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

[dooglus]

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.

You may find that your 1% investment also gets diluted by people who wish to invest but are put off by having to deposit 100 times more coins than they're risking per roll.  Those 99x extra coins are just sitting in the cold wallet, mostly not being used, and are at risk of me absconding with them.  That CP risk could well be keeping a lot of investors out at the moment, but letting them risk 10% or 50% of their investment per roll could bring them in; the idea being that they're not really risking 10% of their investment, they're risking 10% of the 10% of their coins that they are willing to trust me with, but only 1% of their total coins.

[dooglus]

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.

It's mostly just talk.  Nothing has changed.

I'd like to allow investors to select what percentage of their investment to risk per roll, rather than forcing 1% on them, but that would just be an optional thing.  1% would still be the optimal and default level.

[DopeFish]

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

You could replace all references to "invest" with "house". Invest implies some entitlements and can also be misunderstood as shares. Bottom-line the "investors" are just playing the house.

Entitlements: I’ve seen quite a few users trying to enforce their entitlements. "I’m a shareholder and demand the edge&risk be so and so" sound familiar?

Shares: Some might also think that invest=shares like sdice were you never actually lose money. You only get dividends. The share price might fall but you never get fewer shares.

At least change "Be the Bank!" under the invest tab with “Be the House!”. Bank is the old fiat we’re trying to replace

[Bugpowder]

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

You could replace all references to "invest" with "house". Invest implies some entitlements and can also be misunderstood as shares. Bottom-line the "investors" are just playing the house.

Entitlements: I’ve seen quite a few users trying to enforce their entitlements. "I’m a shareholder and demand the edge&risk be so and so" sound familiar?

Shares: Some might also think that invest=shares like sdice were you never actually lose money. You only get dividends. The share price might fall but you never get fewer shares.

At least change "Be the Bank!" under the invest tab with “Be the House!”. Bank is the old fiat we’re trying to replace

I do kinda like the change in nomenclature.  Play as the house!

[Rannasha]

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.

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%.

I don't see why people keep hammering on about this point. If they want to have lower risk per roll, they invest less. If I have 1 btc to invest, but only want to risk 0.5% per roll, I just invest 0.5 btc and keep the remaining 0.5 btc in my wallet. This has exactly the same effect as a variable risk level setting on the website, but has the advantage of just keeping the site simple, which is one of its appeals in my opinion.

[drawingthesun]

I don't see why people keep hammering on about this point. If they want to have lower risk per roll, they invest less. If I have 1 btc to invest, but only want to risk 0.5% per roll, I just invest 0.5 btc and keep the remaining 0.5 btc in my wallet. This has exactly the same effect as a variable risk level setting on the website, but has the advantage of just keeping the site simple, which is one of its appeals in my opinion.

I agree, if you want to have less risk then you should invest less.

[Deprived]

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.

You may find that your 1% investment also gets diluted by people who wish to invest but are put off by having to deposit 100 times more coins than they're risking per roll.  Those 99x extra coins are just sitting in the cold wallet, mostly not being used, and are at risk of me absconding with them.  That CP risk could well be keeping a lot of investors out at the moment, but letting them risk 10% or 50% of their investment per roll could bring them in; the idea being that they're not really risking 10% of their investment, they're risking 10% of the 10% of their coins that they are willing to trust me with, but only 1% of their total coins.

I considered that (as you said earlier, I don't object in theory to people picking the level of their BR they risk) but I think any loss of ROI from that would be balanced by the reduction in CP/exploit risk and the increase in ROI on committed capital allowed by more flexible management.

Personally if that change were implemented I'd likely withdraw 90% of what I have deposited, increase risk % to 10% and re-balance the BR each day.   That would give me similar (not quite the same) results as now with less CP risk and efffectively no delays on withdrawing up to 90% of my 'deposit'.  I'd expect quite a few others to do the same - so net result would likely be increased max bet but less cash on deposit : which is a good thing for the site and allows more efficient investing.

I have no idea whether it would satisfy those who can't see how adjusting capital deposited can simulate lowering risk %.

Only down side is that if most investors increase their risk% and keep less cash on deposit then max bet would fluctuate far more with the possibility that if a whale had a big losing streak it could take some while for fresh batches of deposits to come in and allow the whale to ocntinue betting at the same level to return their borrowed winnings.

[dooglus]

If I have 1 btc to invest, but only want to risk 0.5% per roll, I just invest 0.5 btc and keep the remaining 0.5 btc in my wallet. This has exactly the same effect as a variable risk level setting on the website, but has the advantage of just keeping the site simple, which is one of its appeals in my opinion.

Not quite.

If you invest 1 BTC and risk 0.5% of it, after you lose one max bet you lose 0.005 BTC, have 0.995 BTC left, and risk 0.004975 BTC on the 2nd bet.

If you invest 0.5 BTC and risk 1% of it, after you lose one max bet you lose 0.005 BTC, have 0.495 BTC left, and risk 0.00495 BTC on the 2nd bet.

These aren't the same.  The difference is small on the 2nd bet, but the two strategies will diverge rapidly.

Risking 1% of any amount per bet is obviously much more risky than risking 0.5% of any amount.  Your risk of ruin risking 1% of an initial 0.5 BTC investment is much higher than when you risk 0.5% of a 1 BTC investment.

[bitfromit]

Dooglus, what a lot of hot air about a simple thing.

As discussed before if many whales are at it at the same time volatility on the house side will obviously go down.

Why not change the edge based on number of whales (fewer whales = higher house edge and visa versa) that way we encourage more whales to encourage more whales. We NEED whales after all.

I just knocked this together for those satoshi martingalers all over JD...

Code:

   // Just-Dice martingale :
    public JDMartingale() {
        // Values are in BTC :
        final double SATOSHI = 0.00000001;
        double equity = 10.0;
        double initialBetSize = 1;
        double betsize = initialBetSize;
        final SecureRandom R = new SecureRandom();
        DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat("#.########");
        int counter = 0;
        int wins = 0;
        int loses = 0;
        // Print out params :
        System.out.println("equity = " + equity + ", initialBetSize = " + initialBetSize + ":");
        // run bet loop :
        while (true) {
            // (floating value from 0 to 1 inclusive) :
            final double d = R.nextDouble();
            // Check the state of affairs :
            // No equity? :
            if (equity <= 0.0) {
                System.out.println("GAME OVER.");
                break;
            }
            // We cant keep doubling? oh dear...
            if (equity < betsize) {
                final double oldBetsize = betsize;
                betsize = equity * .25;
                betsize = Double.parseDouble(df.format(betsize)); // format to satoshi units.
                if (betsize < SATOSHI) {
                    betsize = SATOSHI;
                }
                initialBetSize = betsize;
                System.out.println("Cannot bet " + oldBetsize + "... So reducing betsize to " + betsize + ".");
            }
            // Apply outcome :
            String str = "bet " + betsize + ", ";
            // WIN :
            if (d < 0.495) { // (1% house edge)
                str += "WIN, ";
                equity += betsize;
                betsize = initialBetSize;
                wins++;
            }
            // LOSE :
            else {
                str += "LOSE, ";
                equity -= betsize;
                betsize *= 2;
                loses++;
            }
            // Print results and stop at some arbitrary point :
            str += "equity = " + equity + ", ";
            System.out.println(str);
            counter++;
            if (counter == 100) {
                break;
            }
        }
        // Print some basic stats :
        System.out.println();
        System.out.println("Total bets " + counter);
        System.out.println("Total wins " + wins);
        System.out.println("Total loses " + loses);
    }

Example :

equity = 10.0, initialBetSize = 1.0:
bet 1.0, WIN, equity = 11.0,
bet 1.0, LOSE, equity = 10.0,
bet 2.0, WIN, equity = 12.0,
bet 1.0, WIN, equity = 13.0,
bet 1.0, LOSE, equity = 12.0,
bet 2.0, LOSE, equity = 10.0,
bet 4.0, LOSE, equity = 6.0,
Cannot bet 8.0... So reducing betsize to 1.5.
bet 1.5, WIN, equity = 7.5,
bet 1.5, WIN, equity = 9.0,
bet 1.5, LOSE, equity = 7.5,
bet 3.0, LOSE, equity = 4.5,
Cannot bet 6.0... So reducing betsize to 1.125.
bet 1.125, LOSE, equity = 3.375,
bet 2.25, LOSE, equity = 1.125,
Cannot bet 4.5... So reducing betsize to 0.28125.
bet 0.28125, LOSE, equity = 0.84375,
bet 0.5625, WIN, equity = 1.40625,
bet 0.28125, LOSE, equity = 1.125,
bet 0.5625, LOSE, equity = 0.5625,
Cannot bet 1.125... So reducing betsize to 0.140625.
bet 0.140625, WIN, equity = 0.703125,
bet 0.140625, LOSE, equity = 0.5625,
bet 0.28125, WIN, equity = 0.84375,
bet 0.140625, WIN, equity = 0.984375,
bet 0.140625, WIN, equity = 1.125,
bet 0.140625, LOSE, equity = 0.984375,
bet 0.28125, LOSE, equity = 0.703125,
bet 0.5625, LOSE, equity = 0.140625,
Cannot bet 1.125... So reducing betsize to 0.03515625.
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.10546875,
bet 0.0703125, WIN, equity = 0.17578125,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.2109375,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.24609375,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.28125,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.31640625,
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.28125,
bet 0.0703125, WIN, equity = 0.3515625,
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.31640625,
bet 0.0703125, WIN, equity = 0.38671875,
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.3515625,
bet 0.0703125, WIN, equity = 0.421875,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.45703125,
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.421875,
bet 0.0703125, WIN, equity = 0.4921875,
bet 0.03515625, WIN, equity = 0.52734375,
bet 0.03515625, LOSE, equity = 0.4921875,
bet 0.0703125, LOSE, equity = 0.421875,
bet 0.140625, LOSE, equity = 0.28125,
bet 0.28125, LOSE, equity = 0.0,
GAME OVER.

[trout]

hey, dooglus,
if you decide to implement the variable investment rate, can you also make an option to enter
how much I have in my cold storage? This way, I won't have to manually manage the investment,
unless it becomes insufficient.

For example:

I invest 10 coins at 10%, but specify that I keep 90BTC ready in my cold storage.
So I'm asking the site to consider my investment to be 100 BTC at 1%.
To make it risk-free for the site, the site disables my investment (divests) if it becomes  1 BTC or less,
 since it's no longer sufficient to cover the max bet.


Otherwise, if I have to manually manage my investment all the time, the feature will be useless for me, and probably for many others

[thy]

The ide with variable size of the risked amount per bet woun't work very well unless the site will stabalize on a very high avg daily volume of bets compared to the invested amount and that is highly unlikely that that will be the case as invested amounts in the long run will adjust to the betvolumes and settle on a level where people feels the risk/revard is decent.

If you implement something like that where people will be able to choose a risklevel per bet in 0,1%-2,0% for example, then people will be forsed to accept a higher risk than there comfortable with to be able to expect a decent yearly return on there investments, if someone witch only want 0,1% risked per bet, then they would likely be looking at worse expected return compared to basically "risk free" investments that dont have a chance of beeing worth less than when they invested when they sometime in the future want to withdraw funds. It will likely end up that the invested amount in relation to the avg bet volume will force people to risk even more than 1,0% per bet to get a decent return if some large investors will go for max risk.

Before the nakowa/cici/celese entered the scene for example, even at 1% risked per bet like it's been sofar, the investors was "only" to expect something like 3,12% profit, witch one can compare to some basically "riskfree" investments out there that is at around 2,0% monthly return.
So it may be very likely that someone that wants to only risk 0,1% per bet may expect something like a profit in the 0,2-0,5% range when bet volumes and invested amount will settle in a couple of months time if you were to introduce varable risked per bet levels of 0,1-1,0% or even 0,1% to 2,0% or something like that.

[infested999]

ITT investors can't understand why their investment isn't making big bucks.

[RationalSpeculator]

*darkening the room, bringing out cake with 1 candle*

*Happy birthday to yoouuuu, happy birthdaaaay tooo yoooouuuuu*  

Congratulations Just-Dice with your 1 month birthday!    


And what a first month it was!


Total amount of btc bet 493,000 as of speaking and since the birthday is today will likely hit 500,000 btc in first month.

With the current $90/btc that is a turnover of $44 million.

Compare that to Satoshi Dice that had only a turnover of $24 million at it's peak in January 2013 and the last few months averaged around $15 million.

Ofcourse Satoshi Dice charges almost double so only needs half the turnover to make the same amount of money.


But still, it took Satoshi Dice half a year to get to an 'expected profit' of $450k per month, and Just-Dice does it already in the first month!

Let's hope Just-Dice succeeds where Satoshi Dice failed miserably, keeping the expected profit at this level and hopefully even raising it over time.  


True, no actual profit up until now as some gamblers got lucky but for the wise investor this is of little importance.  

A big congratulations to dooglus for making it all happen, as well as all the investors for embracing the opportunity. And a big thank you to the gamblers for making it a success.

Good luck to the investors dooglus gamblers as they will need it

[001sonkit]

Good luck to the investors dooglus gamblers as they will need it

And we will all need them too! 

[Otoh]

Just checked this out, very nice indeed, invested in the house & left 1 coin balance to play with for when I fancy a flutter.

[wolverine.ks]

I dreamed last night there was a litecoin version of just-dice and I took .01ltc up to 200,000ltc. was it a premonition? is there a litecoin version on the todo list?

[drawingthesun]

I dreamed last night there was a litecoin version of just-dice and I took .01ltc up to 200,000ltc. was it a premonition? is there a litecoin version on the todo list?

Someone else said they are working on a Litecoin version of Just-Dice, I don't remember their name. I am sure we'll all know about it when it comes online.

In the meantime why not take 0.001 Bitcoin and bring it up to 20,000 Bitcoin?

[RationalSpeculator]

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.

You may find that your 1% investment also gets diluted by people who wish to invest but are put off by having to deposit 100 times more coins than they're risking per roll.  Those 99x extra coins are just sitting in the cold wallet, mostly not being used, and are at risk of me absconding with them.  That CP risk could well be keeping a lot of investors out at the moment, but letting them risk 10% or 50% of their investment per roll could bring them in; the idea being that they're not really risking 10% of their investment, they're risking 10% of the 10% of their coins that they are willing to trust me with, but only 1% of their total coins.

I considered that (as you said earlier, I don't object in theory to people picking the level of their BR they risk) but I think any loss of ROI from that would be balanced by the reduction in CP/exploit risk and the increase in ROI on committed capital allowed by more flexible management.

Personally if that change were implemented I'd likely withdraw 90% of what I have deposited, increase risk % to 10% and re-balance the BR each day.   That would give me similar (not quite the same) results as now with less CP risk and efffectively no delays on withdrawing up to 90% of my 'deposit'.  I'd expect quite a few others to do the same - so net result would likely be increased max bet but less cash on deposit : which is a good thing for the site and allows more efficient investing.

I have no idea whether it would satisfy those who can't see how adjusting capital deposited can simulate lowering risk %.

Only down side is that if most investors increase their risk% and keep less cash on deposit then max bet would fluctuate far more with the possibility that if a whale had a big losing streak it could take some while for fresh batches of deposits to come in and allow the whale to ocntinue betting at the same level to return their borrowed winnings.

Very interesting. I agree that the counterparty risk limits considerably the amount of btc that can be invested. However I don't understand yet how applying the strategy described by deprived here will result in similar results as dooglus explained that the numbers quickly diverge when you increase risk from 1% to 10% and keep the remaining 90% off site and rebalance compared to the current situation. It looks to me that this could lead you to lose a lot more then 80% of your reserved JD coins worst case as stripykitteh simulated for the current situation. Is that correct?

If yes, maybe a different solution could be thought out. I'm thinking of how the futures markets work where the investor just needs to deposit a futures margin to control a whole futures contract. However once the margin is lost and the investor does not transfer the required funds to pay for future possible losses, the whole futures contract is liquidated as to protect the house from those losses.

Translated to just-dice, let's say you want to be exposed for 100 btc. Required margin is 50%. You only need to deposit 50 btc but the Kelly principle is applied to risk 1% of 100 btc. Once the 50 btc is lost however and not refilled the investor loses the exposure for the remaining 50 btc. Would this solve the problem?

[petrescuerz]

*darkening the room, bringing out cake with 1 candle*

*Happy birthday to yoouuuu, happy birthdaaaay tooo yoooouuuuu*  

Congratulations Just-Dice with your 1 month birthday!    

Thank you very much, RationalSpeculator! It has been an unbelievable first month. The community is fantastic, and I for one count you as one of the best!

Deb

[thy]

I dreamed last night there was a litecoin version of just-dice and I took .01ltc up to 200,000ltc. was it a premonition? is there a litecoin version on the todo list?

I think it's best for JD to concentrate on one thing to start with, a dice site with betting in BTC and do that good for a long period. it's way to early to increase risks by adding another currency(LTC for example) to bet in, you would need a large housecapital in litecoins to for that or the site's investors/dooglus would be in severe risk for what market fluctuations in the BTC/LTC price can cause.

If people want to bet with there litecoins, it's easy for them to change them to BTC at btc-e, vircurex, or some other exchange like that. Also the volume one can expect from gambling in litecoin is nowhere near the volumes/values for BTC so one would increase risks for very little benefit by adding other currencys like LTC i think.