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

[Deprived]

02:41:14 (2548) <nakowa> don't challenge me, I'm not a gambler, I'm just an amateur mathematician.
02:43:21 (2548) <nakowa> I'm tired. if you really want to watch, wait till tomorrow. I'll start from a very small amount of BTC.
02:44:22 (2548) <nakowa> I'd like dooglus fix the game.
02:44:51 (2548) <nakowa> I'll tell him what to fix.
02:44:57 (2548) <nakowa> not here.
02:44:58 (1) <dooglus> I'm busy making a withdrawal from the cold wallet for nakowa
02:45:09 (1) <dooglus> if anyone's talking to me here, sorry I missed it

Likely or unlikely, I wouldn't have said anything but for nakowa's comments.

If nakowa found a statistical anomaly why did you process the withdrawl? And if he didn't, can you tell us what he said?

It isn't a statistical anomaly.  He has a huge bankroll and thinks that the range from min bet to max bet is too high and allows players to successfully martingale if they have a big enough bankroll.

What do you think about that?  Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.

Yep, you can't remove the house edge with strategy.

What you CAN do is devise a betting strategy that with 90% certainty will win you X BTC - but you have to be willing to risk more than 9X BTC.  And you can achieve the same results with a single bet that's a 90% win anyway.

Players with large bankrolls add a ton of variance - totally drowning out all the smaller bets' impact - but they don't change the EV.

Gambling (vs the house) is only so profitable (for operators) because of everyone who thinks they have a system - there's no need to change anything when (as will happen from time to time) one of them wins.  You could lower the variance - by massively dropping the max bet - but why?  Investors just need to accept that backing the house s very +EV but also has massive variance.

The large variance DOES exist largely as a result of the wide range between min and max bets - but raising the min would make it worse and lowering the max would lose volume.  One possible solution is to go the route of allowing investors to choose their exposure level (from, say 0.1% to 10%) with action over the minimum being given only to those accepting that level of risk.  That would allow those who want a much smaller but more reliable profit to choose 0.1%, those who want roughly what happens at present to take 1% and those who essentially want to gamble to take 10%.  I think the complexity it adds doesn't warrant it - but others may have a different view.

Investors need to realise that the same variance which allowed the house to lose this cash also allowed it to rapidly get to double expected edge before.  You can't have fast gains from losing big bets without allowing fast losses from winning ones.

[trout]

It isn't a statistical anomaly.  He has a huge bankroll and thinks that the range from min bet to max bet is too high and allows players to successfully martingale if they have a big enough bankroll.

What do you think about that?  Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.

1% for max bet is not a problem.

The only problem playing against large players is time. Some of them play till they are ruined,
and it takes time to get them ruined. In other words, imagine a player with a bankroll big enough
to take away 2000 win with 95% probability (chose your favorite strategy for him - a martingale,
just constant bets 50/50 - whatever, with a big bankroll anything works).
 Then only 1 in 20 of such players will not make it, and "not making it" means he loses everything.
And so far we've seen only how many whale-plays? 5? well.

[yimfinity]

02:41:14 (2548) <nakowa> don't challenge me, I'm not a gambler, I'm just an amateur mathematician.
02:43:21 (2548) <nakowa> I'm tired. if you really want to watch, wait till tomorrow. I'll start from a very small amount of BTC.
02:44:22 (2548) <nakowa> I'd like dooglus fix the game.
02:44:51 (2548) <nakowa> I'll tell him what to fix.
02:44:57 (2548) <nakowa> not here.
02:44:58 (1) <dooglus> I'm busy making a withdrawal from the cold wallet for nakowa
02:45:09 (1) <dooglus> if anyone's talking to me here, sorry I missed it

Likely or unlikely, I wouldn't have said anything but for nakowa's comments.

If nakowa found a statistical anomaly why did you process the withdrawl? And if he didn't, can you tell us what he said?

It isn't a statistical anomaly.  He has a huge bankroll and thinks that the range from min bet to max bet is too high and allows players to successfully martingale if they have a big enough bankroll.

What do you think about that?  Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.

Yep, you can't remove the house edge with strategy.

What you CAN do is devise a betting strategy that with 90% certainty will win you X BTC - but you have to be willing to risk more than 9X BTC.  And you can achieve the same results with a single bet that's a 90% win anyway.

Players with large bankrolls add a ton of variance - totally drowning out all the smaller bets' impact - but they don't change the EV.

Gambling (vs the house) is only so profitable (for operators) because of everyone who thinks they have a system - there's no need to change anything when (as will happen from time to time) one of them wins.  You could lower the variance - by massively dropping the max bet - but why?  Investors just need to accept that backing the house s very +EV but also has massive variance.

The large variance DOES exist largely as a result of the wide range between min and max bets - but raising the min would make it worse and lowering the max would lose volume.  One possible solution is to go the route of allowing investors to choose their exposure level (from, say 0.1% to 10%) with action over the minimum being given only to those accepting that level of risk.  That would allow those who want a much smaller but more reliable profit to choose 0.1%, those who want roughly what happens at present to take 1% and those who essentially want to gamble to take 10%.  I think the complexity it adds doesn't warrant it - but others may have a different view.

Investors need to realise that the same variance which allowed the house to lose this cash also allowed it to rapidly get to double expected edge before.  You can't have fast gains from losing big bets without allowing fast losses from winning ones.

same reason casinos have table limits on roulette/etc. to prevent the infinite martingale!

[manoamano]

He is totally right.




You should have lower limits for the max bet in order to reduce the variance. If he had to bet 1 btc every time, and not 250 btc in 1 bet, he would have lost 2.5 btc (approximately), but he had a 49.5% chance to win 250 btc   ...

Also, if someone has 10 times the invested amount of money, martingale will increase his probability to win. Still, he will have more chance to lose it all before he could double up, but if he just needs to make + 5 %, martingale will ensure him a higher chance.

[infested999]

He is totally right.




You should have lower limits for the max bet in order to reduce the variance. If he had to bet 1 btc every time, and not 250 btc in 1 bet, he would have lost 2.5 btc (approximately), but he had a 49.5% chance to win 250 btc  ...

Also, if someone has 10 times the invested amount of money, martingale will increase his probability to win. Still, he will have more chance to lose it all because he could double up, but if he just needs to make + 5 %, martingale will ensure an higher chance.

Well he can't reduce the max bet now, because we are in a big hole and we need to variance to bring us back up to 1% now.

Wouldn't having 100x more btc invested in the site have the same effect of reducing the max bet? Everyone will take a smaller hit?

[manoamano]

I wonder who he is. 1 million USD 

[iMiner]

Very good points above!

I have a long background in advantage gambling and it keeps fascinating me how people keep believing in Martingale and the like as winning systems. Please understand that it is bettors like Nakowa that we should cherish. Real casinos treat these type of players like gods as they bring in huge profits.

Besides having a max bet on the site's end, the risk of ruin for JustDice is infinitesimally small due to the fact that the max bet reduces as the site's bankroll reduces.

On the other hand, investors seem surprised to have lost a significant (6%?) part of their investment. This surprise may be because somewhere it was stated that investors risk max 1% of their bankroll. This may be deceptive as the risk is max 1% for each bet! In fact, it is not unlikely to lose 10-20% of your investment when a big player plays for a long time and is lucky.

[manoamano]

In fact, it is not unlikely to lose 10-20% of your investment when a big player plays for a long time and is lucky.

It happened today for me.

[infested999]

He is totally right.




You should have lower limits for the max bet in order to reduce the variance. If he had to bet 1 btc every time, and not 250 btc in 1 bet, he would have lost 2.5 btc (approximately), but he had a 49.5% chance to win 250 btc  ...

Also, if someone has 10 times the invested amount of money, martingale will increase his probability to win. Still, he will have more chance to lose it all before he could double up, but if he just needs to make + 5 %, martingale will ensure him a higher chance.

martingale gives you a higher chance to win if you have a bigger bankroll, but it also increases the amount you lose if you lose everything, so it is completely fair.

The 1% max bet doesn't really stop everything because you could just split the bet into 2, and now you have a 2% max bet. Someone could cleat the full 26k site bankroll with about 3Mil by just always betting at 98% until the site is bankrupt.

[iMiner]

The 1% max bet doesn't really stop everything because you could just split the bet into 2, and now you have a 2% max bet. Someone could cleat the full 26k site bankroll with about 3Mil by just always betting at 98% until the site is bankrupt.

Note that it is not the max bet that is 1% of the BR, it is the max profit that is limited. When you bet at 98% chance of winning and go for max profit, say 250btc, means that you have a 2% risk of losing 24500btc each bet! You will be ruined sooner than the bank, I guarantee you that...

[manoamano]

The 1% max bet doesn't really stop everything because you could just split the bet into 2, and now you have a 2% max bet. Someone could cleat the full 26k site bankroll with about 3Mil by just always betting at 98% until the site is bankrupt.

I don't understand what you mean.
If you can bet 100 btc in 1 bet, you have 49.5% chance to win 100 btc. It is likely to happen.
If it is capped with 1 btc max. You make 100 bets worth 1 btc. You now have 1.429E-31 % chance to win 100 btc. It is impossible to happen.


The expected value is the same, but the variance isn't.
It should not be possible to bet more than 1 btc/bet. If someone wants to bet > 1 btc, the website should split the bet into xxx bets.

[iMiner]

I simulated a very pessimistic scenario in which a high roller with an infinite bankroll places 10000 maxbets in a row (50% chance of winning each bet). Maxbet adjusts dynamically (to 1% of site BR) after each bet. Site's starting bankroll is 26500 btc.

See below the probability of the site's bankroll after 10000 bets (3600 iterations).

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

Site can't practically go broke, but BR can decrease substantially. Note the logarithmic x-axis. There is far more upward potential with this type of player....

[bitcoin44me]

I simulated a very pessimistic scenario in which a high roller with an infinite bankroll places 10000 maxbets in a row (50% chance of winning each bet). Maxbet adjusts dynamically (to 1% of site BR) after each bet. Site's starting bankroll is 26500 btc.

See below the probability of the site's bankroll after 10000 bets (3600 iterations).



Site can't practically go broke, but BR can decrease substantially. Note the logarithmic x-axis. There is far more upward potential with this type of player....

Site will never go broke, because it is not possible with a maximum bet equals to 1% of the invested amount...
But basically, with your simulation, the expected value is 26.5k btc, like it was in the beginning. And it has the same chance to win or lose xxx btc.

But now, if you make your simulation with a martingale: the player is not always betting 1%, but he starts with 0.25%, then 0.5% if he lost, and finally 1% if he lost twice in a row. And also put a stop if the player win more than 0.5% of the capital at the beginning and start your simulation again... It will be unlikely that he lost everything he has, and he will always win 0.5% of the capital of the website

[romerun]

what's going on, must be the unluckiest investor out there. Last night I was bored, so I dropped 2 btc and saw it grew, thought the site is cool, so this morning I dropped in another 100, and 5 minutes later it went south.

[bitcoin44me]

what's going on, must be the unluckiest investor out there. Last night I was bored, so I dropped 2 btc and saw it grew, thought the site is cool, so this morning I dropped in another 100, and 5 minutes later it went south.

Eventually you will recover it within a month

[iMiner]

I simulated a very pessimistic scenario in which a high roller with an infinite bankroll places 10000 maxbets in a row (50% chance of winning each bet). Maxbet adjusts dynamically (to 1% of site BR) after each bet. Site's starting bankroll is 26500 btc.

See below the probability of the site's bankroll after 10000 bets (3600 iterations).

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

Site can't practically go broke, but BR can decrease substantially. Note the logarithmic x-axis. There is far more upward potential with this type of player....

Site will never go broke, because it is not possible with a maximum bet equals to 1% of the invested amount...
But basically, with your simulation, the expected value is 26.5k btc, like it was in the beginning. And it has the same chance to win or lose xxx btc.

But now, if you make your simulation with a martingale: the player is not always betting 1%, but he starts with 0.25%, then 0.5% if he lost, and finally 1% if he lost twice in a row. And also put a stop if the player win more than 0.5% of the capital at the beginning and start your simulation again... It will be unlikely that he lost everything he has, and he will always win 0.5% of the capital of the website

No, actually the expected value for the site is (starting BR + 0.01*total amount bet).

And if you really believe in Martingale I welcome you to play on JustDice and ruin the bank!

[bitcoin44me]

No, actually the expected value for the site is (starting BR + 0.01*total amount bet).

And if you really believe in Martingale I welcome you to play on JustDice and ruin the bank!

I believe in maths lol.
And you said that in your simulation, the odds were 50% -_-

[mechs]

Maybe we should increase the house edge to 2%?  Or maybe we can have a high rollers table - with a higher house edge for larger bets?

[iMiner]

No, actually the expected value for the site is (starting BR + 0.01*total amount bet).

And if you really believe in Martingale I welcome you to play on JustDice and ruin the bank!

I believe in maths lol.
And you said that in your simulation, the odds were 50% -_-

50% chance of winning = 1.98x payout of course

[bitfair]

Maybe we should increase the house edge to 2%?  Or maybe we can have a high rollers table - with a higher house edge for larger bets?

Or maybe just advertise widely that someone just won $1 million on the site, and that it was paid out by dooglus with no fuss whatsoever. That will probably bring in a lot of new players, which will win the house more in the long run!