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

[mechs]

I don't get it.

Nakowa would have lost FAR more today had the max bet remained 1%. How is this unfair?

Exactly.  It just less fun to watch for spectators

[1715483048]

1715483048

[1715483048]

1715483048

[1715483048]

1715483048

[1715483048]

1715483048

[1715483048]

1715483048

[mechs]

I have to agree that changing max bet and such mid-play without any prior discussion or even notification to investors and gamblers alike was unreasonable.

Why? He did not change the odds for anyone, just the max profit

[oda.krell]

I guess a casino should pay half what a blackjack is worth if you bet over a certain amount also huh. Or if you bet 5.00 on red you win 10.... But if you bet 100.00 u only won 195.00

Your comparison fails. A random casino also will send someone to break your kneecaps refuse a customer who they fear to possess a bankroll as large or larger than their own.

Plus, what's with the "principles"? Are we following the holy bible of casino morals? Hint: we're not. We should do what both interesting for players and profitable for investors. That's all.

Actually...your comparison fails.

You said it, they can refuse service.  But they DO NOT change the odds.  And jd can refuse service also. Lower max bet.  As they did.  

To change the odds is dumb and totally unfair.  That's the same as me betting on a nfl game, at even money, but after my team takes a 21 point lead, the sportsbook decides that the odds are going to be -30 instead, in the middle of the game.


As for your principals comment. Really?  So you advocate the site to be careless with morals?  Because I'm sure THAT will make people gamble there.  You shouldn't post, honestly, unless you think before talking.

You're taking it personal. Don't.

First, you're changing topics. I didn't say I'm in favor the sudden lowering of max bet, that was probably a mistake. I do however think max bet 1%, house edge 1% <50btc, 2%>=50btc is the way to go.

And you don't understand what I meant by morals. Acting immoral as in: cheating customers is simply bad business, so no sane investor wants that. But there are no "morals" that define you can't have different values for the house edge depending on bet size IMO. That's what I meant by "there are no morals".

[cbhelp]

If someone comes in and sees they are essentially being punished for betting bigger, by having worse odds, you will never get anyone sane to play big. That's what I'm saying.

[themagicdrake]

I don't get it.

Nakowa would have lost FAR more today had the max bet remained 1%. How is this unfair?

Was it a rushed decision? Sure. Unfair? Hell nahhh.

He'd keep playing until he was satisfied with his profit. With the variance, he has a large enough bankroll to come back.

[oda.krell]

If someone comes in and sees they are essentially being punished for betting bigger, by having worse odds, you will never get anyone sane to play big. That's what I'm saying.

Valid point. As someone pointed out in j-d chat (I didn't check if he's right), all other betting sites either have much lower max bids, or if they have higher max bids, they have higher house edges.

My point would be: make sure j-d is still the best place for whales (i.e. best combination of highest potential profits and lowest house edge), but make it *slightly* more expensive to come in with a huge payrollbankroll and fleeze the bank.

edit: d'oh

[r3demon]

If someone comes in and sees they are essentially being punished for betting bigger, by having worse odds, you will never get anyone sane to play big. That's what I'm saying.

With lower max bet you're effectively having a higher house edge for larger wagered amounts.

[Keyser Soze]

With lower max bet you're effectively having a higher house edge for larger wagered amounts.

Please elaborate since a lower maximum bet would only lower variance. How would it affect the house edge?

[integrity42]

With lower max bet you're effectively having a higher house edge for larger wagered amounts.

Please elaborate since a lower maximum bet would only lower variance. How would it affect the house edge?

It doesn't effect the house edge. It reduces the risk of ruin.  But mathematically, 1% max bet at 1% edge is the optimal kelly criterion.

[Rampion]

With lower max bet you're effectively having a higher house edge for larger wagered amounts.

Please elaborate since a lower maximum bet would only lower variance. How would it affect the house edge?

It doesn't effect the house edge. It reduces the risk of ruin.  But mathematically, 1% max bet at 1% edge is the optimal kelly criterion.

Yes, with large numbers enough. With smaller numbers, you get variance. I guess some investors were scared by variance, which I find ridiculous because you are investing in a casino which has 1% max profit and 1% edge, and thus variance is expected when you confront a single whale with such a big roll.

[Peter R]

With lower max bet you're effectively having a higher house edge for larger wagered amounts.

Please elaborate since a lower maximum bet would only lower variance. How would it affect the house edge?

I wouldn't affect the house edge.  I think what he means is that applying the "keep-betting-till-I-reach-my-target-profit-or-bust" strategy has a lower chance of success as the ratio of max_bet_size / target_profit gets smaller.  The lower max bet size has a similar overall effect on this particular strategy (given a constant target profit and bankroll) as keeping the max bet size the same but increasing the house edge.

[romerun]

max bet should be fixed under 100 though, say a few months later, site makes good profit drawing 3x investors, and max bet is 300btc again, along with the mighty nak.

<percent> banker: I was beaten already. REMEMBER: the rules changed during the course of my play. I HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO PLAY MORE IN THE FUTURE.

he just followed nak own advice, there's nothing wrong with that except, it should be applied 3 weeks earlier.

[qxzn]

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.

Can't we just implement an easy to use ignore filter? One-click ignore & leave it up to the users. Self-censorship doesn't hold the same kind of risks of centralized censorship.

There might even be people who enjoy throwing a few coins at the beggars.

[cbhelp]

The spread on JD is too large, especially when you can bet at .0000001.  There is a reason real life casinos have a spread of min and max on their games.  I thnk this is the only part that needs to be adjusted on JD.

An idea for this, and to keep the whales happy by allowing large bets is to have tiers.

Tier 1: 0.00000001  (or however many 0's it is) up to 10 btc

Tier 2:  10.01 to 500 btc

Tier 3: 500.01 and up

(These are random numbers, obv some math needed to get the correct numbers.)

There are casino online that do this very thing right now.  Sure, he can just martingale up to max tier 1 then go into tier 2, but that extra level makes it a little more difficult and bot resistant

[mechs]

The spread on JD is too large, especially when you can bet at .0000001.  There is a reason real life casinos have a spread of min and max on their games.  I thnk this is the only part that needs to be adjusted on JD.

An idea for this, and to keep the whales happy by allowing large bets is to have tiers.

Tier 1: 0.00000001  (or however many 0's it is) up to 10 btc

Tier 2:  10.01 to 500 btc

Tier 3: 500.01 and up

(These are random numbers, obv some math needed to get the correct numbers.)

There are casino online that do this very thing right now.  Sure, he can just martingale up to max tier 1 then go into tier 2, but that extra level makes it a little more difficult and bot resistant

Dooglus started with the simplest possible simple, since everyone loves simplicity.  And he has been making small changes since then as dictated by reality. For example, he added delays for very small dust bets since it was lagging the server

[qxzn]

18:36:09 (153338) <percent> I'm DONE. pulling back 2976 coins. NEW RULES KILLED ME.


UTTERY STUPIDITY  TO CHASE THE WHALE AWAY.

WE WOULD HAVE BEEN +10,000 TODAY.

You want to invest in a site which can swing 10,000 BTC per day on a 30k bankroll? Most do not nor was that the intended design.

Too many chicken investors! Yes, that's exactly what I would like to invest in. Heck, I'd take the house side at 2% max profit. Ready to lose everything. C'mon y'all, lighten up and "invest" less if you're scared.

Maybe the problem was the word "invest", which disguises the fact that you are just making a bet by taking the house side (albeit a slightly positive expectancy one).

[Oety]

For my personal 'variance tolerance' as an investor I think a 0.5% maxbet would have been the best to start with. Still, changing the rules mid-game without much notice was in my opinion not the best decision. It is obvious that such a change would seriously offend our number one customer. Even though he was up a lot, I believed that he had no intention of stopping and that he would eventually give a decent portion of his winnings back to the site. I would say that the investors who never divested (myself included) now have a seriously lower chance of ever getting a return on their investment.

[qxzn]

I want to have a no-limit casino to invest , like you can bet all the investment , which was like 30k or something , be able to bet 30k than. Thats more fun , casinos should take some courage to run , even if its not your money to run , even better if its like that.

Could not agree more. The fearful investors are messing this up for everyone. If there's no/little chance for the house to lose, then there's little/no chance for the players to win, and the whole thing loses its luster.

[mechs]

I want to have a no-limit casino to invest , like you can bet all the investment , which was like 30k or something , be able to bet 30k than. Thats more fun , casinos should take some courage to run , even if its not your money to run , even better if its like that.

Could not agree more. The fearful investors are messing this up for everyone. If there's no/little chance for the house to lose, then there's little/no chance for the players to win, and the whole thing loses its luster.

If you don't like a provably fair game with a 1% edge and a current max profit per bet of 80 BTC, then gambling is not for you.  It waaay better odds than vegas and any other bitcoin gambling site atm.

[maqifrnswa]

I want to have a no-limit casino to invest , like you can bet all the investment , which was like 30k or something , be able to bet 30k than. Thats more fun , casinos should take some courage to run , even if its not your money to run , even better if its like that.

Could not agree more. The fearful investors are messing this up for everyone. If there's no/little chance for the house to lose, then there's little/no chance for the players to win, and the whole thing loses its luster.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=301428.0

For more on Mechs and his discussions (pleading with Doog) on im yesterday.

Doog should release this chat as he has done with Naks in the past.

Doog proposed a solution: make max bet a market. You choose what your tolerance is and the site will adjust. Mech could have set his to 0.25%, I would have kept it at 1%, every investor votes with their wallet. From there you get the max bet and the proportion to be paid out to each investor.

No controversy, no arbitrarily choosing numbers. House edge can remain fixed so that from the player's point of view, nothing changes or is unfair.

Either way, I think doog made a brilliant site and I'm happy to participate in the experiment.