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

[chriswen]

Max profit for a single bet by the system should not be more than 0.01 %, but it should be possible to bet and win more automatically by splitting the higher bets into several smaller ones.

Splitting higher bets into smaller ones is really useless.

[1715171956]

1715171956

[markjamrobin]

Max profit for a single bet by the system should not be more than 0.01 %, but it should be possible to bet and win more automatically by splitting the higher bets into several smaller ones.

Splitting higher bets into smaller ones is really useless.

As a JD Investor, lowering the max profit decreases variance. For instance betting your life savings with 51% is stupid. Betting your life savings in 100,000,000 bets, with a 1% edge, will put you ahead by a large amount, with little variance, in total gain.

[mberg2007]

As a JD Investor, lowering the max profit decreases variance. For instance betting your life savings with 51% is stupid. Betting your life savings in 100,000,000 bets, with a 1% edge, will put you ahead by a large amount, with little variance, in total gain.

You keep returning to this variance thing. What you call variance other people call luck. There is no such thing as variance, just the house edge and a nice bell shape called normal distribution.

Betting your life savings over 100,000,000 bets and betting it all on a single bet carries the exact same risk and reward. You risk less by wagering less on each bet, but if you sum up all those little "risks" across all those millions of bets you end up with the same as just making one single, large bet.

In your terms, placing many small bets means you have to be lucky and win 50,000,000 times. Placing a single bet means you only have to be lucky once.

-Michael

[mechs]

As a JD Investor, lowering the max profit decreases variance. For instance betting your life savings with 51% is stupid. Betting your life savings in 100,000,000 bets, with a 1% edge, will put you ahead by a large amount, with little variance, in total gain.

You keep returning to this variance thing. What you call variance other people call luck. There is no such thing as variance, just the house edge and a nice bell shape called normal distribution.

Betting your life savings over 100,000,000 bets and betting it all on a single bet carries the exact same risk and reward. You risk less by wagering less on each bet, but if you sum up all those little "risks" across all those millions of bets you end up with the same as just making one single, large bet.

In your terms, placing many small bets means you have to be lucky and win 50,000,000 times. Placing a single bet means you only have to be lucky once.

-Michael

That is wrong on so many levels.  VARIANCE by having on massive bet can even cause rare odds to occur.  By making it many small bets, it is more likely to follow the predicted distribution Eg. let's say house had an edge of 90%.  In one big bet, there is a 10% to lose it all (not that unlikely).  If you divided it up into 100 million bets, it will come pretty damn clost to the predicted profit.

[geofflosophy]

As a JD Investor, lowering the max profit decreases variance. For instance betting your life savings with 51% is stupid. Betting your life savings in 100,000,000 bets, with a 1% edge, will put you ahead by a large amount, with little variance, in total gain.

You keep returning to this variance thing. What you call variance other people call luck. There is no such thing as variance, just the house edge and a nice bell shape called normal distribution.

Betting your life savings over 100,000,000 bets and betting it all on a single bet carries the exact same risk and reward. You risk less by wagering less on each bet, but if you sum up all those little "risks" across all those millions of bets you end up with the same as just making one single, large bet.

In your terms, placing many small bets means you have to be lucky and win 50,000,000 times. Placing a single bet means you only have to be lucky once.

-Michael

This is not true. The probability of being up 100% on a single bet is 0.49.5. The probability of being up 100% across 100,000,000 smaller bets is basically zero. That is called variance, and more smaller bets have less of it. I believe variance goes down linearly proportional to n, with sigma going down linearly proportional to sqrt(n).

You're clearly confusing mean or expected value with variance. EV is the same no matter what the size of n is, variance is much lower with more rolls.

[nimda]

^ To put it another way, with many bets, you're also much less likely to lose it all, so it averages out.

[GOB]

As a JD Investor, lowering the max profit decreases variance. For instance betting your life savings with 51% is stupid. Betting your life savings in 100,000,000 bets, with a 1% edge, will put you ahead by a large amount, with little variance, in total gain.

You keep returning to this variance thing. What you call variance other people call luck. There is no such thing as variance, just the house edge and a nice bell shape called normal distribution.

Betting your life savings over 100,000,000 bets and betting it all on a single bet carries the exact same risk and reward. You risk less by wagering less on each bet, but if you sum up all those little "risks" across all those millions of bets you end up with the same as just making one single, large bet.

In your terms, placing many small bets means you have to be lucky and win 50,000,000 times. Placing a single bet means you only have to be lucky once.

-Michael

This is dangerously wrong. Please do not follow your own advice.

What you are getting at is exactly what the Kelly Criterion is about. Even if you have a positive expectation bet (like bankrolling just dice), the Kelly Criterion proves (or suggests, or whatever) that you should not bet all your money, because you risk ruin. The Kelly Criterion sets out a formula that maximizes your earnings in light of minimizing your chance of ruin. In the case of just dice, for 1% edge, the Kelly Criterion says you (the house, the investors) should only wager 1% per bet. Incidentally, for negative expectation bets (like wagering on just dice or any casino bet) the Kelly Criterion says you should wager negative money, aka don't bet, or be the house!

[junshong]

Any auto bet bots?

[cdnbcguy]

We profit 76 % of the time over 1,000 bets - not 50.8 % of the time like with 1 bet.

THAT'S being an investor, not a gambler.

Also - has anyone noticed that despite the 1 percent edge JD has never made a 1 % profit? It was about half that - before the current fiasco - now we know why.

Variance. Lets lower it by refusing big bets.

I'm sorry, but this is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. Clearly you have not done the math.

If you make 1000 bets with a 1% house edge, you will win 490 times and the house will win 510 times. The house will not win 76% of the time.

Variance means nothing as far as house edge. Playing many tiny bets and playing one huge bet provides precisely the same house income over time. As a gambler, you will have no advantage by placing smaller bets and winning and losing small amounts than by placing a single large bet. Over time it's just a matter of scale.

A casino runs the risk of losing the bankroll only if they don't cap the size of their maximum bets. Because obviously there's only a 51% chance of winning that bet, and thus a 49% chance of going bust from the casino's point of view. But JD does have these limits. Noone is placing bets of 1000 BTC or more. The max win is 1% of the invested capital, which makes good sense. There is no reason to limit that further.

What we have here is a situation where someone appears to be actually beating the house edge over many thousands of bets. And this is intriguing, because from a statistical point of view this should not be possible. You can't win a coin toss came if the coin is balanced towards the house, no matter what system you use.

-Michael

I DID make an error in my posting - it is a binomial distribution and a Bernoulli variable, not a Bernoulli distribution.

Nevertheless, the stats is exactly correct.

I also wrote a small program to simulate what happens when a bettor makes 1,000 bets at a 1 percent disadvantage.

After one million rounds of 1,000 bets each, that is, one billion bets, the results are

Player profits 250,803 times 25.333636363636362 %
Player loses   718,707 times 72.59666666666666 %

Just about exactly as predicted.

[organofcorti]

I DID make an error in my posting - it is a binomial distribution and a Bernoulli variable, not a Bernoulli distribution.

Nevertheless, the stats is exactly correct.

I also wrote a small program to simulate what happens when a bettor makes 1,000 bets at a 1 percent disadvantage.

After one million rounds of 1,000 bets each, that is, one billion bets, the results are

Player profits 250,803 times 25.333636363636362 %
Player loses   718,707 times 72.59666666666666 %

Just about exactly as predicted.

I think you've made some sort of mistake somewhere. The number of times a gambler wins a 49.5% game is a binomially distributed random variable.

The mean number of wins in 1000 bets is n*p = 1000*0.495 = 495

The 95% confidence interval for the number of wins in 1000 bets is 464 to 526.

The probability of winning only 253 time in 1000 bets is 2.39608e-55.

If you need proof via simulation, here's a quick one for R:

Code:

mean(replicate(1e06, sum(rbinom(1e03, 1, 0.495))))
var(replicate(1e06, sum(rbinom(1e03, 1, 0.495))))

It's pretty slow though. Otherwise you could read up a bit on the binomial distribution.

[imagereply]

http://www.endofthreefitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/slow-runner-300x300.jpg

[killaz]

safest winning method

https://i.imgur.com/rL61Fze.png

[markjamrobin]

safest winning method

Until you go bust. Martingale doesn't work. We all know that.

[Professor James Moriarty]

 You guys are definetly rigged , look what I did  : https://just-dice.com/roll/144056784

 

[saif313]

 You guys are definetly rigged , look what I did  : https://just-dice.com/roll/144056784

 

you are real a professor and now need you write "Dr" first then Professor

[Professor James Moriarty]

 I don't know what you mean but Professor James Moriarty is a sherlock holmes character in sir arthur conan doyle's novels , he doesnt have Dr. on his name just , Professor James Moriarty.

[CBitz]

 You guys are definetly rigged , look what I did  : https://just-dice.com/roll/144056784

 

Did you do that on your first try at .01% chance of winning, or how many attempts? Impressive.

[mechs]

 You guys are definetly rigged , look what I did  : https://just-dice.com/roll/144056784

 

Did you do that on your first try at .01% chance of winning, or how many attempts? Impressive.

yes that the real question!

[BitcoinLeader]

 You guys are definetly rigged , look what I did  : https://just-dice.com/roll/144056784

 

You should have done that with 1 BTC 

[Professor James Moriarty]

 No it wasnt the first try it was like hundreds of tries but doing something one in a million at couple hundred tries made me feel excited


 Also I had 0.04 bankroll , I could get the max bet available with less than that