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

[GOB]

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!

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

[GOB]

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?

Perhaps this is the key insight. Maybe max-profit shouldn't be the max-profit per roll, but rather the max-profit-per-X, where X could be:

1) a certain number of rolls per individual. i.e. max profit per 100 rolls per account
2) a certain time per individual. i.e. max profit per hour per account
3) a certain number of rolls site-wide. i.e. max profit per 10,000 rolls
4) a certain time site-wide. i.e. max profit per hour

The problem with 1 & 2 is that the person could switch accounts. The problem with 3 and 4 is that it would stop all betting once the maximum is reached.

[Rampion]

Nakowa is now playing with two ID (percent + balotelli) to "get around" the max profit restriction.... His literal words:

<cake> more players = easy solution to get around the max profit restriction

Wow, the guy has really no idea of how probability works and deeply believes in gambler's fallacy. I really think that max bet should have been left untounched and *maybe* house edge changed to 1.5%... The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

[mechs]

I personally agree with the change as a stopgap solution and I am down more than anyone I think since I never divested.  This site was not intended to have so much variance for the investor.  I am fine with losing coins, it is an investment.  But this investment was never designed to be one where someone can go fro +10% to -25% in 5 days.  I would not expect it to similarly gain.

The high max bet has increased the variance to astronomical levels.  It may not effect gambler luck, but that is not the goal.  A high max profit with a player who now has more coins likely than the entire bankroll, can truly break the bank and has practicallly done so.  

The key for J-D to stay competitive is to still over the best interface and best odds of any reputable online casino.  Whales will continue to come to J-D since Dooglus has proven time and again to be honest and always payout. Noone is going to deposit 10k bitcoins on LetsDice (would you trust them not to steal it all?).  
The max bet at our nearest competitor is 20 BTC (Primedice).  There is a reason for this.  For sites such as Satoshi Dice which allow higher max profit the house edge is 1.9%.  These are the #s we need to beat.

I agree a better strategy would be to increase house edge for big potential profit bets.  The site will lose nothing since these players have no other trustworthy place to go with better odds.  I like a sliding scale house edge which inceases by .02% for every 1 BTC potential profit over 50 BTC up to a max of 1.9%.  Eg. 60 BTC max profit bet has a house edge of 1.2%, 90 BTC max profit bet has a house edge of 1.9%.  Beyond that, I would not increase the house edge further.  With these changes I would increase the max profit per bet to 0.5%

This change will not even effect 99.99% of players since few ever make bets with max protits greater than 50 BTC.  Those very few who do, have nowhere better to go, since J-D still offer the best odds out there in bitcoinland.  Decisions should not be made on whether one player (nakowa) returns or not.  He has shown the site's design is flawed from its intended design - this level of variance was never intended.  Doing otherwise would just be the gambler's fallacy in reverse on the house.

In summary I recommend:
0.5% Max Profit per Bet
1% House edge up intil max profit 50 BTC, then increase 0.02% per 1 BTC up until a max of 90 BTC profit at 1.9% house edge
Max Investment of 50,000 BTC - this will in effect lead to a cap of the max bet and less likely investor divestment in bad runs (since if you divest and someone else invests back up to the max, you lose your spot).  This would still allow 250 BTC max profit bets (at an edge of 1.9%) - still a very large amount and better than the competition.

Btw, looks today like most of Nakowa's bets in the 30 - 60 BTC range, even he would be minimally effected by these changes with his "current" playing style. 

[mechs]

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!

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment

[cowbay]

streaky spam betting again, just at lower stakes....good for daytrading nakowa(tm)

[Sterling]

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).

Doog I plead you not to do this. The market will keep getting undercut until house edge is very low. I know this will attract more gambler, but it'll kill site profit (yours and mine).

1% is already very competitive and clearly allows the gambler to win big anyway.

[elm]

Nakowa is now playing with two ID (percent + balotelli) to "get around" the max profit restriction.... His literal words:

<cake> more players = easy solution to get around the max profit restriction

Wow, the guy has really no idea of how probability works and deeply believes in gambler's fallacy. I really think that max bet should have been left untounched and *maybe* house edge changed to 1.5%... The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

if he is deluded he will end up broke, ok, and if he is cheating?

[RationalSpeculator]

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!

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment

Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved.

Any strong counterarguments against that?

[integrity42]

WHY IS THE MAX PROFIT SET TO 0.25%

This is totally unfair to investors who want to win back their losses from nakowa.  This is the first mistake I've seen dooglus make and I hope he fixes it soon.

It's totally unfair.  Investors are welcome to withdraw their money at any time if they don't like 1%, but its not fair to lower it.

At least give investors an option as to how much risk they want to take!

[Bitsinmyhead]

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...

You are forgetting a very important benefit of lowering the max bet. With a lower max bet he will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is. Depending on how large you currently think the chances of him cheating is, it might actually be +EV to let him continue with a 0.25% max bet...

[Rampion]

Nakowa is now playing with two ID (percent + balotelli) to "get around" the max profit restriction.... His literal words:

<cake> more players = easy solution to get around the max profit restriction

Wow, the guy has really no idea of how probability works and deeply believes in gambler's fallacy. I really think that max bet should have been left untounched and *maybe* house edge changed to 1.5%... The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

The nakowa/cake/percent/balotelli/celeste/allover guy is either cheating or completely deluded, and if its the latter he will end up broke for sure.

if he is deluded he will end up broke, ok, and if he is cheating?

Did you watch him play? I did, for hours, and I can guarantee you that it doesn't look at all like he is cheating. Sometimes he is thousands of BTC down, he starts to bet semi-random until he goes busto and needs to refill his balance with +1,000BTC... And he keeps playing for hours and hours until he is up again. He has a super big bankroll, at least 23k BTC, and IMO he just got lucky. I really do not see a single hint of evidence about him cheating. His betting patterns doesn't look suspicious at all for me.

If he is cheating, I'd say he is a genius because he is really hiding it in an amazing way.

[TheFuneral]

Dooglus, choose either 1% max profit or 0.5% max profit and let the math work. He will not stop playing so that means he will eventually lose everything.

Max profit at 75 btc is far too low in my opinion. The investors can divest if they want. No need to protect us, we know what we are getting ourselves into.

And here is the beauty of the entire system you created Dooglus. You know the math is correct and you know the system is fair. You made it that way. Just because you hear a bunch of people with burning pitchforks yelling at you doesn't make them right. If they don't like the journey or variance to get there then they can leave.

At this point I'm just left to believe you want the investors to go "kindly" and then you'll shutdown the site. There is really is no other logical reason unless you think your system is now compromised, but don't wanna say it.

[mechs]

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!

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment

Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved.

Any strong counterarguments against that?

Let's keep things simple - complex systems lead to unintended consequences.  Having a sliding scale house edge complicated enough without also have the bankroll percent sliding as well.

[mechs]

WHY IS THE MAX PROFIT SET TO 0.25%

This is totally unfair to investors who want to win back their losses from nakowa.  This is the first mistake I've seen dooglus make and I hope he fixes it soon.

It's totally unfair.  Investors are welcome to withdraw their money at any time if they don't like 1%, but its not fair to lower it.

At least give investors an option as to how much risk they want to take!

I thought the first mistake was when he gave Nakowa 1300 BTC freerolls and then spend a day before deciding to roll back those bids?

[RationalSpeculator]

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment

Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved.

Any strong counterarguments against that?

Let's keep things simple - complex systems lead to unintended consequences.  Having a sliding scale house edge complicated enough without also have the bankroll percent sliding as well.

Right, simple I would not exactly call your solution  

[Rampion]

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...

You are forgetting a very important benefit of lowering the max bet. With a lower max bet he will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is. Depending on how large you currently think the chances of him cheating is, it might actually be +EV to let him continue with a 0.25% max bet...

I've watched Nakowa gambling, and I'm obviously not 100% sure that he is not cheating, but I'm willing to bet my whole investment (which anyhow I can afford to lose) on the fact the he is NOT cheating, and thus I'd let him play with max profit 1% of the bankroll until he eventually go busto with his 300BTC bets.

In fact, today I've watched him for at least 2 hours in a row. He is losing big time at the moment. I have the impression that if the max profit would not have been lowered, today he would be down many thousands and not just a few hundreds. I have the impression he would have started to push the max bet to recover his losses, which he is actually doing with 60BTC and 70BTC bets (the actual max profit), which eventually would have led him to lose a lot more. Of course this is wild speculation and impossible to know, but given the fact that nakowa has already won +15k coins from the site when the max bet was 4 times higher, lowering the max bet in my opinion is something that plays in his favor, because he won't be able to lose everything as easily as he won it - in fact it will be 4 times harder for him to lose everything, than it was to win it in the first place.

That's how I see it...

[mechs]

A big +1 to this!!!

This is a great idea. I like investor-chooses-their-max-profit than I like the market for edge. I think the 1% edge is this website's defining feature and it would be a mistake to change it.

But by implementing investor-chosen max profit we would arrive at the "optimal" max profit per roll (the sum of everyone's personal max profit setting), in the sense that it is the consensus of all the investors. This may be more or less than 1%. In fact, it would be fascinating to watch it go up and down as whale(s) come in and out.

This is the first idea I've read that seems worthy enough to change the format of the site.

Problem with that idea is with a house edge constantly having wild swings, we will lose "regular" players. People don't want the house edge changing on them moment by moment

Good counterargument. What about creating free market for max bet? Let investors choose themselves? Doog wants 0.25% but I think 1% is much better. If investors can choose themselves problem solved.

Any strong counterarguments against that?

Let's keep things simple - complex systems lead to unintended consequences.  Having a sliding scale house edge complicated enough without also have the bankroll percent sliding as well.

Right, simple I would not exactly call your solution  

Well simpler would be to just have the house edge jump to to 1.5% above 50 BTC, but then we will see lots of 49.999 BTC max profit bets lol.  If it gradual, many whales will go above it.

[mechs]

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...

You are forgetting a very important benefit of lowering the max bet. With a lower max bet he will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is. Depending on how large you currently think the chances of him cheating is, it might actually be +EV to let him continue with a 0.25% max bet...

I've watched Nakowa gambling, and I'm obviously not 100% sure that he is not cheating, but I'm willing to bet my whole investment (which anyhow I can afford to lose) on the fact the he is NOT cheating, and thus I'd let him play with max profit 1% of the bankroll until he eventually go busto with his 300BTC bets.

In fact, today I've watched him for at least 2 hours in a row. He is losing big time at the moment. I have the impression that if the max profit would not have been lowered, today he would be down many thousands and not just a few hundreds. I have the impression he would have started to push the max bet to recover his losses, which he is actually doing with 60BTC and 70BTC bets (the actual max profit), which eventually would have led him to lose a lot more. Of course this is wild speculation and impossible to know, but given the fact that nakowa has already won +15k coins from the site when the max bet was 4 times higher, lowering the max bet in my opinion is something that plays in his favor, because he won't be able to lose everything as easily as he won it - in fact it will be 4 times harder for him to lose everything, than it was to win it in the first place.

That's how I see it...

He is down 1000 BTC, he would bet that amount in 5 second before.  The change has reduced variance.

[theskillzdatklls]

I really think 0.25% was a drastic move.  0.5% if it had to be lowered at all.