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

[akeetlebeetle]

Your IP address has been blocked for an hour for suspicious activity.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

What causes this?

This is usually caused by making too many new accounts, reloading the page too many times, using bots, or spamming the chat. If you wait you will be able to log in again from your IP. Let me know if you are having any other problems.

Deb

Problem is, I did none of those. I bet a little and I bet fast (keyboard shortcuts), but that's all. I went to reinvest what I was playing with and it wouldn't let me, so I refreshed (the first and only time) and that's when I was banned.

[1714007238]

1714007238

[1714007238]

1714007238

[1714007238]

1714007238

[1714007238]

1714007238

[petrescuerz]

Your IP address has been blocked for an hour for suspicious activity.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

What causes this?

This is usually caused by making too many new accounts, reloading the page too many times, using bots, or spamming the chat. If you wait you will be able to log in again from your IP. Let me know if you are having any other problems.

Deb

Problem is, I did none of those. I bet a little and I bet fast (keyboard shortcuts), but that's all. I went to reinvest what I was playing with and it wouldn't let me, so I refreshed (the first and only time) and that's when I was banned.

Would you mind emailing your user id and the problem you had so that we can look into things for you?
deb.justdice@gmail.com

[petrescuerz]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

[RationalSpeculator]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

Interesting blog!

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

[naphto]

What happened? Last time I checked, the website had a -2k profit, and now +1.5k

[bobboooiie]

What happened? Last time I checked, the website had a -2k profit, and now +1.5k

shockingly "the website" won 3,5k

[julz]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

Interesting blog!

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

The house yes.. but not all investors.
An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550.

These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside.

Sad that investors who provided the bigger slice of funds for the gamblers' wins - didn't necessarily reap the equivalent rewards for the gambler's losses.
'Luck' of the draw . It *could* have turned out in their favour I guess.

[molecular]

What happened? Last time I checked, the website had a -2k profit, and now +1.5k

shockingly "the website" won 3,5k

damnit, just when I divested everything

[RationalSpeculator]

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

The house yes.. but not all investors.
An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550.

These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside.

Sad that investors who provided the bigger slice of funds for the gamblers' wins - didn't necessarily reap the equivalent rewards for the gambler's losses.
'Luck' of the draw . It *could* have turned out in their favour I guess.

Interesting. I think it does make sense to lower your investment when site is up, and raise your investment when site is down. It may be motivated by erroneous gamblers fallacy, but coincidentally it also is the result of rational calculation.

When something is losing money, investors want out, and when something is making money, they want in. Independent of long term fundamentals. And indeed here too investment has been going up from 20k to 30k since the site went from -2k loss to +2k profit now. Before that when the site went from 2k profit to -2k loss, the investment also went down from around 30k to 20k.

This makes that there is more competition when site is up, and hence less possible returns, and inversely when site is down there is less competition and more possible returns. This effect is likely strengthened due to gambler behavior who do the inverse. They gamble more when site is down, because they think it's profitable, and gamble less when site is up, because they realize it's not. Making turnover higher when site is down, and lower when site is up.

I think the mistake made by the investor in your example is to invest when the site was up (and when there was less money to be made because of more competition in the pot and lower turnover). And a second mistake was to not invest more when the site was down (when there was more money to be made because of less competition in the pot and higher turnover). Hence the below average returns. If he would have done the inverse, invest when the site was down (and there was more money to be made), and invest less when the site was up (and there was less money to be made), his returns would have been above average.

So say the average return for sdice is 5% per month. Then one can have 0% or 10% depending on investor behavior.

[trout]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

Interesting blog!

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

The house yes.. but not all investors.
An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550.

These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside.

Are you sure this is what actually happened? Is this the case for your investment?

I'm doubtful for two reasons:
- I had increased (more than doubled) my investment just before the site took that huge dip; as a result, I had a loss of 10% at the lowest point.
I didn't divest, and now I'm againt at a profit (though smaller than before the dip)
- There was a big wave of divestments (approx 30%) on the way down, in particular when the  house was already in the negative - and not
on the top of the profits as you suggest

I'm sure some investors are still in the negative, but I don't think these are those that were just sticking it out as you suggest.

[pcpro101]

I am in the negative. I need a bail out!

[bitcoin44me]

I am in the negative. I need a bail out!

Just wait.
If you're negative, you are not charged, and your profit won't be charged until you get positive again....

[culexevilman]

I am at +.40 should I divest now?

[Taxidermista]

I am at +.40 should I divest now?

It's +0.40.

[001sonkit]

yes you should, gratz on ur profit 
as i could take your forsaken share of profit, yah, just divest... another whale is coming soon to win us back to negative

[julz]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

Interesting blog!

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

The house yes.. but not all investors.
An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550.

These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside.

Are you sure this is what actually happened? Is this the case for your investment?

I'm doubtful for two reasons:
- I had increased (more than doubled) my investment just before the site took that huge dip; as a result, I had a loss of 10% at the lowest point.
I didn't divest, and now I'm againt at a profit (though smaller than before the dip)
- There was a big wave of divestments (approx 30%) on the way down, in particular when the  house was already in the negative - and not
on the top of the profits as you suggest

I'm sure some investors are still in the negative, but I don't think these are those that were just sticking it out as you suggest.

Well ... I had the bulk of my investment in all the time.
I added another 20% during the slide down - and divested half of that right after the +/- 1300BTC celeste 'incident'.

e.g (not actual figures - but ratios correct)  100BTC in the whole time (starting at +1550).  Added 20BTC some time on the way down (when investment loss at about -6 I think) . Divested 10BTC at the 1300 incident.
Result - by the time site was back at +1550:  -0.7BTC

I was down 15% at one point. Perhaps more.. I didn't see the figures at the site's lowest profit point.

I don't think the 10BTC in/out contributed much in the way of profit or loss during the relatively brief period it was in play - but I suppose it's difficult to analyze without a complete log.

[iguru42]

Just-Dice has a blog! 

http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/

Deb

Interesting blog!

Congrats on the house being 'back in black'

The house yes.. but not all investors.
An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550.

These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside.

Are you sure this is what actually happened? Is this the case for your investment?

I'm doubtful for two reasons:
- I had increased (more than doubled) my investment just before the site took that huge dip; as a result, I had a loss of 10% at the lowest point.
I didn't divest, and now I'm againt at a profit (though smaller than before the dip)
- There was a big wave of divestments (approx 30%) on the way down, in particular when the  house was already in the negative - and not
on the top of the profits as you suggest

I'm sure some investors are still in the negative, but I don't think these are those that were just sticking it out as you suggest.

I'm in the same boat as julz.  I invested just before cici at about +1600 site profit, I stuck it out through the swings, and am currently still -7 profit.  I figure the site needs to get to about 2700 profit for me to break even on investment.

[cowbay]

yes you should, gratz on ur profit 
as i could take your forsaken share of profit, yah, just divest... another whale is coming soon to win us back to negative

nice fine print

[shawshankinmate37927]

I'm in the same boat as julz.  I invested just before cici at about +1600 site profit, I stuck it out through the swings, and am currently still -7 profit.  I figure the site needs to get to about 2700 profit for me to break even on investment.

You just have to hope that a lot of BTC doesn't get invested before JD gets up 2700, or it'll take even longer to break even.  Of course, if a lot of BTC gets divested then you'll break even sooner.

Edit:  It appears that the amount invested has remained fairly stable for about a week now.

[dooglus]

Edit:  It appears that the amount invested has remained fairly stable for about a week now.

Surprising, but true.

It seems the "Hey, this thing works; I'm in!" effect is equal and opposite to the "Nice; I'm no longer in the red; quick, let's get out before celeste comes back" effect.