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

[radiumsoup]

This is not the same as making profit. Your upfront cost is realized immediately when purchasing your share of the pool of risked capital, the same as purchasing mining equipment.

No, it is not. Not even nearly.

Yes, it is. The only practical difference is the speed of delivery and the depreciation of the mining hardware <other crap skipped>

So, you admit that it it isn't the same. This difference makes difference for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I can't help you.

[1715019318]

1715019318

[1715019318]

1715019318

[1715019318]

1715019318

[1715019318]

1715019318

[radiumsoup]

This is the best done bitcoin gambling site I have seen so far, but there is a problem with the game. It becomes boring very quickly. Why not to make it like real dice? I mean, you make a bet, then casino rolls first, then you need to beat this outcome. The higher number you beat, the larger you win factor (up to some maximum). This would make the win factor a random number with higher probability for low numbers and lower probability for high numbers. This way x10 or x20 wins would eventually happen. Would this be cool?

It would work as long as the house advantage was worked into the "win factor" number, sure. This would effectively make both the odds and the win multiplier random. It may be worth testing, but I think most people would prefer to know their odds before clicking the button, so I'm not sure how popular it would be.

[yvv]

+1
I invested at the worst time possible, and I am still at a small loss.

There were probably not many people playing at that time. All this casino statistics works only on large samples.

[yvv]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I can't help you.

Good news is: I don't need your help. Help yourself.

[yvv]

This is the best done bitcoin gambling site I have seen so far, but there is a problem with the game. It becomes boring very quickly. Why not to make it like real dice? I mean, you make a bet, then casino rolls first, then you need to beat this outcome. The higher number you beat, the larger you win factor (up to some maximum). This would make the win factor a random number with higher probability for low numbers and lower probability for high numbers. This way x10 or x20 wins would eventually happen. Would this be cool?

It would work as long as the house advantage was worked into the "win factor" number, sure. This would effectively make both the odds and the win multiplier random. It may be worth testing, but I think most people would prefer to know their odds before clicking the button, so I'm not sure how popular it would be.

I suspect that many bets are done currently by bots. Why not to force them to make high risk games every so often? Very minor modification is necessary. Just make the "target" number to be an outcome of another roll. This could be fun.

[radiumsoup]

This is the best done bitcoin gambling site I have seen so far, but there is a problem with the game. It becomes boring very quickly. Why not to make it like real dice? I mean, you make a bet, then casino rolls first, then you need to beat this outcome. The higher number you beat, the larger you win factor (up to some maximum). This would make the win factor a random number with higher probability for low numbers and lower probability for high numbers. This way x10 or x20 wins would eventually happen. Would this be cool?

It would work as long as the house advantage was worked into the "win factor" number, sure. This would effectively make both the odds and the win multiplier random. It may be worth testing, but I think most people would prefer to know their odds before clicking the button, so I'm not sure how popular it would be.

I suspect that many bets are done currently by bots. Why not to force them to make high risk games every so often? Very minor modification is necessary. Just make the "target" number to be an outcome of another roll. This could be fun.

You're quite right, most bets are bots, but most bot bets are also very small. Most people who gamble compulsively don't want randomness on top of their randomness - they like to come up with "a system" to try and "beat the house", and predictability of outcome is a key factor in designing their bots' "systems" (as poorly thought out as they might be.) I think you're probably right that it may be fun and attractive to some players. But I also think it will be a small minority of players. If it drives a non-trivial amount of traffic and new players to the site, it might very well be worth doing... but I think doog's main idea for the site is simplicity and cleanliness; so far, I haven't seen any inclination to offer multiple types of games.

[dooglus]

I invested at the worst time possible, and I am still at a small loss.

It confuses me when I see people saying that still.  Even if you invested at the peak before 'celeste' won 4k BTC from the site I would expect you to have been back in profit some time ago.  Here's the chart of site profit over time:



The chart doesn't show how the bankroll size has changed over time.  It's possible that you took a large share of the losses, and a smaller share of the subsequent recovery, but even allowing for that I would expect you to be back in profit by now.

Did you reduce your investment significantly at or near the bottom?  Because that would do it...

[dooglus]

There were probably not many people playing at that time. All this casino statistics works only on large samples.

There were plenty of people playing.  The problem was that one of the players was playing for 100 times bigger stakes than the rest of them, and he got very lucky.  The size of his relatively few bets made all the rest of the bets statistically insignificant.

Edit: even now, if we get 5k BTC wagered in a day, we expect to profit by 50 BTC.  But the site limit allows players to win over 500 BTC on a single bet.  So a big player can come in and take (or donate) 10 days' worth of expected profits with a single click.

[themagicdrake]

I invested at the worst time possible, and I am still at a small loss.

It confuses me when I see people saying that still.  Even if you invested at the peak before 'celeste' won 4k BTC from the site I would expect you to have been back in profit some time ago.  Here's the chart of site profit over time:

https://i.imgur.com/4JlC5Xe.png

The chart doesn't show how the bankroll size has changed over time.  It's possible that you took a large share of the losses, and a smaller share of the subsequent recovery, but even allowing for that I would expect you to be back in profit by now.

Did you reduce your investment significantly at or near the bottom?  Because that would do it...

What does 1% edge 3900 BTC mean? What's the difference between that line and just the 1% edge line. Is that the 4k Ceeste mishap?

In other words, we can expect to follow the 1% edge 3900 BTC line from here on out?

[drawingthesun]

It confuses me when I see people saying that still.

Did you reduce your investment significantly at or near the bottom?  Because that would do it...

Yes I divested. I escaped from more losses, but after that I took my time to go back in

Damn thats a bad run dude.

I was invested and stayed in. Over the 3 weeks after Celeste I got a 14% return on my money. If you had kept invested you would have been ok. The return was even higher because 10,000 coins divested so the profits were even better for those that stuck by Just-Dice. I doubt I will ever see that rate of return again.

[dooglus]

What does 1% edge 3900 BTC mean? What's the difference between that line and just the 1% edge line. Is that the 4k Ceeste mishap?

In other words, we can expect to follow the 1% edge 3900 BTC line from here on out?

That's a minus sign: 1% minus 3900.  We seem to be sticking to that line, and we are expected to do so.

It keeps coming up on the site chat.  Most people think that we should get back to the red 1% line, but I disagree.  Once you're off the expected line by X BTC, you expect to stay off it by X BTC.  In our case X=3900 BTC.

That's not to say we won't have a whale come and lose 3900 BTC more than expected to us tonight and put us back on the red line.  But it's just as likely he'll win 3900 BTC more than expected and take us even further below the red line.

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why that's true I'd appreciate it, because I'm never able to convince the chatters that it's the case.  "But the law of law numbers says we'll get back to 1%".  "Yes, we expect to get back arbitrarily close to 1%, but we also expect to stay 3900 BTC below it.  (X-3900)/X tends to 1 as X tends to infinity".  And on it goes...

[dooglus]

The return was even higher because 10,000 coins divested so the profits were even better for those that stuck by Just-Dice. I doubt I will ever see that rate of return again.

10k coins were withdrawn, but 3k of that was gambling winnings.  It still resulted in a 10k decrease in the bankroll, but only 7k of that was due to a divest event.

[dooglus]

There's a checkbox at the bottom of the 'account' tab now which you can check to have all your deposits auto-invested.

So now you can invest from the comfort of your bitcoin wallet.

The minimum investment amount is still 0.01 BTC.  Deposits smaller than that will be credited to your balance, as before.

All deposits are subject to auto-investment once you check the box, including inputs.io deposits.

[cowbay]

There's a checkbox at the bottom of the 'account' tab now which you can check to have all your deposits auto-invested.

So now you can invest from the comfort of your bitcoin wallet.

The minimum investment amount is still 0.01 BTC.  Deposits smaller than that will be credited to your balance, as before.

All deposits are subject to auto-investment once you check the box, including inputs.io deposits.

Thanks doog, that is a very useful feature that many non-gambling investors will be using.  Is it possible to have a divest-autowithdrawal feature too?

[nimda]

What does 1% edge 3900 BTC mean? What's the difference between that line and just the 1% edge line. Is that the 4k Ceeste mishap?

In other words, we can expect to follow the 1% edge 3900 BTC line from here on out?

That's a minus sign: 1% minus 3900.  We seem to be sticking to that line, and we are expected to do so.

It keeps coming up on the site chat.  Most people think that we should get back to the red 1% line, but I disagree.  Once you're off the expected line by X BTC, you expect to stay off it by X BTC.  In our case X=3900 BTC.

That's not to say we won't have a whale come and lose 3900 BTC more than expected to us tonight and put us back on the red line.  But it's just as likely he'll win 3900 BTC more than expected and take us even further below the red line.

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why that's true I'd appreciate it, because I'm never able to convince the chatters that it's the case.  "But the law of law numbers says we'll get back to 1%".  "Yes, we expect to get back arbitrarily close to 1%, but we also expect to stay 3900 BTC below it.  (X-3900)/X tends to 1 as X tends to infinity".  And on it goes...

What kind of argument dealing with math can convince a gambler an investor?

The basic fallacy here is... the gambler's fallacy. Past results have no effect on the future. Investors expect to get 1% of all future bets. Getting back to the red line would require more than 1% of future bets, and that's not more likely just because of past losses.

[yvv]

What does 1% edge 3900 BTC mean? What's the difference between that line and just the 1% edge line. Is that the 4k Ceeste mishap?

In other words, we can expect to follow the 1% edge 3900 BTC line from here on out?

That's a minus sign: 1% minus 3900.  We seem to be sticking to that line, and we are expected to do so.

It keeps coming up on the site chat.  Most people think that we should get back to the red 1% line, but I disagree.  Once you're off the expected line by X BTC, you expect to stay off it by X BTC.  In our case X=3900 BTC.

That's not to say we won't have a whale come and lose 3900 BTC more than expected to us tonight and put us back on the red line.  But it's just as likely he'll win 3900 BTC more than expected and take us even further below the red line.

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why that's true I'd appreciate it, because I'm never able to convince the chatters that it's the case.  "But the law of law numbers says we'll get back to 1%".  "Yes, we expect to get back arbitrarily close to 1%, but we also expect to stay 3900 BTC below it.  (X-3900)/X tends to 1 as X tends to infinity".  And on it goes...

To protect yourself from bold gamblers you could decrease maximum bet.

[infested999]

I am going to propose that Doog does raise the commission to 15-20% as I don't feel he is making enough of his project.  (His personal investment BTC should not be used as a justify his gains, as those are they same as ours).

Even a 50% commission is completely fair. It's not like people are going to say "50%? I won't invest anymore". How it is right now is basically no-risk investment that you can pull out of at any time (unlike CDs where you have to wait), who is going to complain about that?

[dooglus]

Even a 50% commission is completely fair. It's not like people are going to say "50%? I won't invest anymore". How it is right now is basically no-risk investment that you can pull out of at any time (unlike CDs where you have to wait), who is going to complain about that?

It's not no-risk.  You must remember when investments took a hit from celeste winning 4 of 5 thousand very quickly.  That can happen again.  I have nightmares about it. 

And I think some people would definitely pull out if the commission was 50%.  It would almost halve their return which would probably make the expected return from a Just-Dice investment lower than that from a CD or various other BTC investments currently available.  So even the investors who did react emotionally (500% rate hike?  screw that!) could well leave just because there would be better deals elsewhere.

Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.  We have plenty of investment.  It's been a long time since we had anywhere near a max bet placed.

[drawingthesun]

I am going to propose that Doog does raise the commission to 15-20% as I don't feel he is making enough of his project.  (His personal investment BTC should not be used as a justify his gains, as those are they same as ours).

Even a 50% commission is completely fair. It's not like people are going to say "50%? I won't invest anymore". How it is right now is basically no-risk investment that you can pull out of at any time (unlike CDs where you have to wait), who is going to complain about that?

50% is going too far, we take 100% of losses but only 50% of profits? A whale can reduce our principle by 5% in a day. But at 50% current ROI would be under 15% a year.

Of course Dooglus can do whatever he wants.

15% is only 3 times the interest my local bank offers so I would be playing a losing proposition to stay invested in Just-Dice at 15% a year as the risk is not worth 3 times what my bank offers. Also my bank is secured against taxpayer money and our banking system in Australia is far more stable that the USA.

But like most Bitcoin investments, the good times come to an end all too soon. :p

[jonitas]

I would like the commissions to stay where they are now. And anything above 20% I would find way too much. Most hedge funds charge 20% on profits.