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

[alexout]

I(binbs in the JD chat) personally was vouching for a 0.25% max profit earlier today.

Nakowa could easily crush the site for another 3-6k and then what would happen? Im sure 80% of investors would take their money out.

Therefore I think its in the best interest of the investors to lower the max profit now and while it will take longer to get back to even and start to profit, the distance between the biggest bets and the median bet will be lower and therefore variance will be reduced and the site will have an easier time hiting its target of 1% edge.

Trust me, this move is best for all the investors. Just requires us to be more patient thats all. Investments are a longterm thing anyways. Just chill.

[1714897016]

1714897016

[1714897016]

1714897016

[1714897016]

1714897016

[1714897016]

1714897016

[bitcoin44me]

Yes, max profit should be 0.01 % of the bankroll...

[drawingthesun]

Alternative investor risk levels.

investment bracket:
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0.25%
0.1%

the max bet is a function of the combined amounts invested under each bracket.

so if 100 bitcoin invested at 1% and 100 bitcoin invested at 0.5% the max profit will be 0.75%

either win/lose scenario:
100 bitcoin bet. win = 75 bitcoin to 1% investors and 0.25% to 0.5% investors. Of course lose its a negative instead

Dooglus, this might be better than changing the house edge, because then you leave the investors to make their choice.

[dooglus]

Dooglus, the last time he played big he was down 4000 then made it back and then some. So that means he goes down a lot. Eventually he will go down so far he will have no coins left.

How about just leaving everything as it is.

See what happens.

I've left everything as it was since launch.  Here's what happened:



Nakowa won 16,000 BTC from the investors.  His initial investment was over 7,000 BTC.  That means he has a bankroll of at least 23,000.  That's similar to the whole site's bankroll.  In the last week he has taken the bankroll from over 50k BTC to under 30k BTC.  That's a 40% reduction.

How long do we leave things alone before it's time to try something different?

Interestingly, shortly after the site launched, we had the following IM exchange:

(10:19:50 AM) squiggles: I want to withdraw 10k btc.
...
(11:01:32 AM) squiggles: you didn’t set a maximum bet limit, that’s a flaw.
(11:01:58 AM) Chris: oh really?
(11:02:00 AM) squiggles: without a maximum bet limitation, any martingale is working, with the right strategy

He was advising that the max profit was too high.  If I'd listened then, perhaps we would be in a better place now.

[Lohoris]

Secondly, he is reading the forum and he is worried that dooglus actually lowers the max bet, and if he is worried it means that it is not cheating at all, but he is just trying to play out the bankroll (which is easier with max bets).

Thirdly, I fear that dooglus is getting stressed about this issue, for many reasons (people are getting nervous and the situation is new). I hope no one here is really thinking that the whale has the "right martingale" or that they can "analyse the betting pattern". COME ON! What is happening is that the whale just wants to make dooglus nervous by exploiting the unpredictability of luck.

dooglus please do not get stressed, do not believe in martingales or as such and do not lose confidence in yourself. Until a STRONG AND CONVINCING statistical proof arrives, the whale is just a gambler with tons of bitcoins.

+1

That last line "donate for luck" is increasingly common.  People selling 'karma' or just asking for 'rain'.

I've tried to allow everything in the chat except for blatant spamming or advertising of competitors.

Should I be stricter and disallow begging for donations?  Racism?  Drug talk?  Where do you draw the line?  I don't know!

I personally think that begging in the form of (rain/karma/donation/budda/african children/...) should be banned after one warning.  Between the nakowa 300 spam bets and incessant begging, it's increasingly harder to follow the intricacies of nuanced, rational discourse, investor moaning, and the merits of sparklecoin.

No warnings: you beg, you banned.
Begging is way too common both in bitcoin forums and in some online games, and it should definitely be stopped, without warnings.

Anything else shouldn'd be censored imho: censorship is a bad thing. If we "censor" anything, it's just because we have to prevent spam from happening, or the chat becomes useless. So, as long as you aren't spamming (begging included in spamming), that's fine.
Advertisements are the only exception, for obvious reasons.

[drawingthesun]

He was advising that the max profit was too high.  If I'd listened then, perhaps we would be in a better place now.

Except its not a flaw because he will bust eventually. Unless the RNG is insecure.

See my post above about different investor risk levels, can you code that? It would allow us to choose our own returns. The house edge would be a function of all the investors participation.

[Akka]

I have reduced the max profit to 0.25% of bankroll for now, to prevent, or at least slow, the ongoing bleeding of funds.

When I've found the best way of implementing higher house edge for higher risk bets I'll put it back to 1%.

This shouldn't affect nakowa's play, since he's playing within his self-imposed 50 BTC limit today anyway.

Just keep the house edge as it is and enable something to let every investor decide for him self how much of his investment he wants to bet against a roll at max.

1% is IMO to high but some people maybe are more adventurous than me.

Enable to set max profit/loss between a range of 100% - 0,01% and every Investor can vote with his wallet what he wants to risk.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

So far I'm up 211 BTC. Fun.

[Lohoris]

How long do we leave things alone before it's time to try something different?

I think increasing house edge for high bets is vital, and while "in general" I don't agree to lowering the max bet, I certainly agree to lower it temporarily until you can implement the higher edge.

[01BTC10]

If Nakowa really found a flaw then lowering the max bet change nothing except slowing down the house loss. If he didn't found any flaw then it will only slow down the profit of the house. Increasing max bet is not a bad idea but increasing it only on big bet is stupid.

[Rampion]

He was advising that the max profit was too high.  If I'd listened then, perhaps we would be in a better place now.

Except its not a flaw because he will bust eventually. Unless the RNG is insecure.

See my post above about different investor risk levels, can you code that? It would allow us to choose our own returns. The house edge would be a function of all the investors participation.

Again, I agree 100%. Max profit was very high which leads to extreme variance, but nevertheless the most likely scenario by far is that he will go broke before the bank does.

Just let gambling addiction and math do their jobs, doog...

If Nakowa really found a flaw then lowering the max bet change nothing except slowing down the site loss. If he didn't found any flaw then it will only slow down the profit of the house.

Agree on this too.

[Lohoris]

Just keep the house edge as it is and enable something to let every investor decide for him self how much of his investment he wants to bet against a roll at max.

1% is IMO to high but some people maybe are more adventurous than me.

Enable to set max profit/loss between a range of 100% - 0,01% and every Investor can vote with his wallet what he wants to risk.

As has already been explained over and over and over and over AND OVER here in the past pages, if you want to risk less you can just divest, and it will have the same effect.
While if you set the risk too high, there's no point in been called "house", you are basically another gambler.

So, no, this makes no sense.

[01BTC10]

Also increasing house edge for big bet is completely laughable, even Las-Vegas would not think of doing such a thing. Why punish a high-roller for giving more action and volume? In Las-Vegas they would actually lower their edge to get those players.

[Lohoris]

If Nakowa really found a flaw then lowering the max bet change nothing except slowing down the house loss. If he didn't found any flaw then it will only slow down the profit of the house. Increasing max bet is not a bad idea but increasing it only on big bet is stupid.

Because big bets -> high variance, and high variance is bad.
If can bet as much as you want, but split it in small bets if you want the low house edge.
And if you insist you want to place a single big bet, fine, but you get a higher edge, as a compensation for the variance.
Either that or don't play at all, since the competitors just do not allow big bets.

[dooglus]

so if 100 bitcoin invested at 1% and 100 bitcoin invested at 0.5% the max profit will be 0.75%

either win/lose scenario:
100 bitcoin bet. win = 75 bitcoin to 1% investors and 0.25% to 0.5% investors. Of course lose its a negative instead

Can you explain why the 1% investors get 75% of the coins when they only provide 66.7% of the available profit?  And how anyone was able to place a 100 BTC bet when the total bankroll is only 200 BTC?  I think I understand your example and you've got all the numbers wrong.  But I'd like to see it with the numbers right just to confirm.

Dooglus, this might be better than changing the house edge, because then you leave the investors to make their choice.

I think this is a useful addition as well as changing the house edge for large bets.

My initial plan was to allow each investor to choose their own house edge and risk level and have them form a market like on an exchange, so the player gets matched by whichever investor(s) are offering the lowest house edge(s).  This would result in competition between investors to get gambler action and cause the edge to be the lowest available anywhere.  I wonder how such an idea would go down.  It would probably result in a few crazy investors offering very low edges, and leave the sensible investors getting matched by none but the biggest bets.  (Like how when you ask for more than the current market rate on MtGox when selling coins, you only get matched by the big buy orders).

[Peter R]

Maybe this could help:
[img]
I'm taking math course right now but I don't feel confident to do the calculation myself.

Thanks 01BTC10.

We actually solved the mystery a few pages back.  If the shift of the bet outcome column that produced the crazy odds was forward in time, it would have meant that there was only a ~10^-650 chance that Nakowa wasn't cheating (and it would have meant he was purposely leaving a clue behind).  But since the shift that produced these odds was backwards in time, it just meant that Nakowa was adjusting the size of his bet based on the outcome of the previous few dice rolls.  So we gained some insight into his strategy.

[Akka]

Just keep the house edge as it is and enable something to let every investor decide for him self how much of his investment he wants to bet against a roll at max.

1% is IMO to high but some people maybe are more adventurous than me.

Enable to set max profit/loss between a range of 100% - 0,01% and every Investor can vote with his wallet what he wants to risk.

As has already been explained over and over and over and over AND OVER here in the past pages, if you want to risk less you can just divest, and it will have the same effect.
While if you set the risk too high, there's no point in been called "house", you are basically another gambler.

So, no, this makes no sense.

Well, no.

As Investor I'm basically a gambler, as I bet against every bet of a gambler (I have a 1% edge of course). Simple speaking, ff I wanted to Invest say 50 BTC over a min range of 1000 bets (as I think 100 is to low to balance variance) right now I would need to invest 5 BTC and reinvest every time the house looses. Enable one to set a custom max. bet in % would make a lot things easier for Investors and would shut up a lot of people complaining.

[Rampion]

Maybe this could help:
[img]
I'm taking math course right now but I don't feel confident to do the calculation myself.

Thanks 01BTC10.

We actually solved the mystery a few pages back.  If the shift of the bet outcome column that produced the crazy odds was forward in time, it would have meant that there was only a ~10^-650 chance that Nakowa wasn't cheating (and it would have meant he was purposely leaving a clue behind).  But since the shift that produced these odds was backwards in time, it just meant that Nakowa was adjusting the size of his bet based on the outcome of the previous few dice rolls.  So we gained some insight into his strategy.

I've been observing him playing, and I'm pretty sure he has no defined strategy. Just look at how is he playing right now. He wins? Then next bet is low. He loses? Then next bet is higher, and if he loses again the next one will probably be even higher.

I can predict the vast majority of his bets just looking at the previous one - seriously. And the one I don't get, seem pretty much random, like he is also playing driven by emotions.

In any case its gambler's fallacy in its purest form, that's why it seems highly unlikely he is cheating.

[dooglus]

Also increasing house edge for big bet is completely laughable, even Las-Vegas would not think of doing such a thing. Why punish a high-roller for giving more action and volume? In Las-Vegas they would actually lower their edge to get those players.

Does any Vegas casino allow a player to win 1% of the casino's bankroll on a single hand?

[elm]

In the casino, the cardinal rule is to keep them playing... and keep them coming back. The longer they play, the more they lose. In the end, we get it all.

thats correct for a land based casino but JD is not a casino. You cant compare it to a land based casino.

it looks to me that JD's investors started to gamble