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

[Deprived]

What is to stop someone from claiming 10,000 coins are in local storage but are 'invested' to get more leverage on the site?

A signed message from an address containing the coins?

Furthermore, what system is in place to ensure that the coins remain in that address? 

I think you're missing the point.  I don't care if they really have the coins they claim to have or not.  I let them risk 1% of their total claimed amount, until the coins I have control of from them are less than 1% of the total they claim.  Then I force-divest them.

It could be that they have in fact invested all their coins, and the other 99% in the "local" storage are a lie.  That just means that they're risking 100% of their coins per roll, and will go bust when the first max bet wins.

I don't think this passes any extra risk onto other investors.  It is somewhat like trading on margin, but with the important difference that there's no risk of slippage when I have to "liquidate" their position.  I just remove them from the bankroll.

The effect I'm looking for is a way that people can risk more than 1% of what they've sent me without making the calculations too complex.  I think this "fractional reserve" idea does it.  Please don't just react to the fractional reserve concept at a gut level.  I don't need to be holding all the coins you claim to be risking 1% of (and I don't even care whether you have them either), so long as I always make sure I have access to all the coins you're actually risking per roll.

Well then forget about the local coins completely, they are totally irrelevant.

What you are trying to do is simply a more computationally efficient way to get arbitrarily increased risk exposure, right?

A person has a deposit amount and a coin multiplier amount. Right now the multiplier is 1. You track real coins on deposit, and multiplied coins. If a loss on an account holder's multiplied coins exceeds the balance, then the real balance is wiped out.

It's clever, but I suspect implementing it will be less efficient than you think.  You need to track two balances per account.  You need to test for the edge cases for when the loss exposure on a bet would potentially exceed the remaining reserve of some account. What do you do then?  Force liquidate or lock account when reserves are less than the potential max loss from a single bet?

Yeah there's some issues with implementation of it.  And some potential interesting things investors can do - such as when a whale's betting big run a martingale against them by modifying their local coins balance (if you remember I mentioned this ages back).  Also a large investor can try to freeze nearly everyone else out when there's no whales around by inserting a large local value so that max-bet rises to where anyone operating at 10% with 10% of coins deposited can no longer cover a single max-bet so is frozen out of taking the low-level action.  As soon as a few start doing that everyone who wants any action when whales aren't around ends up having to deposit all coins anyway.

Other issue with it it transparency.  If someone's balance is near the max-bet then they'd be in and out of investing a lot if there was a whale betting.  It would be hard for them to verify that their ending balance was actually fair.  The lack of ability to easily see that your balance was what it should be in those circumstances is possibly the largest argument against it from an investor's perspective.

[dooglus]

Well then forget about the local coins completely, they are totally irrelevant.

What you are trying to do is simply a more computationally efficient way to get arbitrarily increased risk exposure, right?

Right.  I'm trying to help a hypothetical potential millionaire investor invest without (a) having to send me his entire bankroll just to risk 1% of it per roll and (b) having to micro-manage the amount he has with me to keep it at a fixed percentage of the total he wants to be invested.

So suppose he has a million coins.  He wants to risk 10k coins per roll, but doesn't trust me to hold a million coins.  Hell, I screwed up withdrawing 1300 to celeste - who knows what else I'm capable of, right?  So he sends me 100k coins and tells me he has 900k more available locally.  I then set about letting him risk 10k per spin, and keep track of his total balance (it goes up and down from 1 million).  The 900k is constant.  It's what he really has in his own cold wallet, presumably.

A person has a deposit amount and a coin multiplier amount. Right now the multiplier is 1. You track real coins on deposit, and multiplied coins.

OK, so suppose he's lucky, and the 20k he sent me doubles to 40k.  Am I to remember he sent me 100k, but his total is 10 times that, and so his total has now doubled since the 10k doubled to 20k?  But the other 900k is presumably just stashed in a cold wallet, and hasn't doubled.  It's not a multiplier, it's an add-on.

If a loss on an account holder's multiplied coins exceeds the deposit balance, then the real balance is wiped out. The max bet is 1% of the total number of multiplied coins on the site.

Right, but I need to be careful that he doesn't go from "almost wiped out" to "over wiped out".  He mustn't ever lose more than he has physically sent me (because I've no guarantee that the 'local' coins even exist, let alone that he has any intention of parting with them).

It's clever, but I suspect implementing it will be less efficient than you think.  You need to track two balances per account.  You need to test for the edge cases for when the loss exposure on a bet would potentially exceed the remaining reserve of some account. What do you do then?  Force liquidate or lock account when reserves are less than the potential max loss from a single bet?

It's half-baked, but I think there's an idea in there that'll work.  I don't need to track two balances - I just need to track his total percentage of the bankroll (which doesn't change per bet), his "local" amount (which also doesn't change per bet), and the total size of the bankroll (which I'm already tracking).  I also need to calculate, after each invest and divest, who is the nearest to a liquidation event, and at what point that happens.  Then each bet I just compare the bankroll with this "liquidation trigger point" so see if action is required.  I need to recalculate the trigger point after each invest and divest, but they're relatively infrequent.

[Deprived]

It's half-baked, but I think there's an idea in there that'll work.  I don't need to track two balances - I just need to track his total percentage of the bankroll (which doesn't change per bet), his "local" amount (which also doesn't change per bet), and the total size of the bankroll (which I'm already tracking).  I also need to calculate, after each invest and divest, who is the nearest to a liquidation event, and at what point that happens.  Then each bet I just compare the bankroll with this "liquidation trigger point" so see if action is required.  I need to recalculate the trigger point after each invest and divest, but they're relatively infrequent.

Think if youre going to liquidate it you have to do it based on max-bet not on actual wagers.  i.e. if 1% of their total bank-roll doesn't cover their portion of a max-bet then they're liquidated and don't get ANY action.  Reason's two-fold:

1.  It avoids letting people mess around with tiny amounts staked that can never accept action from a max-bet.
2.  Doing it otherwise leads to a scenario where either displayed max-bet isn't accurate OR calculation of max-bet is hard (as it's no longer 1% of all active deposits as some can't accept max-bet action).

[Stunna]

I'm sorry, but you doing such a thing kind of demonstrates that the design strongly needs to be adjusted.

I don't think it demonstrates any such thing.

What it demonstrates is that I'm a pussy...

I'm happy to let braver souls take on the whale, and plenty seem prepared to do so.

You have to stay positive and believe math will win in the long run  . If I was you I'd chuck that investment back in and start manning the harpoons. If you sustain this volume I find it highly unlikely that you won't make profit over the next few months.

[dooglus]

a large investor can try to freeze nearly everyone else out when there's no whales around by inserting a large local value so that max-bet rises to where anyone operating at 10% with 10% of coins deposited can no longer cover a single max-bet so is frozen out of taking the low-level action.  As soon as a few start doing that everyone who wants any action when whales aren't around ends up having to deposit all coins anyway.

I don't think so.  Everyone still contributes 1% (or 0.1%, according to the recently proposed modification) of their total investment (invested + local) to the max bet.  The guy operating with 90% of his coins in local still gets 1% of (invested+local) matched from every max bet.  The large investor can say "I have a million coins locally", and add 10k to the max profit.  In that case he probably gets 99% of the action.  But he's 99% of the bankroll, so that's fair, right?

Other issue with it it transparency.  If someone's balance is near the max-bet then they'd be in and out of investing a lot if there was a whale betting.  It would be hard for them to verify that their ending balance was actually fair.  The lack of ability to easily see that your balance was what it should be in those circumstances is possibly the largest argument against it from an investor's perspective.

Transparency is already an issue.  When a whale wins 1k then loses it back and you end up a little down on the deal, can you see why?  Am I just taking a few coins off and thinking you'll never notice?

I could add an entry to your investment history every time someone invests or divests, showing your new percentage share of the bankroll, but that seems a little much.

[Bugpowder]

a large investor can try to freeze nearly everyone else out when there's no whales around by inserting a large local value so that max-bet rises to where anyone operating at 10% with 10% of coins deposited can no longer cover a single max-bet so is frozen out of taking the low-level action.  As soon as a few start doing that everyone who wants any action when whales aren't around ends up having to deposit all coins anyway.

I don't think so.  Everyone still contributes 1% (or 0.1%, according to the recently proposed modification) of their total investment (invested + local) to the max bet.  The guy operating with 90% of his coins in local still gets 1% of (invested+local) matched from every max bet.  The large investor can say "I have a million coins locally", and add 10k to the max profit.  In that case he probably gets 99% of the action.  But he's 99% of the bankroll, so that's fair, right?

Other issue with it it transparency.  If someone's balance is near the max-bet then they'd be in and out of investing a lot if there was a whale betting.  It would be hard for them to verify that their ending balance was actually fair.  The lack of ability to easily see that your balance was what it should be in those circumstances is possibly the largest argument against it from an investor's perspective.

Transparency is already an issue.  When a whale wins 1k then loses it back and you end up a little down on the deal, can you see why?  Am I just taking a few coins off and thinking you'll never notice?

I could add an entry to your investment history every time someone invests or divests, showing your new percentage share of the bankroll, but that seems a little much.

I suspect that just having a selectable risk percentage is going to be a simpler, more efficient implementation. 

[Deprived]

a large investor can try to freeze nearly everyone else out when there's no whales around by inserting a large local value so that max-bet rises to where anyone operating at 10% with 10% of coins deposited can no longer cover a single max-bet so is frozen out of taking the low-level action.  As soon as a few start doing that everyone who wants any action when whales aren't around ends up having to deposit all coins anyway.

I don't think so.  Everyone still contributes 1% (or 0.1%, according to the recently proposed modification) of their total investment (invested + local) to the max bet.  The guy operating with 90% of his coins in local still gets 1% of (invested+local) matched from every max bet.  The large investor can say "I have a million coins locally", and add 10k to the max profit.  In that case he probably gets 99% of the action.  But he's 99% of the bankroll, so that's fair, right?

Doh yeah - bit of a brain-fart there from me.

He can't freeze them out but he CAN take the lion's share of the action.  If it were possible to write a bot to edit investments then tbh I'd do one to try to keep as near the Kelly limit as possible.  It does actually make sense to increase risk% (by increasing local amount) when no whales are around.  Reason is that the effective max-bet isn't what's displayed on the site but rather the lower of that and the largest bet any active bettor will make.  It's a bit of a gamble as a whale could show up from nowhere and kick off with a max-bet - but my instinct says that's a risk worth taking IF I could program a bot to reduce local amount as soon as anyone bet more than X (and then restore it once there'd been N minutes of no bets over X).  I'd basically be looking to keep my real exposure close to 1% per bet - even when there was only low action so I needed a much higher risk % to achieve it in practice.

[dooglus]

I suspect that just having a selectable risk percentage is going to be a simpler, more efficient implementation. 

Except that when different investors are risking different percentages of their bankroll, their share of the bankroll changes after every roll.  That makes the implementation necessarily more complex.  With "local" coins, each investor's share of the bankroll is constant (until invest, divest, or liquidate, each of which is relatively rare).

[mechs]

a large investor can try to freeze nearly everyone else out when there's no whales around by inserting a large local value so that max-bet rises to where anyone operating at 10% with 10% of coins deposited can no longer cover a single max-bet so is frozen out of taking the low-level action.  As soon as a few start doing that everyone who wants any action when whales aren't around ends up having to deposit all coins anyway.

I don't think so.  Everyone still contributes 1% (or 0.1%, according to the recently proposed modification) of their total investment (invested + local) to the max bet.  The guy operating with 90% of his coins in local still gets 1% of (invested+local) matched from every max bet.  The large investor can say "I have a million coins locally", and add 10k to the max profit.  In that case he probably gets 99% of the action.  But he's 99% of the bankroll, so that's fair, right?

Doh yeah - bit of a brain-fart there from me.

He can't freeze them out but he CAN take the lion's share of the action.  If it were possible to write a bot to edit investments then tbh I'd do one to try to keep as near the Kelly limit as possible.  It does actually make sense to increase risk% (by increasing local amount) when no whales are around.  Reason is that the effective max-bet isn't what's displayed on the site but rather the lower of that and the largest bet any active bettor will make.  It's a bit of a gamble as a whale could show up from nowhere and kick off with a max-bet - but my instinct says that's a risk worth taking IF I could program a bot to reduce local amount as soon as anyone bet more than X (and then restore it once there'd been N minutes of no bets over X).  I'd basically be looking to keep my real exposure close to 1% per bet - even when there was only low action so I needed a much higher risk % to achieve it in practice.

This all seems very complicated.  It would be easier for people to conceptualize if you had them set the percentage or risk they want as opposed to the total coins (invested + local) split.  

[thy]

Congratulations on passing 500 000 BTC in bets in almost exactly 1 months time

[mechs]

Congratulations on passing 500 000 BTC in bets in almost exactly 1 months time

Very impressive!  Just-Dice makes Satoshi Dice look like Sleep Dice

[infested999]

Why is an egg is called an egg even if it is empty? But a water balloon is just called a balloon when it's empty; these are the question in life that cannot be answered, just like why is the site profit negative today.

[somestranger]

Is there something going on with withdrawals right now? I divested my money to buy some securities and I can't find the withdraw or deposit buttons anywhere.

[zebedee]

dooglus - I like your off-site coins idea.  You should implement it. People claiming 100x their on-site off-site, when it doesn't exist, will just find themselves rapidly wiped out with very high probability once a whale appears.

[dooglus]

Is there something going on with withdrawals right now? I divested my money to buy some securities and I can't find the withdraw or deposit buttons anywhere.

They're in the top right.  I guess you saw them before.  Are you saying they've disappeared?

If you want a manual withdrawal, contact me using the email address on the FAQ - though I usually will ask you to make the withdrawal request using the button on the site because that way it checks that you're logged in, know the google-auth code if necessary, etc.

[thy]

Oh, yes.  That's maybe the answer to how to allow people to risk only 0.1% of their investment without having to micro-manage things.  Except you don't mean "edge", I'm sure.

Change the risk level to 0.1%, but default to 10x leverage (a).  Is that equivalent to 1% risk with 1x (ie. no) leverage (b)?

In (b), investor has 100 BTC, risks 1% per roll.  After losing 1 max bet, investor has 99 BTC and risks 0.99 BTC on next roll.

In (a), investor has 100 BTC, says they have another 900 locally, risks 0.1% of the (100+900) total.  After losing 1 max bet, investor has 99 BTC on site and claims to have 900 "locally".  New (invested+local) = 99+900 = 999, so risks 0.999 on next roll.

Hmm.  They're different.  The amount lost is the same in both cases, but the increased leverage in (a) means that the amount risked goes down less per loss.  It seems there's no longer a way for the guy who wants to risk 1% of his investment per roll to carry on doing so as he was before.  And that's no good.

Why would anyone want to have a risk level at 0,1%, that would probably mean they would have an expected monthly return of somewhere in the region of 0,2-0,5% when things stabalize if you allow people to have a risklevel from 0,1% to 1,0-2,0%

Right.  I'm trying to help a hypothetical potential millionaire investor invest without (a) having to send me his entire bankroll just to risk 1% of it per roll and (b) having to micro-manage the amount he has with me to keep it at a fixed percentage of the total he wants to be invested.

So suppose he has a million coins.  He wants to risk 10k coins per roll, but doesn't trust me to hold a million coins.  Hell, I screwed up withdrawing 1300 to celeste - who knows what else I'm capable of, right?  So he sends me 100k coins and tells me he has 900k more available locally.  I then set about letting him risk 10k per spin, and keep track of his total balance (it goes up and down from 1 million).  The 900k is constant.  It's what he really has in his own cold wallet, presumably.

First if there is a single person sitting at 1 000 000+ BTC at the moment the chance that he/she want to invest that much in a single BTC business would be pretty small.

Second what good would a million BTC from a single investor be to JD, it will only reduce the profit for you and other big investors Dooglus, it's not very likely JD or any other BTC gambling site will be getting bets risking 10 000 BTC anytime soon, thats around a million USD bet at 50%

Third if you allow people to have risklevels of up to 100% with or without potentially "fake" coins that excists or do not excists in there local wallet then all people that don't risk the same high % will get a drastically decreased share of the expected profit(or losses) if one or several large investors risk extremely high levels, up to 100% per bet.

Lets for example then say 1 000 000 invested with or without fakecoins at 100% risk per bet and another 10 000 real coins at 1% risklevel per bet.
If someone in the future then wanting 0,1% risk exposure, they would then only be exposed to around just 1/1000 of what it is now at 1% and would probably be looking at 0,002-0,005% expected monthly interest on there investments

So for different levels of risked per bet it would probably look something like this then:

Risked   compared   expected
per bet  to how       monthly
             it's now      profit
0,1%     1/1000     0,002-0,005%
0,5%     1/200       0,01-0,025%
1%        1/100       0,02-0,05%     
2%        1/50         0,04-0,10%
5%        1/20         0,10-0,25%
10%      1/10         0,20-0,50%
20%      1/5           0,40-1,00%
50%      1/2           1,00-2,50%
100%    1/1           2,00-5,00%

Is this really how you like to have it, at the moment people are looking at an expected profit at around 15% a month on there investment in JD and they only risk 1% per bet.
Why would you possible want to force the investors to risk an extremely high part, maby even towards 100% of there investment in a single bet for them to have the same expected profit(if one or several large investors would risk extremely high percentages of there capital on a single bet) with hardly any possitive effect out of it ?

If then some gambler with a real bankroll of a few hundred thousend coins comes in, they could with very high likelyhood wipe out those that has risked 100% with there "fakecoins" and in reallity only have 10 000 BTC(that they invested) but is represented as 1 000 000 BTC for a 100% real risklevel.

Even if investors woun't go to such extreme levels, if just some big investors raise there risklevel significant, all other investors that want to keep there risklevel at 1% will suffer a lot from it unless those that risk to much will get busted.

[wolverine.ks]

lightning round at JD's

[dooglus]

lightning round at JD's

Took us positive - at least for now:

[joele]

lightning round at JD's

Took us positive - at least for now:

Sure did, my investment fund I deposited yesterday just earned 3.14%

[Lohoris]

Why would you possible want to force the investors to risk an extremely high part, maby even towards 100% of there investment in a single bet for them to have the same expected profit(if one or several large investors would risk extremely high percentages of there capital on a single bet) with hardly any possitive effect out of it ?

+1