Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

[dooglus]

here are the last 3 weeks:

Each week I'll quote the previous week's chart, and post the new one.  That way you can follow the chain of links back through time.

Here's this week's:



We were on schedule to keep 1% of the weekly wagered amount until:

11:28:15 *** rhiann (587523) [#1221109150] bet 0.8 BTC at 3.6% and won 21.2 BTC ***

[TwinWinNerD]

That is an awesome idea!

I like that sometimes the underdogs win. It kinda like the reverse of when someone loses his 98% bet (and 7000 BTC haha).

[Azlan]

In terms of investment risk, I put full trust in the owner of the site.

I have a question about the risk of 3rd party attack (in particular gov't or regulatory) -

One can imagine emergencies where Doog is not able or available to perform the necessary transactions and 'dump' the sites assets (investments and balances) into the emergency addresses.

Can I assume a 'fail-safe' process is in place to ensure the safe return of all deposits (and investments)?

Ideally, the default mechanism would 'dump' the entire holdings into emergency addresses every single day *unless* the site owner prevents this (because he is both able and available) by saying the 'magic word'.

Knowing that such a mechanism is in place (without the actual details.... of course) might increase investors confidence when news of BTC attacks and seizures is still recent history.

Thoughts?

[boumalo]

In terms of investment risk, I put full trust in the owner of the site.

I have a question about the risk of 3rd party attack (in particular gov't or regulatory) -

One can imagine emergencies where Doog is not able or available to perform the necessary transactions and 'dump' the sites assets (investments and balances) into the emergency addresses.

Can I assume a 'fail-safe' process is in place to ensure the safe return of all deposits (and investments)?

Ideally, the default mechanism would 'dump' the entire holdings into emergency addresses every single day *unless* the site owner prevents this (because he is both able and available) by saying the 'magic word'.

Knowing that such a mechanism is in place (without the actual details.... of course) might increase investors confidence when news of BTC attacks and seizures is still recent history.

Thoughts?

I asked this question a while ago, I would be very interested by the answer as well even if I am not invested (...)

[21pilot]

why would dooglus implement something like this?

people are investing and playing anyways...

And what would another increase in users offer to him?
The site bankroll is big enough anyways and the max. wager is not really used.

I really see no incentive for dooglus to make any changes in this regard 

[Azlan]

21- I agree, he has no big incentive to get more investors.

My thinking was that if the site was shut down by the 'powers that be', he might be less vulnerable if everyone was made whole.


On second thought, maybe you are right..... If funds are seized (rather then 'dumped/returned) or stored for safe keeping in the block chain.... that gives the owner (in this case doog, but *any* owner) lots of leverage at a time he would need it the most..... so, maybe I would do that instead.

Regardless, I remain curious. No offense intended here and im not implying anything about the character of anyone.

[TwinWinNerD]

Guys. Dooglus already said that he has a "fail-safe" in place!

[boumalo]

Guys. Dooglus already said that he has a "fail-safe" in place!

It is probably something like a few persons that can access the money if they get together and an automatic system is probably pretty risky but I hope that the fail-safe scenario is really safe

JD seems as safe as it gets but if it is 5persons that need to get together to access the money it is not too safe compared to 6persons out of 8 for exemple because if one of the 5 is not available, the money cannot be withdrawn; odds are those persons are close to dooglus so there is a systemic risk involved

[Lohoris]

You are missing a bit thing here: most of the coins are stored in a cold wallet.
Any authomatic mechanism such as those you describe should need to have access to that cold wallet, which would make it not a cold wallet anymore.
This implies that the dead man's switch he implemented needs someone with access to the cold wallet to scan its private key into the system.

[dooglus]

Each week I'll quote the previous week's chart, and post the new one.  That way you can follow the chain of links back through time.

Here's this week's:

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!



I'll post a list of the 10 most recent weekly returns each week too.  The first number each week is the weekly return, and the 2nd is the cumulative return since launch in June 2013:

Apr  7 2014     1.35%   132.73%
Apr 14 2014     0.90%   133.93%
Apr 21 2014     1.01%   135.28%
Apr 28 2014     0.85%   136.43%
May  5 2014     0.56%   137.20%
May 12 2014     0.32%   137.63%
May 19 2014     1.05%   139.07%
May 26 2014     0.35%   139.56%
Jun  2 2014     0.22%   139.87%
Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

[suchmoon]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

For a complete picture you should also post the bet(s) that made us rich (or poor)

Someone must have lost big time to create that jump on the chart.

[ranlo]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

[TwinWinNerD]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

[ranlo]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

Or not. 5% of what was wagered would be a 5% effective house edge (aka "profit"). Let's put it into a mathematical formula you can utilize:

5.00% profit = 2.06% profit, false

Here's a link to help you verify that (though this is basic mathematics):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%25+%3D+2.06%25

[Blazed]

Any plans for a LTC dice site?

[JoTheKhan]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

Or not. 5% of what was wagered would be a 5% effective house edge (aka "profit"). Let's put it into a mathematical formula you can utilize:

5.00% profit = 2.06% profit, false

Here's a link to help you verify that (though this is basic mathematics):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%25+%3D+2.06%25

If the Investment pool is 100BTC and only 10BTC was wager that week. 5% of 10 BTC is .2BTC profit for the Investors. .2BTC is .2% of 100BTC, so the profit that week is .2%, not 5%. The effective house edge is 5% of all wagered coins. That doesn't tell you how many coins are wagered. Would you expect to make 5% profit if no one even used the site all week?

[ranlo]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

Or not. 5% of what was wagered would be a 5% effective house edge (aka "profit"). Let's put it into a mathematical formula you can utilize:

5.00% profit = 2.06% profit, false

Here's a link to help you verify that (though this is basic mathematics):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%25+%3D+2.06%25

If the Investment pool is 100BTC and only 10BTC was wager that week. 5% of 10 BTC is .2BTC profit for the Investors. .2BTC is .2% of 100BTC, so the profit that week is .2%, not 5%. The effective house edge is 5% of all wagered coins. That doesn't tell you how many coins are wagered. Would you expect to make 5% profit if no one even used the site all week?

I suggest you actually read my post before responding.

Dooglus said that the site retained over 5% of the bets wagered for the week. This means that if there were 100 BTC wagered, the site got at least 5 BTC in profit.

He then stated that the profit for the week was only 2.06% profit for the week. In other words, if there were 100 BTC wagered, 2.06 would have been taken in profit.

Again, how can 5% (5 BTC) possibly be equal to 2.06% (2.06 BTC) when we're talking about the same thing (profit) over the same time period (a week) when both are using the same variable (wagered amount)? How much is in the investment pool is irrelevant to any of this discussion.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

Or not. 5% of what was wagered would be a 5% effective house edge (aka "profit"). Let's put it into a mathematical formula you can utilize:

5.00% profit = 2.06% profit, false

Here's a link to help you verify that (though this is basic mathematics):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%25+%3D+2.06%25

If the Investment pool is 100BTC and only 10BTC was wager that week. 5% of 10 BTC is .2BTC profit for the Investors. .2BTC is .2% of 100BTC, so the profit that week is .2%, not 5%. The effective house edge is 5% of all wagered coins. That doesn't tell you how many coins are wagered. Would you expect to make 5% profit if no one even used the site all week?

I suggest you actually read my post before responding.

Dooglus said that the site retained over 5% of the bets wagered for the week. This means that if there were 100 BTC wagered, the site got at least 5 BTC in profit.

He then stated that the profit for the week was only 2.06% profit for the week. In other words, if there were 100 BTC wagered, 2.06 would have been taken in profit.

Again, how can 5% (5 BTC) possibly be equal to 2.06% (2.06 BTC) when we're talking about the same thing (profit) over the same time period (a week) when both are using the same variable (wagered amount)? How much is in the investment pool is irrelevant to any of this discussion.

* Free hugs! ♥ sighs

100 BTC wagered while retaining over 5% of bets wagered for the week: 5 BTC profit.
200 BTC invested in total with above scenario: 2.5% profit.

[kgo]

Again, how can 5% (5 BTC) possibly be equal to 2.06% (2.06 BTC) when we're talking about the same thing (profit) over the same time period (a week) when both are using the same variable (wagered amount)? How much is in the investment pool is irrelevant to any of this discussion.

No they're not using the same variable.  When you invest you buy a percentage of the profits.  This is totally independent of the amount wagered and actual profit/loss.  They're two different numbers which gives you two different denominators when calculating the percents.

Also, a lot of the wagered coins aren't really different coins.  I bet one coin, win.  I have two coins.  Bet another coin.  Lose.  Bet another coin.  Lose.  That's 3 BTC worth of bets when only two real coins ever existed.  So 1000 bitcoin bet doesn't mean that someone transferred 1000 bitcoin.

[TwinWinNerD]

Great job this week guys.  Your coins worked hard for us and somehow managed to retain over 5% of the amount wagered!

Jun  9 2014     2.06%   142.75%

Can you please clarify this? You said there was a 5% retention (ie. house edge) but the profit was only 2.06%?

Obv 5℅ of what was wagered

Or not. 5% of what was wagered would be a 5% effective house edge (aka "profit"). Let's put it into a mathematical formula you can utilize:

5.00% profit = 2.06% profit, false

Here's a link to help you verify that (though this is basic mathematics):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%25+%3D+2.06%25

If the Investment pool is 100BTC and only 10BTC was wager that week. 5% of 10 BTC is .2BTC profit for the Investors. .2BTC is .2% of 100BTC, so the profit that week is .2%, not 5%. The effective house edge is 5% of all wagered coins. That doesn't tell you how many coins are wagered. Would you expect to make 5% profit if no one even used the site all week?

I suggest you actually read my post before responding.

Dooglus said that the site retained over 5% of the bets wagered for the week. This means that if there were 100 BTC wagered, the site got at least 5 BTC in profit.

He then stated that the profit for the week was only 2.06% profit for the week. In other words, if there were 100 BTC wagered, 2.06 would have been taken in profit.

Again, how can 5% (5 BTC) possibly be equal to 2.06% (2.06 BTC) when we're talking about the same thing (profit) over the same time period (a week) when both are using the same variable (wagered amount)? How much is in the investment pool is irrelevant to any of this discussion.

I suggest you read what YOU write before posting...

5% = the % of the amount wagered
2% = the % of the BANKROLL

fail...