Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2021, 08:57:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 ... 252 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game  (Read 435160 times)
elm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:45:18 AM
 #2221

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 Smiley
1634547464
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634547464

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634547464
Reply with quote  #2

1634547464
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1310



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:53:56 AM
 #2222

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:

Quote
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.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:57:51 AM
 #2223

No, I wouldn't say its significantly lower.

Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
 #2224

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

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
 #2225

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
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2013, 12:12:56 PM
 #2226

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?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
andrew12
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:15:20 PM
 #2227

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
 #2228


[/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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:18:34 PM
 #2229

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:

Quote
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
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2013, 12:28:26 PM
 #2230

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.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Jls.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 34
Merit: 0



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:44:09 PM
 #2231

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


Invest & Earn: https://cloudthink.io


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
 #2232

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:41:47 PM
 #2233

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:43:12 PM
 #2234

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 454
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:49:46 PM
Last edit: September 25, 2013, 02:01:10 PM by maqifrnswa
 #2235

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 454
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:53:58 PM
 #2236

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 02:00:53 PM
Last edit: September 25, 2013, 02:26:48 PM by DumbFruit
 #2237

I'm not having any fun watching Nakowa anymore!  Tongue

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.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 02:08:34 PM
 #2238

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 02:22:28 PM
 #2239

Very disappointed that the max bet went down Sad

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 02:32:27 PM
 #2240

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!

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Pages: « 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 ... 252 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!