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

[elm]

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.

but Las Vegas is not Provably Fair

[dooglus]

IF he knows the seed OR has some means of otherwise predicting series then we'd expect to see a LOWER than usual win-rate on the small bets.  Whilst if everything is genuinely random then the results of the small bets would be unrelated to him winning overall on the big ones.

IF a smoking gun exists then where you'd see it is in far more losses than expected on small rolls - where if there was no unfair advantage there'd be no reason for it to correlate with the opposite results in the big bets.  We already know that his overall results on big bets are very significantly above average.  By looking at the small bets seperately (we CAN legitimately treat it as a seperate data set) we can see if the results there are similarly significantly BELOW average.  Such an analysis should be done by simply measuring his luck - not by factoring in varying bet size (as if a few small bets are much larger than the rest that would lead to no significant result).

I have no idea what the outcome of that would be.

I didn't want to let this brilliant idea get missed.

Here are the numbers:

Bets >= 5 BTC at 49.5% for uid in (2548,9075,31791,46591,113828,118977,119016,136175,143341,145625,150486):

+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | sign(profit) |
+----------+--------------+
|     7209 |           -1 |
|     7185 |            1 |
+----------+--------------+

49.9166% win

Bets of 0.01 BTC at 49.5% for the same uids:

+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | sign(profit) |
+----------+--------------+
|    10881 |           -1 |
|    10558 |            1 |
+----------+--------------+

49.2467 win

So 49.25% of small bets win, when we expect 49.5% to win.  Is that significant?  It's not as far below average as the big bets are above average.

[Rampion]

No, I wouldn't say its significantly lower.

[Rampion]

BTW, dooglus: are you planning to re-invest or you will hold your coins until you make some changes to the site?

[Deprived]

So 49.25% of small bets win, when we expect 49.5% to win.  Is that significant?  It's not as far below average as the big bets are above average.

Certainly not enough different to actually prove anything.

You can check in even more depth by seperately analysing them for each of his big winning sessions - if it's ALWAYS below average then that starts to look suspicious.  You should ignore losing sessions when doing that - just the half dozen (or however many it is) sessiosn where he won big.

There's no selection bias in that as we're choosing samples based only on the results of the big bets.  If it's genuinely random then you'd expect some sessions to have small bets winning more often than 49.5% and others losing more often - that overall it ends up slightly below isn't so important.

Think of the overall result (quoted) as meaning he flipped more heads than tails in a series of coin tosses (which doesn't mean a lot).  Now we're checking to see if they were ALL heads (which means a lot more).

Similar analysis can't be applied to the big bets - as his strategy (win decently - or lose big) adds selection bias.  But his ending points weren't chosen based on the performance of the small bets so they can be analysed in a manner that can't be done for the big ones.

Reason I say to only look at big winning sessions is simple - if he IS cheating then he'd throw some losing sessions in intentionally where the small bets (and big ones) would likely be random.  Incidentally, if he worked out a pattern then I don't personally regard it as cheating.  Cheating would be if he somehow got hold of server seeds.

[organofcorti]

So 49.25% of small bets win, when we expect 49.5% to win.  Is that significant?  It's not as far below average as the big bets are above average.

Can't say. You could do logistic regression of amount bet vs win/loss and find out though. Where's that bet log again?

[andrew12]

03:22:30 (146888) <LuckyPot> A little donate will bring you luck trust me ! [1Bb9Lx6j]

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 don't think you should allow people to post the same lines repeatedly, or ask for donations in every single line they say, or at least once on every chat screen. It gets annoying, and they don't seem to listen when people tell them to stop. Yeah, I could ignore them, but then I'd miss out if they say something intelligent. Racism and drug talk are up to you. I think it's fine, since this is the Internet after all. Gambling is just about as bad as doing drugs anyway. :p

[elm]

[/quote]

.............Reason I say to only look at big winning sessions is simple - if he IS cheating then he'd throw some losing sessions in intentionally where the small bets (and big ones) would likely be random.  Incidentally, if he worked out a pattern then I don't personally regard it as cheating.  Cheating would be if he somehow got hold of server seeds.
[/quote]

agree, that is the way to look at it.

[Rannasha]

IF he knows the seed OR has some means of otherwise predicting series then we'd expect to see a LOWER than usual win-rate on the small bets.  Whilst if everything is genuinely random then the results of the small bets would be unrelated to him winning overall on the big ones.

IF a smoking gun exists then where you'd see it is in far more losses than expected on small rolls - where if there was no unfair advantage there'd be no reason for it to correlate with the opposite results in the big bets.  We already know that his overall results on big bets are very significantly above average.  By looking at the small bets seperately (we CAN legitimately treat it as a seperate data set) we can see if the results there are similarly significantly BELOW average.  Such an analysis should be done by simply measuring his luck - not by factoring in varying bet size (as if a few small bets are much larger than the rest that would lead to no significant result).

I have no idea what the outcome of that would be.

I didn't want to let this brilliant idea get missed.

Here are the numbers:

Bets >= 5 BTC at 49.5% for uid in (2548,9075,31791,46591,113828,118977,119016,136175,143341,145625,150486):

+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | sign(profit) |
+----------+--------------+
|     7209 |           -1 |
|     7185 |            1 |
+----------+--------------+

49.9166% win

Bets of 0.01 BTC at 49.5% for the same uids:

+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | sign(profit) |
+----------+--------------+
|    10881 |           -1 |
|    10558 |            1 |
+----------+--------------+

49.2467 win

So 49.25% of small bets win, when we expect 49.5% to win.  Is that significant?  It's not as far below average as the big bets are above average.

The expected amount of small bets won is 10612, the amount won is 10558, a difference of 54. Since this is a simple binomial distribution, we can easily find the standard deviation, which is 73.2. So the observed outcome is less than 1 sigma from the expected outcome. This is not significant in any way, shape or form.

[organofcorti]

The expected amount of small bets won is 10612, the amount won is 10558, a difference of 54. Since this is a simple binomial distribution, we can easily find the standard deviation, which is 73.2. So the observed outcome is less than 1 sigma from the expected outcome. This is not significant in any way, shape or form.

Doog has separated the bet amounts arbitrarily. In this case, you can only be certain of the win/loss distribution for these bet sizes (not that I expect it to be a significant difference), so logistic regression would be a more reliable approach.

[Jls.]

THANK YOU deprived for debunking and bringing some sense to the discussion. Really appreciated !

My only fear with currently lowered max bets is that it won't provide the adrenaline shot that nak is wanting, and make him bored of playing (thus leaving us in the hole).

[aahzmundus]

I would suggest adding a feature to let people transfer BTC between userid's, and maybe a Rain button to let people give X btc to the last X people who posted something in chat.

People that are posting Addresses in chat for luck, karma, donations, charity (when honestly not for a legitimate charity) should be muted.

Some people appear to have a chat bot that just asks every 5 min for free btc, and sadly... when you look at those addresses, some people do give, which only encourages more begging.

[galbros]

Why this sucks for guys whom did not divest (Mechs)
1.  Chances of making back lost coins have greatly diminished
A.  Lower varienace and more time to recoup coins
B. Lower max bet will runoff whales
C.  Lower invested/max profit will interest new investors especially with pubilicity JD got this week
D. Raising BTC prices will decrease wagered per day once whales decide lower max is not attractive

Guy who specially scored is Doog who divested due to varienace , now some won't be able to pay him commissions for ever but new ones can, but he saved his coins.

As someone who did not divest, I would agree with this.  I also don't like that the lower minimum signals a loss of confidence in the site.

Since we know the key is his willingness to tolerate large losses in hopes of a target win amount I can see how increasing the required number of bets to get to the targeted win can help but I don't like it and am sorry you did it and if I could get back to even I'd probably bail on JD investing - "investors fallacy"?

Oh, and on begging in chat, yes it is insane, I like the idea of account to account transfers.

[HurtK]

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?

probably, there have been cases where irresponsible managers let the fish play so long they busted the whole casino.

[maqifrnswa]

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).

that would be cool, I love the idea of a market for house edge...

You could also do a market for variance: Have a slider for people to choose what their own personal "maximum bet" is (in percentage of bankroll). All of that gets pooled together to be the site's max bet, and returns are proportional to that. Someone that wants low variance can choose 0.1%, someone more aggressive can choose 1% (and someone that wants to really gamble can go > house edge%). This is a way to have investors have a decentralized vote on what the minimum bet should be.

Investors would be basically running their own dice site! Investors set their personal edge AND the variance!

[maqifrnswa]

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?

Land casinos actually have insurance companies insure their jackpots, so it is possible to win a small percentage of the bankroll on a single roll, but the casino doesn't pay out. (is there some way you could do this? Probably best to reduce variance with lower kelly since your minimum bet size changes with kelly).

[DumbFruit]

I'm not having any fun watching Nakowa anymore!  

I think lowering the max bet was the right move. If that didn't change, there would only be a modest reduction in these wild swings as the bankroll increased (If it even would increase!)

Improvements to the site:
1.) Be able to block certain people in the chat.
2.) Chat Rooms.
3.) Preferences to change the size of bets you want to see announced.
4.) Don't display investor information to bettors. (House budget/profits.)
5.) Make clicking a user name display a donation address, so if a big winner wants to "rain" he can, but users wont have to spam addresses.
6.) Maybe reset the profit ticker? Somewhat controversial, but if the max bet is kept low, the site is probably going to be in the red for quite a while, and this pushes away potential investors.
7.) Introduce an api for bot makers and such.

That's my two cents anyway, as someone that has no stake in any of this.

Also! I didn't see any investor rage (At the 5k loss), I am disappoint. Though I guess selection bias was kicking in. (Those that were put off by the variance were gone already anyway.)

Edit: Though you can also see selection bias kicking in with the cap reduction.

[Rampion]

The good, old and lovely nakowa aka celeste aka allover aka percent aka ..... doint its thing again:



And the sites "profit":



Nakowa is killing it roughly.

[Rampion]

Very disappointed that the max bet went down

Increasing the house edge would have been also not great but much less worse in my opinion.

It's like a business refusing customers vs a business raising it's price.

Agreed. Max bet at 1% was the only real chance of Nakowa going busto when he starts with his 300BTC bets. I'd rather lose my whole investment because of an incredible (and very unlikely) strike of bad luck, than just taking down the max bet which practically means that we won't be recovering our losses for months...

[DumbFruit]

Agreed. Max bet at 1% was the only real chance of Nakowa going busto when he starts with his 300BTC bets.

Why not raise to 2% and get this over with. Sure would be entertaining!