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

[RationalSpeculator]

'celeste' had promised me he had retired from playing, and I believed him, so I wasn't overly concerned.

Is that the same guy that just lied about 1300 btc to you?

If yes, why do you think you believed him?


I have believed dishonest people in the past, even when the proof was staring me in the face.

My lack of human knowledge was a direct result of learning to fool myself about the truth of the people raising me.

Not seeing the truth helped me survive as a child but harmed me seriously down the road.  

Not saying this is the case for you. Just letting you know how it went for me.

[Jonny Heggheim]

Dooglas should be careful with changing things too quickly. Time needs to pass on current parameters to see if they are working. If he changes things willy-nilly week after week, it won't be possible to judge the results.

Also, people that are worried about whales have too much invested. That is a major signal. Invest what you barely care about. Enough to want to see how you're doing day to day, but small enough that you could leave it for a few days or weeks and either be pleasantly surprised or mildly annoyed when you return. It's not worth risking so much that you need to be on "whale watch". No need to dilute other investors by some complicated tiered rake or multiple pools of varied risk.

+1, well said!

[shawshankinmate37927]

Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.

Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days.  If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining.  IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on.  For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest.

That suggestion is logically unsound.  Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it.

Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools:

Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC
Pool 2 took all action

If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site.

If pool 2 has less than 2k BTC then that means that investors don't want to deal with the variance of the bigger bets.  If no one wants to back the house on those bets, then why force them?  Investors will just divest when a whale arrives and reinvest when he leaves.  Why not just make this process automatic?

If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2.

Why is pool 1 now needed?  Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1.  And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits.

Pool 1 will have fewer swings and will help stabilize the site's overall combined bankroll.  By having one large pool, investors will just divest while a whale is playing, which also reduces max bet.

The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects:

1.  It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet)
2.  It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1.
3.  It gives low risk investment opportunity  - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2.

1.  Divesting while a whale is playing also does this.
2.  Those in pool 2 would be sharing in pool 1's profits, but they would have all of pool 2's profits to themselves, which actually means more profits for them.
3.  Nothing wrong with that.  That's what some investors want.

But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist?  It doesn't add to max bet.  It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2.  Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist.

To stabilize the overall combined bankroll of the site.  With two pools, the combined bankroll wouldn't be exposed to the higher variance, only the portion of the bankroll provided by investors that choose to be exposed to the higher variance.

It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover.  I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves.  The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream?

It's a concept that's allows those who don't want to deal with the high variance to opt out of that action and the profits that come along with it, leaving more profits for the investors that can stomach the roller coaster ride.  Yes, the less profitable low-variance action will be shared with more investors, but the more profitable high-variance action will be shared with fewer investors.  The higher profits from the latter will more than compensate for the lower profits of the former.

You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place.  It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets.  It's to cover the 200 BTC bets.  And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action.

What you fail to understand is that an investor can allocate more funds to pool 1 in order to gain more exposure to the rewards of the low-variance action, if that is what's important to him.

[Bugpowder]

Doog now has a sound that plays if a whale wins or loses a big bet.  That can be a cue for weak-kneed investors to divest.

[RationalSpeculator]

Wagered in the first month is 500,000BTC.  Assuming that holds steady, EV of doog's fee is 500,000*12*.01*.05 = 3000BTC / yr.  Or about as much as a lower midlevel Goldman Sachs manager, or a 3rd year associate at Wachtell, without having student debt, having to bill 2800 hrs/yr or pay rent on that midtown pied-à-terre.

That would be 3,000 btc ($270k) while returning 60,000 btc - 3000 btc = 57,000 btc ($5.1 million) to investors.

I must admit, that looks good too.

He could easily add 2% management fee though, if invested capital stays steady at 25,000 btc that would be an extra 400 btc that he earns for sure while returning the same profits of 57,000 btc to investors but not returning 25,000 btc of original capital but 24,600 btc.  

Heck it's too low to even bother, he could ask 4% management fee per year (0.01% per day), giving him 3 btc per day, or 1000 btc per year, and returning 24,000 btc to investors instead of 25,000 btc.

If the site is in the red for half a year he makes at least a living.

[Deprived]

Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.

Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days.  If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining.  IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on.  For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest.

That suggestion is logically unsound.  Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it.

Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools:

Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC
Pool 2 took all action

If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site.

If pool 2 has less than 2k BTC then that means that investors don't want to deal with the variance of the bigger bets.  If no one wants to back the house on those bets, then why force them?  Investors will just divest when a whale arrives and reinvest when he leaves.  Why not just make this process automatic?

If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2.

Why is pool 1 now needed?  Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1.  And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits.

Pool 1 will have fewer swings and will help stabilize the site's overall combined bankroll.  By having one large pool, investors will just divest while a whale is playing, which also reduces max bet.

The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects:

1.  It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet)
2.  It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1.
3.  It gives low risk investment opportunity  - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2.

1.  Divesting while a whale is playing also does this.
2.  Those in pool 2 would be sharing in pool 1's profits, but they would have all of pool 2's profits to themselves, which actually means more profits for them.
3.  Nothing wrong with that.  That's what some investors want.

But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist?  It doesn't add to max bet.  It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2.  Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist.

To stabilize the overall combined bankroll of the site.  With two pools, the combined bankroll wouldn't be exposed to the higher variance, only the portion of the bankroll provided by investors that choose to be exposed to the higher variance.

It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover.  I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves.  The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream?

It's a concept that's allows those who don't want to deal with the high variance to opt out of that action and the profits that come along with it, leaving more profits for the investors that can stomach the roller coaster ride.  Yes, the less profitable low-variance action will be shared with more investors, but the more profitable high-variance action will be shared with fewer investors.  The higher profits from the latter will more than compensate for the lower profits of the former.

You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place.  It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets.  It's to cover the 200 BTC bets.  And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action.

What you fail to understand is that an investor can allocate more funds to pool 1 in order to gain more exposure to the rewards of the low-variance action, if that is what's important to him.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in a bunch of ways.  Two key ones being:

It's not the same as someone divesting when a whale appears - as they don't get to keep ongoing profits from small bets when they do that.
The small bets don't give any significant variance to the BR as a whole - ALL of the significant variance comes from (relatively) large bets.  Pool 1 doesn't reduce that variance at all.

Pool 1 ONLY impacts the site's overall bank-roll if that bank-roll would otherwise fall so low as to no longer support a 20 BTC max bet.  All the time max bet is above is that pool 1 just leeches off low-variance profits whilst not increasing max-bet or doing anything useful.

It benefits noone except those in pool 1.

Dooglus gets a lower max-bet, has to implement changes and then offers higher CP-exposure (assuming there's some who won't invest at present who would otherwise).
Bettors get a lower max-bet.
Pool 2 get less of the low-risk profit.

All to allow some people to provide unneeded investment (to cover stuff that pool 2 could cover on its own).  As the existence of Pool 1 wouldn't help bettors, dooglus or Pool 2 it's just a charity if it ever existed - existing purely to help itself and offering nothing of value in return plus causing harm to everyone else just by its very existence.  It actively promotes totally inefficient investment - holding cash for the sake of it with no purpose (unless needlessly dikuting profits is a valid purpose).

I think there's about 0% chance of dooglus implementing it so I'm done discussing it.

[Lohoris]

Doog now has a sound that plays if a whale wins or loses a big bet.  That can be a cue for weak-kneed investors to divest.

Technically if you micro-manage like that you are more of a speculator than an investor.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, ofc.

[stripykitteh]

if the whale ever gets 50% of the house, I guess most investors are likely to devest and the house is defeated shortly after.

No, you're missing the point.

You need to think of the house bankroll like a ladder. Say 25,000BTC is a rung on the ladder.

There are rungs in both directions. The next rung up is 50,000BTC. The next rung down is 12,500BTC. The one below that is 6,250BTC. The one below that is 3,125BTC.

It's legitimate to think of the bankroll like this as the max bet size scales up and down with the bankroll size. It takes as much luck to push the bank's roll down from 25,000 to 12,500 as it does from 12,500 to 6,250.

If a whale takes on the house, following my simulation rules, at some stage the house's bankroll will go up a rung (i.e., 50,000), or down a rung (i.e., 12,500). If you look at the results, you'll see the lowest the roll ever got down to was about 4,000, so it went down 2 whole rungs, recovered, then shot back up to 50,000:

Code:

roll_num => 21831, bet => 231.58, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 4008.85, jw => 11005, ww => 10826

So in what was a nerve-shredding simulation for the house (losing over 80% of the initial bankroll), it still recovered and won. The point is, it is still unlikely for the house to go down more than a couple of rungs. But there are rungs all the way down. 1562.5, 781.25, 390.625, and so on. The whale must force the house down through many rungs, each of which is fairly unlikely to happen. Combined, impossible (or as near as damn it).

I even gave the whale the added benefit in my sim that, if it got the house down to below the initial max bet size (1% under J-D's rules), the house had to go all in. It never got that far.

To prove my point, I reran the simulation with a much smaller house bankroll.

Now the bank only has a tiny 100BTC bankroll. It takes a while, but the house still always wins.

Code:

bash-3.2$ ./whale_sim.pl 10 25000 100 0.01 100
roll_num => 91505, bet => 44.67, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 45.25, jw => 46257, ww => 45248
roll_num => 238628, bet => 170.55, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 5.11, jw => 120187, ww => 118441
roll_num => 24966, bet => 88.69, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 62.06, jw => 12822, ww => 12144
roll_num => 191919, bet => 33.33, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 87.25, jw => 96716, ww => 95203
roll_num => 78506, bet => 14.66, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 32.00, jw => 39726, ww => 38780
roll_num => 41172, bet => 123.82, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 52.35, jw => 20965, ww => 20207
roll_num => 182887, bet => 189.56, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 50.82, jw => 92177, ww => 90710
roll_num => 151088, bet => 243.41, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 50.62, jw => 76198, ww => 74890
roll_num => 160041, bet => 185.11, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 11.54, jw => 80697, ww => 79344
roll_num => 54083, bet => 235.19, jd_bal => 25100.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 25100.00, min => 65.61, jw => 27453, ww => 26630

In trial 2, the house gets down to 5.11BTC against the whale's mighty 25,094.89BTC bankroll, and still won.

[Bugpowder]

Wagered in the first month is 500,000BTC.  Assuming that holds steady, EV of doog's fee is 500,000*12*.01*.05 = 3000BTC / yr.  Or about as much as a lower midlevel Goldman Sachs manager, or a 3rd year associate at Wachtell, without having student debt, having to bill 2800 hrs/yr or pay rent on that midtown pied-à-terre.

That would be 3,000 btc ($270k) while returning 60,000 btc - 3000 btc = 57,000 btc ($5.1 million) to investors.

I must admit, that looks good too.

He could easily add 2% management fee though, if invested capital stays steady at 25,000 btc that would be an extra 400 btc that he earns for sure while returning the same profits of 57,000 btc to investors but not returning 25,000 btc of original capital but 24,600 btc.  

Heck it's too low to even bother, he could ask 4% management fee per year (0.01% per day), giving him 3 btc per day, or 1000 btc per year, and returning 24,000 btc to investors instead of 25,000 btc.

If the site is in the red for half a year he makes at least a living.

Vanguard charges 0.08-0.25% management fee on most of their products.   

They are by far the biggest financial investment fund.  They are also the only one that people should invest in.  Hedge funds are losing investments, and have dramatically underperformed the SP500 for the last decade.  The only ones that make money do insider trading, and those are under attack (SAC) and make it nearly impossible to beat the market after fees.

I think a management fee on total equity rather than on return would depress investment. 

[shawshankinmate37927]

Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.

Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days.  If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining.  IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on.  For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest.

That suggestion is logically unsound.  Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it.

Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools:

Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC
Pool 2 took all action

If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site.

If pool 2 has less than 2k BTC then that means that investors don't want to deal with the variance of the bigger bets.  If no one wants to back the house on those bets, then why force them?  Investors will just divest when a whale arrives and reinvest when he leaves.  Why not just make this process automatic?

If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2.

Why is pool 1 now needed?  Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1.  And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits.

Pool 1 will have fewer swings and will help stabilize the site's overall combined bankroll.  By having one large pool, investors will just divest while a whale is playing, which also reduces max bet.

The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects:

1.  It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet)
2.  It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1.
3.  It gives low risk investment opportunity  - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2.

1.  Divesting while a whale is playing also does this.
2.  Those in pool 2 would be sharing in pool 1's profits, but they would have all of pool 2's profits to themselves, which actually means more profits for them.
3.  Nothing wrong with that.  That's what some investors want.

But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist?  It doesn't add to max bet.  It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2.  Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist.

To stabilize the overall combined bankroll of the site.  With two pools, the combined bankroll wouldn't be exposed to the higher variance, only the portion of the bankroll provided by investors that choose to be exposed to the higher variance.

It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover.  I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves.  The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream?

It's a concept that's allows those who don't want to deal with the high variance to opt out of that action and the profits that come along with it, leaving more profits for the investors that can stomach the roller coaster ride.  Yes, the less profitable low-variance action will be shared with more investors, but the more profitable high-variance action will be shared with fewer investors.  The higher profits from the latter will more than compensate for the lower profits of the former.

You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place.  It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets.  It's to cover the 200 BTC bets.  And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action.

What you fail to understand is that an investor can allocate more funds to pool 1 in order to gain more exposure to the rewards of the low-variance action, if that is what's important to him.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in a bunch of ways.  Two key ones being:

It's not the same as someone divesting when a whale appears - as they don't get to keep ongoing profits from small bets when they do that.

Of course it's not the same, but divesting when a whale arrives is currently the best option for those who don't want exposure to that action.  When the whale is gone, they can simply reinvest to gain exposure to the low-variance action.

The small bets don't give any significant variance to the BR as a whole - ALL of the significant variance comes from (relatively) large bets.  Pool 1 doesn't reduce that variance at all.

Pool 1 wouldn't be affected by the variance of pool 2.  Clearly, that reduces the variance of the site's overall total bankroll, especially if pool 1 is significantly larger than pool 2.  Just depends on how much demand there is for backing the low-variance action.

Pool 1 ONLY impacts the site's overall bank-roll if that bank-roll would otherwise fall so low as to no longer support a 20 BTC max bet.  All the time max bet is above is that pool 1 just leeches off low-variance profits whilst not increasing max-bet or doing anything useful.

Pool 1 shouldn't be set up to support a 20 BTC max bet.  It should be set up to support a max bet of, for example, 0.1% of funds invested in pool 1.  Any bets over that 0.1% would be covered by funds in pool 2.  If an investor is concerned about losing the low-variance profits in pool 1, they simply allocate more funds to pool 1.  Each investor can choose for himself how much exposure he has to each pool.

It benefits noone except those in pool 1.

False.  Those in pool 2 benefit because they do not have to share the profits of the high-variance action with those in pool 1.

Dooglus gets a lower max-bet, has to implement changes and then offers higher CP-exposure (assuming there's some who won't invest at present who would otherwise).
Bettors get a lower max-bet.
Pool 2 get less of the low-risk profit.

Dooglus will have a low max bet in the short run, but as the investors in pool 1 start putting some of their profits in pool 2 max bet will grow over time.
Bettors will also have a lower max bet when investors divest because they can't handle the variance.
Pool 2 can get more of the low-variance profit by allocating more funds to pool 1.

All to allow some people to provide unneeded investment (to cover stuff that pool 2 could cover on its own).  As the existence of Pool 1 wouldn't help bettors, dooglus or Pool 2 it's just a charity if it ever existed - existing purely to help itself and offering nothing of value in return plus causing harm to everyone else just by its very existence.  It actively promotes totally inefficient investment - holding cash for the sake of it with no purpose (unless needlessly dikuting profits is a valid purpose).

It's not a matter of pool 2 being able to cover the pool 1 bets.  It's that pool 2 would no longer have to share their profits with pool 1--pool 2 benefits.   Pool 1 would be for the investors that don't mind giving up some profits in order to have less variance.  As pool 1 grows larger and profits shrink, investors can move a portion of their funds to pool 2.  They would be able to balance between variance and profit by allocating funds to each pool accordingly.

I think there's about 0% chance of dooglus implementing it so I'm done discussing it.

Who knows, he has considered something along these lines:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242962.msg2730713#msg2730713

[stripykitteh]

Made a couple of small changes to my script to allow fractions of a % for the edge. Also now just express the edge as a straight %, so a 1% edge is 50.5.

Ran a couple of sims at 1% edge and a 1.6% edge that Lohoris suggested. At 1.6% the house never went under 11055BTC.

Code:

bash-3.2$ ./whale_sim.pl 10 25000 25000 0.01 50.5
roll_num => 7579, bet => 100.24, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 11258.19, jw => 3843, ww => 3736
roll_num => 7109, bet => 424.70, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 19839.34, jw => 3607, ww => 3502
roll_num => 2026, bet => 218.32, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 22756.98, jw => 1053, ww => 973
roll_num => 9147, bet => 490.66, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 17515.04, jw => 4631, ww => 4516
roll_num => 30642, bet => 469.06, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 6398.22, jw => 15432, ww => 15210
roll_num => 2161, bet => 56.26, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 21209.95, jw => 1121, ww => 1040
roll_num => 80854, bet => 291.23, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 1016.20, jw => 40664, ww => 40190
roll_num => 6555, bet => 41.46, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 20386.35, jw => 3329, ww => 3226
roll_num => 27953, bet => 69.71, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 3365.07, jw => 14081, ww => 13872
roll_num => 858, bet => 297.86, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 24502.50, jw => 466, ww => 392
bash-3.2$ 
bash-3.2$ ./whale_sim.pl 10 25000 25000 0.016 50.8
roll_num => 1905, bet => 14.20, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 12386.42, jw => 982, ww => 923
roll_num => 1756, bet => 286.08, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 23384.05, jw => 907, ww => 849
roll_num => 2163, bet => 489.42, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 19956.85, jw => 1112, ww => 1051
roll_num => 1826, bet => 729.59, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 20962.29, jw => 942, ww => 884
roll_num => 2566, bet => 666.67, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 19019.04, jw => 1315, ww => 1251
roll_num => 3162, bet => 287.05, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 11055.43, jw => 1615, ww => 1547
roll_num => 2126, bet => 495.97, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 21544.64, jw => 1093, ww => 1033
roll_num => 5693, bet => 680.15, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 15197.74, jw => 2891, ww => 2802
roll_num => 2580, bet => 755.01, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 14588.08, jw => 1322, ww => 1258
roll_num => 3933, bet => 616.50, jd_bal => 50000.00, whale_bal => 0.00, max => 50000.00, min => 15788.90, jw => 2004, ww => 1929

[dooglus]

Or there is the way Dooglas "invests" in the site (and probably others), he invests and as soon as a whale shows up and wins a little he quickly divests locking in profit.

Actually I've been trying to avoid the whale.  I missed the start of his betting this morning, and was a little up by the time I was able to divest (I find I'm less observant while asleep) but divested as soon as I could.  I would have divested whether I was up or down, since I don't believe in invisible strings.

[dooglus]

If he tried raising to 10% now there'd be significant whining.  If he'd started off at 20% and offered to reduce to 10% now he'd get heaped in praise.  Even though both scenarios end in the same place.  

I don't care about whining; would there be significant divesting?  Are you really going to leave because you "only" get to keep 90% of the site profits not 95%?

Initially I was thinking it would be a tough sell to get any investors at all, and so I set the rate low.  Turns out that's wasn't the case, but I was holding a large enough part of the bankroll myself that it didn't matter what the commission rate was.

And now there are no profits, so the rate is moot.

In time I may increase the commission, and those who don't like it will divest.  That's fine, and as it should be.

[dooglus]

Dooglus, my advice; increase commision now to between 10% and 20%. Give certain large investors who have lost hundreds of Bitcoin to Celeste a 5% commision for a long time to recover their loss whilst supporting your site. Apart from the investors that have taken huge losses anyone in the positive now or soon should become cool with a larger rake.

I think you've misunderstood how it works.  I only charge commission on *new* profits.  Investors who have lost coins don't pay any commission as they recover those losses.  They've already paid commission from when the site was up 1000 or 2000 BTC, and so won't pay any more commission at all until their profit exceeds the amount at which commission was previously charged.

This seems to be frequently misunderstood.  Any suggestions of how to reword the "invest" tab to make this clearer would be appreciated.

[dooglus]

what's the tail on the left?

That's where the martingale sequence loses.  It doesn't happen often, but when it does the player loses a lot.

[dooglus]

I think there's about 0% chance of dooglus implementing it so I'm done discussing it.

Who knows, he has considered something along these lines:

could you have different interfaces for the bettors, that access completely different bankrolls that are not mixed together?

I could make two completely separate sites, and the players could decide whether they wanted to play against the men or the boys...  But who would want to play on the site with the 10 times smaller max bet?

I'm assuming the bankrolls need to be combined to offer a single combined max bet to the players.

It's possible to treat the two bankrolls as separate and rebalance what percentage of the whole bankroll is owned by each sub-bankroll after each roll.  Then the percentages within each of the two sub-rolls is constant.  And that's the solution I will implement if/when I do so.

I'm considering two different things there:

1) Make two sites.  But what's the point.  Rejected.

2) Allow variable levels of risk.  You only risk 0.1% of your investment per roll, only contribute 0.1% to the max bet, but only get 10% as much exposure to all bets as if you risked 1%.

2) is quite different than saying "I want my fair share of bets up to 10 BTC but nothing any higher".  It is saying "I don't want to risk 1% of my investment on the big rolls and am prepared to get less of the small rolls also".

I imagine Deprived would be in favour of having 2) implemented, but will let him speak for himself.

[Bugpowder]

I think there's about 0% chance of dooglus implementing it so I'm done discussing it.

Who knows, he has considered something along these lines:

could you have different interfaces for the bettors, that access completely different bankrolls that are not mixed together?

I could make two completely separate sites, and the players could decide whether they wanted to play against the men or the boys...  But who would want to play on the site with the 10 times smaller max bet?

I'm assuming the bankrolls need to be combined to offer a single combined max bet to the players.

It's possible to treat the two bankrolls as separate and rebalance what percentage of the whole bankroll is owned by each sub-bankroll after each roll.  Then the percentages within each of the two sub-rolls is constant.  And that's the solution I will implement if/when I do so.

I'm considering two different things there:

1) Make two sites.  But what's the point.  Rejected.

2) Allow variable levels of risk.  You only risk 0.1% of your investment per roll, only contribute 0.1% to the max bet, but only get 10% as much exposure to all bets as if you risked 1%.

2) is quite different than saying "I want my fair share of bets up to 10 BTC but nothing any higher".  It is saying "I don't want to risk 1% of my investment on the big rolls and am prepared to get less of the small rolls also".

I imagine Deprived would be in favour of having 2) implemented, but will let him speak for himself.

If you can implement #2 in a computationally-efficient and user-selectable way, I am ALL FOR IT.  It will be really cool to see all of the people complaining about too much variance see their share get diluted over time as the people with optimal risk setting (1%) reap maximum reward.

[stripykitteh]

After looking at the results of my sim script, I think it's clear that J-D with its current settings is not the place to invest your money if you can't handle seeing half of your roll or more frequently disappear in the face of heavy whale action. The unanswered question at the moment is how likely is it that whales will frequently visit the site, and how deep are their pockets? There can't be too many people out there prepared to blow 10,000btc and not worry about it, or are there?

[canuck]

It would be really great if all of this tweaking talk would die down.  I threw some into J-D because it's a casino and is fundamentally sound over the long term.  Nothing has changed about that since I tossed any BTC in though my balance has decreased.

Honestly, it's very frustrating to see all of this because my initial understanding was something I understood and was comfortable with.  Now there are pages and pages of panic fuelled demand for changes to something that is fundamentally sound.

That jackie Chan meme is the appropriate one for this right?

[FloatesMcgoates]

What is all this hoopla in the chat over locking out U.S. Ip addresses? Are you serious about implementing this block?