  Also will the 1% of 1% be enough to fund the server?  And your time?  I hope so.

The 0-bets seem to be attractive for some of our biggest bettors.  They roll a bunch of 0 bets until the numbers look right, then make a big bet.  You can argue that the 0-bets don't change their odds of winning, and I would, but it does actually make a difference.  The nonce determines the roll, and 'wasting' some by rolling zeroes changes the nonce.  It's just that you never know which ones are going to be the 'good' rolls until you see them.  Either way, I think it's a good feature to offer, since players feel it adds value even if it doesn't.

The server is nowhere near capacity, and handles many bets per second with ease.  If zero-bets become a problem, I already have code in place to delay bets according to their size.  It's just not enabled yet, because it's not needed.

I don't know if the 1% of 1% will even be enough to cover server costs.  It depends on the bet volume (and luck).  I can cover the costs of running the site until it becomes clear whether the commission is going to be enough.  And if it isn't, I'll increase the commission rate until it is.  Some investors may chose to pull out if the commission rate rises, but I don't think that will be a problem.  We have a LOT of investment already.

I'll probably just invest it, and don't particularly need the extra 0.01, but if you're still handing them out, can't really say no!
user:Jeweller ID:2090

I'm going to go through the thread later and gather all the dust-requests at one time.  I'll do yours then.

Thanks for investing.    And sorry about the recent bad luck!

[dooglus]

However, if the pool is increasing, and keeps increasing, then your share decreases and so does your profit. It is easy to see that at some rate of pool growth you will never be able to make up even a small loss.  With the current investment growth, I think the threat is quite real.

I don't think it's possible for it to keep increasing fast enough to stop you recouping your losses forever though, assuming a steady flow of players, and a 1% profit on amounts wagered.  For one thing, there are a finite number of Bitcoins.  Once they're all in the pool who's going to bet against us?  But more practically, if the pool grows such that each investor is making very small returns, investors will pull out and put their coins somewhere more profitable.  The market should automatically adjust the pool size to a place where it just manages to keep the investors happy with their returns.  Also, the rapid growth seems to be abating.  It's much harder to double a pool of 9k coins than it is to double a pool of 1k.

I'm no economist, so that could be nonsense.  Perhaps someone who knows about such things could chime in.  Is this reasonable?

[dandefer]

Did someone actually win 18 btc?!?! HOLY COW
Did he have a betting pattern?

I want to try!
user is 2237.

[MPOE-PR]

I don't think it will be a problem very long.

^

[icey]

Did someone actually win 18 btc?!?! HOLY COW
Did he have a betting pattern?

I want to try!
user is 2237.

It was a 'martingale', google it.

Basically double your bet if you lose untill you win. (great if you have unlimited BTC)

[MPOE-PR]

However, if the pool is increasing, and keeps increasing, then your share decreases and so does your profit. It is easy to see that at some rate of pool growth you will never be able to make up even a small loss.  With the current investment growth, I think the threat is quite real.

I don't think it's possible for it to keep increasing fast enough to stop you recouping your losses forever though, assuming a steady flow of players, and a 1% profit on amounts wagered.  For one thing, there are a finite number of Bitcoins.  Once they're all in the pool who's going to bet against us?  But more practically, if the pool grows such that each investor is making very small returns, investors will pull out and put their coins somewhere more profitable.  The market should automatically adjust the pool size to a place where it just manages to keep the investors happy with their returns.  Also, the rapid growth seems to be abating.  It's much harder to double a pool of 9k coins than it is to double a pool of 1k.

I'm no economist, so that could be nonsense.  Perhaps someone who knows about such things could chime in.  Is this reasonable?

No, you're right on all scores.

[dooglus]

I made a thread in the 'securities' forum for investors to discuss investory things away from the bitcent riff-raff. 

    https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=242962

(No offence intended to the bitcent riff-raff, we love you all).