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

[vit1988]

What we have here is a situation where someone appears to be actually beating the house edge over many thousands of bets.

Operating a gambling site myself I can tell you it's absolutely normal people starting with 0.1 BTC and leaving with 2 BTC profit but those people dont call much attention. It's not that remarkable to make 2000BTC when starting with 100BTC. The difference is: not many people make so high bets and the long term for house profit might get a bit longer.

[Professor James Moriarty]

 I sincerely wait for the day nakowa will lose like 20 or so times in a row , he might even get out of that but it won't be as easy and we might see something like an end for all of this.

[malevolent]

Yesterday I started with 0.05 and made 1.15 by placing 0.01 bets (at 50.5%) and doubling them when I lost, but today I was back at about 0.05, after losing 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.16, and 2x 0.32 bets (no longer had enough BTC left to place a 0.64 bet). Sooner or later nakowa will also lose if he continues to play.

[Professor James Moriarty]

 When he bets 100 and loses he bets 200 , if he loses that he bets 300 , and thats it , he doesnt have 400-500-600 bet options , hence when he loses 300 , he bets 300 once again which keeps him from a losing streak bust . He could lose like 10-15 times and might still have enough coins to comeback

[drawingthesun]

 When he bets 100 and loses he bets 200 , if he loses that he bets 300 , and thats it , he doesnt have 400-500-600 bet options , hence when he loses 300 , he bets 300 once again which keeps him from a losing streak bust . He could lose like 10-15 times and might still have enough coins to comeback

This is a good point you make.

This is very important to understand. Most players go bust because there is nothing stopping them from betting their entire bankroll in one hit. Nakowa will take longer to bust because he cannot in any way risk 5,000 on 2x payout at once.

[miffman]

dirtysocks (442) date: 2013-09-24 13:55:09 betid: 137904065 lucky: 95.6791 target: >93.3999 bet: 0.00010000 payout: 15x profit: +0.00140000

wow  great odds

[mberg2007]

This is very important to understand. Most players go bust because there is nothing stopping them from betting their entire bankroll in one hit. Nakowa will take longer to bust because he cannot in any way risk 5,000 on 2x payout at once.

I'd like to challenge that idea. If your purpose is to go from 5000 to 10000 on a casino with a 1% house edge, can it be shown - statistically, that it is a better idea to play 1 unit 5000 times at 2x, or 5000 units 1 time at 2x?

Forget about what your intuition is telling you and look at it from a mathematical point of view. You have precisely the same risk when you are making 5000 2x bets with martingale as you have if you make a single large bet. Slicing things up into smaller bits makes the risk "less" in your mind, but you forget the fact that you are making so many more bets that combined they make up as big a "risk" of losing your bankroll as that single large bet.

This guy nakowa could just as well have gone to 10000 by placing that large 5000 2x bet, it would have saved him time (for the same outcome, win or lose the bank). The only reason I think he didn't is because of the house cap on bet size.

-Michael

[Professor James Moriarty]

 I dont care if it is better to bet 5000 once and win 5000 or bet 5000 times and 1 ,


 All I care is it is harder to lose 5000 if you bet 300 each rather than 5000.

 So if the max bet allowed was 1000 rather than 300 , nakowa could have lost it all too quickly and we would be drinking champagne over his loss.

 He had like 10 loss in a row which made him lose 3000 but since his bankroll was (maybe) 10k , he comeback and bet more 300's and won that back and then some . So during that 10 loss in a row , if he started with 100 it would go

 100
 200
 400
 800
 1000
 2000
 4000
 8000
 16000
 32000

 Which means he would go broke way before he hits 10th bet , the total of it is , 64500 , where as right now he lost 3000 , that is the reason why he doesnt bust his bankroll , I am not saying thats the reason he wins money , I am saying why it is harder for him to lose all his bankroll thats all.

[akeetlebeetle]

 I dont care if it is better to bet 5000 once and win 5000 or bet 5000 times and 1 ,


 All I care is it is harder to lose 5000 if you bet 300 each rather than 5000.

 So if the max bet allowed was 1000 rather than 300 , nakowa could have lost it all too quickly and we would be drinking champagne over his loss.

 He had like 10 loss in a row which made him lose 3000 but since his bankroll was (maybe) 10k , he comeback and bet more 300's and won that back and then some . So during that 10 loss in a row , if he started with 100 it would go

 100
 200
 400
 800
 1000
 2000
 4000
 8000
 16000
 32000

 Which means he would go broke way before he hits 10th bet , the total of it is , 64500 , where as right now he lost 3000 , that is the reason why he doesnt bust his bankroll , I am not saying thats the reason he wins money , I am saying why it is harder for him to lose all his bankroll thats all.

Just for the record, he's not really martingaling, it's more of an intuitive bet.

[Professor James Moriarty]

 Yeah I know , it was just a suggestion on my part , I mean if he loses 100 bitcoin bets 10 times in a row (which he won't wait for 10 times) he will oprobably bet 1000 or more for the 11th which he might lose that too , that type of deal , so as far as my point , he doesn't need to martingale as long as there is a max bet cap , it works for him to keep him busting . It might be keeping him winning big , but thats not my point , I was focused on how he could lose it all , not how he could bust the bank According to my scenario , he might win 30k as well

[mechs]

Will say it again here, Doog should not be publicizing bet stat lines during betting while its live, without approval from bettor prior.

The charts also imo should be hidden without approval, people (I included keep track) can track on own but this should not be publicized by owner.

Chart dumps work but make people look for info.

I completely disagree with you. As an investor, I demand transparency. If players wants to hide identity they can change name or account at will.

[enquirer]

Let's see, the "whale" made 46000 bets.

Probability to be in + after such amount of bets, with 1% house edge, is about 1.4%.

I would say probability that game is rigged, either by site owner, or by a hacker gaining access to the server, is higher than that. Make your bets ...

[organofcorti]

Let's see, the "whale" made 46000 bets.

Probability to be in + after such amount of bets, with 1% house edge, is about 1.4%.
<snip>

Please show working. A statement without support means nothing.

[petrescuerz]

Feel free to comment on the new blog post at

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/2013/09/comments-welcome.html

Deb

[blub]

how are the random numbers generated?

[drawingthesun]

how are the random numbers generated?

https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt

Server generates server seed and gives user the hash for provability. user can select a client seed and each bet changs the nonce.

According to a correct hash function, changing 1 bit should fully and utterly generate different output.

[grau]

There is the house edge providing positive expected value to investors, just like dividends for stocks. Investors however are less concerned of dividend risk, but on total return of capital after the investment is sold.

The line between an investor and gambler is blurred, but there are some levels of risk appetite typical for them. Investments have annualized return volatilities of roughly 1-10% for bonds 10-40% for blue chips, a return volatility above 100% is rather gambling.

Assuming gambler on JD play >50.5%, then the volatility is proportional to Sqrt[n*0.505*0.495] for n rolls.
An investor into the site has an annualized volatility of return of about betsize/bank*Sqrt[betsperyear*0.505*0.495].
Note that with varying bet size or bets other than >50.5% the volatility increases, therefore next calculations are lower limits of the actual volatility.

The expected number of bets per year extrapolated form today's stat is: 521890, the average bet size before Nakowa were: 8.1 BTC, bankroll was around 50,000.

An investor faced annualized return volatility of at least 5.8%.

After Nakowa the average bet size is: 90.1 and bankroll is 30,000 that leads to at least 108% return volatility.

Investors are gamblers now, therefore I disinvested until doog reduces the max bet size with a magnitude.

[addi]

Max profit was just lowered to 0.25%

[bitcoin44me]

Max profit was just lowered to 0.25%

Yes, it is kinda nice, but still a little bit too high.

[Otoh]

Max profit was just lowered to 0.25%

The FAQ part 'What is the max profit?' needs adjusting to reflect this.