Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2019, 07:24:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 252 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game  (Read 434893 times)
Bugpowder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 394
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 27, 2013, 10:43:39 PM
 #121


The issue here is that you will rarely get close to even 10% action on your invested coins, even at 100% risk level.  If selectable risk % is implemented, max bet will go to 1,000BTC.  Mean bet size is currently .0035 BTC. So even at 100% risk, only a miniscule amount of your investment will be at risk.

The goal is to maximize TOTAL exposure relative to TOTAL house BR on each bet with minimal risk of ruin. For the first bet, 100% of BR at 5% risk gets you the exact same amount of action as 5% of BR at 100% risk using model 2.  There are some interesting differences in variance after bet #1 though.  One problem I see is that 5% BR at 100% risk will likely blow that investment portion in a large fraction of max bet events, forcing a manual reinvestment at stochastically determined timepoints. Which would be a PITA.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a more private venue.  Tipping off people to superior risk and coin-management approaches seems self-defeating.

Looks like I need to read up on max bet - I'd assumed max bet varied based on the bet so as to be whatever the maximum was that would incur loss to the house of 1% of capital.  From what you're saying it's a fixed amount regardless of which bet is chosen (so X BTC whether they go for a 1 in a million shot or a a 98% shot).  I'd assumed the main exposure would be on people gambling the max they could on the most extreme odds bets.    So if there was 100k of capital (and 1% risk exposure) then 1 BTC would be the max bet with a 1/1000 chance of winning and .001 BTC the max bet on the 1 million to 1 shot.  Mean bet size doesn't mean much (in terms of exposure) without accounting for the odds at which the bets occurred.

And yeah - little point discussing details.  Personally I'd like a very complicated system as the more options there are the more advantage there is to be gained.

Sorry, I was unclear again. I meant to say 'Max Profit'. The max house capital at risk on any given bet is fixed to 1% of house capital (for now), so Max Bet does change based on the odds.
1575833097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575833097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575833097
Reply with quote  #2

1575833097
Report to moderator
1575833097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575833097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575833097
Reply with quote  #2

1575833097
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1575833097
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575833097

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575833097
Reply with quote  #2

1575833097
Report to moderator
murfshake
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 27, 2013, 11:24:23 PM
 #122

This actually looks pretty brilliant.
radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 356
Merit: 255


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 01:38:10 AM
 #123

stuff
The only way out for you is to show how you construct that mental "barrier to entry" so that it's not what I say it is. Go ahead. All the rest is really a waste of my time, which is valuable.

Your time is NOT comparably valuable, for the record, so before you shit all over your april2013noobface again, read a lot more of my posting history than what you've tried so far. Starting perhaps with April 2012.
Just got back from playing with my kids for a few hours (which is, I daresay, a much more valuable use of time than you would ever understand, since you don't know my kids.) I pity your flaccid mind if you think there's anything more valuable than that. Smiley

At any rate, since you still want to keep your little self-aggrandizing and attention-flagging song and dance going, let's look again at your continuation of your failure to apply simple logic. By repeatedly refusing to defend yourself against it, I'll take a bit of liberty and assume, to your credit, that you conceded to my claim that you put words into my mouth, upon which the rest of this discussion is based. If that's your intent, fine. Not exactly rational thought on your end, but I'll spot you a pity point just so you have something on the board. We're still stuck with the languishing agony of reading the repeated but still false claims that I said what I did not say. That, in and of itself, is a failure of logic as an informal fallacy often dubbed "staying on message" or "the big lie"... namely, the hope that repeating the same false statement over and over again will convince the audience that it's true. Works well in centrally-controlled places where the truth cannot be freely discussed, like China controlling news about the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, etc., but to the detriment of your whole position in this exchange, it is not useful on a public forum such as this. Then there's the instant false dilemma that "the only way out" is for me to disprove your already identified failed logic. Finally, there's the appeal to age where you suppose that somehow the age of an account grants validity to the contained arguments. If anything, this exchange suggests an inverse relationship. Perhaps you might do well to start a new account, then, if there does turn out to be an actual correlation.

Well, look at that... it's movie time. With the kids. Gotta go use up my comparatively "valueless time", I guess, while you're stuck spending your considerably "more valuable" time reading this post. I'm pretty sure I win, no matter what you do.

PGP fingerprint:   0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 356
Merit: 255


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 01:38:44 AM
 #124

And, to dooglus - I'm sorry MPOE had to come and shit in your thread, although I suppose it's to be expected by now. I'll try to leave well enough alone, but there's just something about him/her that grates me to the point that I can't help myself sometimes. Sorry for my part in feeding his/her trolling, at any rate.

PGP fingerprint:   0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1210



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 07:32:26 AM
 #125

There's two basic models to use for allowing increased risk:

1.  The one you describe - where those willing to risk over 1% only get 'extra' action on bets exceeding 1% of all capital.
2.  Allocating ALL bets based on ALL risked capital - so those who risk more get a bigger slice all the time.

There are indeed.  Do we fill 1% of everyone's capital before allocating the remaining risk to those prepared to accept it (1), or do we allocate the risk in proportion to the amount people are willing to risk (2)?

It strikes me that (2) results in those sensible enough to use a sane bankroll management strategy getting very little action as the wild "risk it all" guys soak up nearly everything.

For the sake of stability in the max-profit offered to players, (1) seems like the way to go to me, only using the excess capacity offered by riskier investors as it is needed.

Thoughts?

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
trout
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 334
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 11:51:03 AM
 #126

There's two basic models to use for allowing increased risk:

1.  The one you describe - where those willing to risk over 1% only get 'extra' action on bets exceeding 1% of all capital.
2.  Allocating ALL bets based on ALL risked capital - so those who risk more get a bigger slice all the time.

There are indeed.  Do we fill 1% of everyone's capital before allocating the remaining risk to those prepared to accept it (1), or do we allocate the risk in proportion to the amount people are willing to risk (2)?

It strikes me that (2) results in those sensible enough to use a sane bankroll management strategy getting very little action as the wild "risk it all" guys soak up nearly everything.

For the sake of stability in the max-profit offered to players, (1) seems like the way to go to me, only using the excess capacity offered by riskier investors as it is needed.

Thoughts?

1) removes the rationale of "being your own cold storage".
For example, I was thinking rather than having 100 BTC invested at 1 percent, having 10 invested at 10% and leave 90BTC in my wallet, ready
to adjust the investment whenever needed. Now this won't work with 1.
Also, this strategy means that one would risk more than 1% only on highest bets - a strategy that is strictly less profitable than 1% fixed.

2) may  push more "sane" investors to increase their stake to get any share at all.  Indeed, with many risky investors
 the max profit increases uncontrollably (think something like 1000 BTC) and hardly anyone will ever challenge that;
 so those invested at 1% will never be getting their 1%, and will have to increase their stake.
I think this kind of game of who invests more is highly undesirable, because it can eventually ruin everyone.

So actually I'm coming to the conclusion that 1% fixed rate may be better for all...
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 12:54:58 PM
 #127

So actually I'm coming to the conclusion that 1% fixed rate may be better for all...

For "all" as long as "all" = "trying to get the most out of my 0.5 to 5 BTC, at the expense of everyone else, the site first and foremost because fuck it, much like the US it's just something cool someone else made that I'm here to leech off and shit on". Nice, but this would be the reason listening to "all" the people is a bad idea.

There are indeed.  Do we fill 1% of everyone's capital before allocating the remaining risk to those prepared to accept it (1), or do we allocate the risk in proportion to the amount people are willing to risk (2)?

It strikes me that (2) results in those sensible enough to use a sane bankroll management strategy getting very little action as the wild "risk it all" guys soak up nearly everything.

You have to offer the same exact deal to all investors and to each and every Bitcoin of each investor's investment or else you're just working as a sort of reallocation engine. Something our born-and-brought-up-on-welfare friends are of course more than keen to see you implement, at your own expense. Since you're only expending your own future for their present day minor benefit it's not "really" a cost to you, is it?

Incidentally this is why I love Bitcoin: it exposes the nature of people in a mathematically clear, indisputable way.

And, to dooglus - I'm sorry MPOE had to come and shit in your thread, although I suppose it's to be expected by now. I'll try to leave well enough alone, but there's just something about him/her that grates me to the point that I can't help myself sometimes. Sorry for my part in feeding his/her trolling, at any rate.

This would be your being an idiot, that grates you. Get rid of it already.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
btc_lurker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:00:50 PM
 #128

Uhm.. site offline ? Are you ready to take a large (or, better, a not so small) volume of players or bets ?
Factory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:13:18 PM
 #129

Uhm.. site offline ? Are you ready to take a large (or, better, a not so small) volume of players or bets ?

Dooglus said there would be around a 15 minute downtime for updates.
btc_lurker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:17:16 PM
 #130

Uhm.. site offline ? Are you ready to take a large (or, better, a not so small) volume of players or bets ?

Dooglus said there would be around a 15 minute downtime for updates.

I'm actually interested in knowing what kind of update is this. I mean, is there some kind of limitation regarding the way the system is coded, or the servers, or anything at all... ? This service is very new and I see people doing mistakes everywhere (security, bad code, bad decisions, etc), specially on web services so it worries me even though I've put only a tiny amount of bitcoins there.
Factory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:18:40 PM
 #131

Uhm.. site offline ? Are you ready to take a large (or, better, a not so small) volume of players or bets ?

Dooglus said there would be around a 15 minute downtime for updates.

I'm actually interested in knowing what kind of update is this. I mean, is there some kind of limitation regarding the way the system is coded, or the servers, or anything at all... ? This service is very new and I see people doing mistakes everywhere (security, bad code, bad decisions, etc), specially on web services so it worries me even though I've put only a tiny amount of bitcoins there.

He mentioned that the amount of betting far surpassed what he was expecting. I would assume the updates are merely to accommodate that.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:49:46 PM
 #132

Indeed, with many risky investors
 the max profit increases uncontrollably (think something like 1000 BTC) and hardly anyone will ever challenge that;

That's not a safe conclusion to make.

Remember there's big-odds gambles available - the max being 990000:1.

So someone only has to bet .00101 BTC on that bet to hit the max winning cap.

At present there's about 15k BTC invested.  If everyone in there went with 100% risk exposure (so max winnings 15k BTC) a single very lucky .01515151 bet could clean the whole bank.

Don't confuse a 1000 winnings cap with somehow meaning gamblers have to risk 1000 BTC to put it at risk.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nsignificant number of investors regularly bet their small investment gains on high-odds bets.  If they lose their capital is still untouched and if they win they get some nice winnings.  If someone leaves 10 BTC there and gets 0.1 BTC interest are they going to take out 0.1 BTC or have 100 'free' spins at trying to win 1k BTC?  I reckon quite a few will do the latter.
bbxx
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


cryptoshark


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2013, 09:40:20 PM
 #133

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nsignificant number of investors regularly bet their small investment gains on high-odds bets.  If they lose their capital is still untouched and if they win they get some nice winnings.  If someone leaves 10 BTC there and gets 0.1 BTC interest are they going to take out 0.1 BTC or have 100 'free' spins at trying to win 1k BTC?  I reckon quite a few will do the latter.

i am doing this Smiley
great way to gamble for free
TheFuneral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 356
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 10:55:11 PM
 #134

Indeed, with many risky investors
 the max profit increases uncontrollably (think something like 1000 BTC) and hardly anyone will ever challenge that;

That's not a safe conclusion to make.

Remember there's big-odds gambles available - the max being 990000:1.

So someone only has to bet .00101 BTC on that bet to hit the max winning cap.

At present there's about 15k BTC invested.  If everyone in there went with 100% risk exposure (so max winnings 15k BTC) a single very lucky .01515151 bet could clean the whole bank.

Don't confuse a 1000 winnings cap with somehow meaning gamblers have to risk 1000 BTC to put it at risk.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nsignificant number of investors regularly bet their small investment gains on high-odds bets.  If they lose their capital is still untouched and if they win they get some nice winnings.  If someone leaves 10 BTC there and gets 0.1 BTC interest are they going to take out 0.1 BTC or have 100 'free' spins at trying to win 1k BTC?  I reckon quite a few will do the latter.

If the number is truly random, which I believe it is, then the house can't lose.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1210



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 11:56:56 PM
 #135

If the number is truly random, which I believe it is, then the house can't lose.

The house does lose, regularly.  It's down over the last few days even.  Currently it's up only ~150 BTC on 22k BTC wagered.  Which while not exactly losing is below expectation, and far below the "up 300 BTC" we saw a couple of days ago.


The downtime was while I moved the site to a new server.  The previous one was running an old apache server, a MySQL and a bunch of other crap I wasn't using, since I previously used the same box to host dooglus.com (which is temporarily down, since it is practically content-free anyway).  It had quite limited disk space, which was running out, and nowhere good to place a swap file.  I figured it was best to do a clean OS install and put just exactly what I need on it.  I got it mostly set up before taking the old server down, but of course couldn't copy the database over until the old server had finished writing to it.  Hence the 15 minutes (which actually took 30 minutes).

Now there's plenty of disk space, and less old cruft.


I can't see clearly which of (1) or (2) is the fairer way of divvying up the player bets.  On the surface it seems only fair that if MPEX-PR is willing to risk 900 BTC per roll, and the rest of us put together are only willing to risk 100 BTC per roll, that she should get to play against 90% of whatever sized bet comes in.  Else she's only getting to risk the majority of her investment against the biggest bets, and that way lies ruin.

I guess I prefer (1) because I'm not in the position to risk high percentages of my bankroll.  I'm already pretty much all-in.  So it is indeed self-interest (as an investor, not site owner) that makes me prefer (1).  (2) allows MPEX-PR to price me out of the market almost entirely.  As site owner I suspect I have to chose (2) though.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1210



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 01:24:25 AM
 #136

A new biggest-ever bet on the site:



TradeFortress is the SDICE whale??

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 01:26:00 AM
 #137

The real question is why didn't he go for 501 BTC? Thus outstripping SDice

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1210



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 03:30:03 AM
 #138

The real question is why didn't he go for 501 BTC? Thus outstripping SDice

There's a good reason for that:

Quote
18:01:57 (35) <gladoscc> And I did something I never should have done: I took my investment uot and bet it all on 93 Tongue

He bet everything he had invested!

Edit: of course, now he has an extra 32 BTC and so does have enough to set the record.  Smiley

In other news, I made a list of bet sizes.  People seemed interested in how the bet sizes break down.  Each line is a count and a bet size:

    http://just-dice.com/bet-sizes.txt

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 04:34:20 AM
Last edit: June 29, 2013, 04:46:23 AM by TradeFortress
 #139

I am the rightful owner of my account.

EDIT: Also, in case you are wondering, no, when I decided to gamble I'm using my personal coins. I do not gamble with investor's money (in -EV ventures at least).
ciuciu
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 04:35:43 AM
 #140

I am the rightful owner of my account.

For posterity!

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 252 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!