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

[chriswen]

I've lost track of exactly how you're planning on implementing it, when it was first suggested I thought that the obvious implementation would be that the 0.25% people would be in for their share of the bankroll on all bets and the impact would only be on the bets above this threshold of the bankroll. How does the math work out that people with higher thresholds would be getting 4x return of the nits on all bets? As I see it this would only happen on max bets.

FWIW I will be at full Kelly regardless.

Think you're misunderstandign what the 0.25% and 1% are.

They're the amount each investor is PERSONALLY willing to risk per bet - and what their investment adds to the MAX WIN.  With all alternatives suggested there are ratios of HIGH:LOW risk investments where someone coming in with new investment doesn't increase MAX WIN - making their investment fundamentally useless as it dilutes profit for everyone else without adding anything.

Worse still, in some suggestions, if low risk investment is a lot larger than high risk then high risk end up being forced into being low risk - as MAX WIN gets set based on low-risk.  Just try looking at something like 20K low-risk investment, 5K high-risk for some of the proposals - and you'll see it works out that low-risk get to force high-risk into also only risking 0.25% of investment at most.

A proposal that relies on assumptions about the ratio of low to high risk investment is NOT a valid proposal.
Nor is one which can allow more investment to join without raiding MAX WIN - as by definition existing investors are already willing to cover any bet up to current MAX WIN - so no more investment is wanted if it doesn't raise it.

This whole debate is largely about a minority of investors who want some way to only personally accept small bets whilst passing all big bets to others.  Which is based on some sort of entitlement belief that they should be allowed a disproportionate share of low-risk action whilst leaving higher-risk action to others.

What would totally amuse me right now is if dooglus said : "OK - mechs and co have convinced me that it's fine for some people to only partake in the first part of bets and leave the high-variance stuff completely to others.  So I'll personally cover 100% the first 1 BTC of every bet and the rest of investors can have everything above it."  And then the really juicy low-variance stuff would go to someone who actually had some entitlement rather than to those with a mistaken belief that they have a right to only back the stuff that doesn't need backing (as those willing to cover all the action could back it without their money).

I have a method that is alternative to Dooglus's.  But, it doesn't have anything of the things you mentioned so you must be mistaken.

[Deprived]

I've lost track of exactly how you're planning on implementing it, when it was first suggested I thought that the obvious implementation would be that the 0.25% people would be in for their share of the bankroll on all bets and the impact would only be on the bets above this threshold of the bankroll. How does the math work out that people with higher thresholds would be getting 4x return of the nits on all bets? As I see it this would only happen on max bets.

FWIW I will be at full Kelly regardless.

Think you're misunderstandign what the 0.25% and 1% are.

They're the amount each investor is PERSONALLY willing to risk per bet - and what their investment adds to the MAX WIN.  With all alternatives suggested there are ratios of HIGH:LOW risk investments where someone coming in with new investment doesn't increase MAX WIN - making their investment fundamentally useless as it dilutes profit for everyone else without adding anything.

Worse still, in some suggestions, if low risk investment is a lot larger than high risk then high risk end up being forced into being low risk - as MAX WIN gets set based on low-risk.  Just try looking at something like 20K low-risk investment, 5K high-risk for some of the proposals - and you'll see it works out that low-risk get to force high-risk into also only risking 0.25% of investment at most.

A proposal that relies on assumptions about the ratio of low to high risk investment is NOT a valid proposal.
Nor is one which can allow more investment to join without raiding MAX WIN - as by definition existing investors are already willing to cover any bet up to current MAX WIN - so no more investment is wanted if it doesn't raise it.

This whole debate is largely about a minority of investors who want some way to only personally accept small bets whilst passing all big bets to others.  Which is based on some sort of entitlement belief that they should be allowed a disproportionate share of low-risk action whilst leaving higher-risk action to others.

What would totally amuse me right now is if dooglus said : "OK - mechs and co have convinced me that it's fine for some people to only partake in the first part of bets and leave the high-variance stuff completely to others.  So I'll personally cover 100% the first 1 BTC of every bet and the rest of investors can have everything above it."  And then the really juicy low-variance stuff would go to someone who actually had some entitlement rather than to those with a mistaken belief that they have a right to only back the stuff that doesn't need backing (as those willing to cover all the action could back it without their money).

Oy gevalt. Aren't you an entitled little bugger.

Anyway, count me in as part of the "minority" who's in favor of being able to set their own risk percentage. I'll probably leave mine at 1%, but I see absolutely no reason why dooglus' brilliant idea of a market-determined maxwin shouldn't be implemented.

You misunderstand me.

I have no problem at all with dooglus' proposal.

My problem is with those who want to change it so they get more exposure to low-variance and less to high-variance.  i.e. they don't just want to be able to reduce what they risk (which is fine) but also to cherry-pick (in terms of variance) which action they have exposure to.  Which means that they want to be allowed to reduce their portion of the site's variance at the expense of higher-risk investors getting MORE variance without a commensurate increase in profit-share.

I repeat : dooglus' proposal is fine with me. 

And if those wanting lower variance in their bank-roll prefer to achieve it by unnecessarily have 4* the CP risk they could have by divesting 3/4 of their bank-roll and going at 1% then that's a price I'd accept (that decisions DOES very trivially increase my risk as well - once I've reinvested, that is - as it increases my CP risk as well by unnecessarily bloating funds in the cold wallet).

[chriswen]

This is my proposal (same as before)
1) if bets are lower than the lowest percentile than everyone gets an equal piece of the pie based on holdings
2) if bets is between percentiles of the max profit then the lowest percentiles will risk as much as they can, then the remaining holders will split risk among themselves based on holdings.
3) if bets are the max profit then everyone invests there max risk
4)highRisk investors DO get higher profit share.  As you can see the high risk investor gets more action.

This method is exactly like what is implemented now.  Except for the fact that high risk investors increase the max profit even higher, and they will get profit off of this higher risk.

Facts:
-New lowRisk investors WILL increase the max profit.
--> So if you invest 1000 more btc at 0.25% then the max profit will raise by 2.5 btc.

-Max win is not based off of lowRisk
lowRisk : 20k BTC @ 0.25%, highRisk : 5k BTC @ 1%

MaxProfit : 20000*0.25% + 5000*1% =  100 BTC
lowRisk contributes 50 btc and high Risk contributes 50 btc on max bets.
lowRisk risks .25% on max bets, highRisk risks 1% on max bets.
lowRisk is willing to risk up to 0.25%, highRisk is willing to risk up to 1%.

if bet 1 BTC @ 49.5%
lowRisk: ±0.8 (.004%), highRisk: ±0.2 (.004%)

if bet 50 BTC @49.5%
lowRisk: ±40 (.2%), highRisk: ±10 (.2%)

if bet 62.5 BTC @49.5%
lowRisk: ±50 (.25%), highRisk: ±12.5 (.25%)

if bet 75 btc @ 49.5%
lowRisk: ±50 (.25%), highRisk: ±25 (.5%)

if bet 100 btc @ 49.5%
lowRisk: ±50 (.25%), highRisk: ±50 (1%)

LowRisk people do not only accept small bets.  

Actually, with the other method lowRisk investors get a disproportionate share of "low-risk"action.  This is what I want to fix.

With this method lowRisk investors get a proportionate share of "lowRisk" action.  

But, they'll risking something on high risk investments.  Just less, because they're risk-averse.  And they'll be missing out on the action.  You call it high variance, other people might call it profit.

And what's great about this method is that it scales to higher percentages.  If someone is willing to risk 5% of their bankroll on big bets than this method allows them to.  With the other method it wouldn't be fair at all.

Because they would get so much more disproportionate share of lower betting action.  Just because they're willing to bet big bets doesn't mean they should get more profit from lower bets.  And by allowing this disproportionate share (even 1% vs 0.25%) people are able to exploit this by switching between the risk levels.

[qxzn]

Why would I invest 500 BTC at 0.25% when I can just invest 125BTC at 1% then and not have the CP risk for the othet 375 BTC?

Because you would get less variance.

Suppose a whale bets max bet and wins 20 times.  If you invest 500 BTC at 0.25%, you'll still have 95% of your bankroll left:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a*100/500,),
99.75 99.50 99.25 99.00 98.76 98.51 98.26 98.02 97.77 97.53 97.28 97.04 96.80 96.56 96.31 96.07 95.83 95.59 95.36 95.12

But if you invest 125 BTC at 1%, you'll have only 82% of it left:

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0100); print "%.2f" % (a*100/125,),
99.00 98.01 97.03 96.06 95.10 94.15 93.21 92.27 91.35 90.44 89.53 88.64 87.75 86.87 86.01 85.15 84.29 83.45 82.62 81.79

Your risk of ruin is much greater if you invest at 1% than if you invest at 0.25%.

Not sure that's true in the second case - as their BR is what they have left of the 125 plus the untouched 375 they have in cold storage.

Broadly speaking having the two risks is similar to (but not quite the same) as if the people wanting low variance did what they should have done in the first place - and withdrew 3/4 of their BR.  But as they can't do BR management themselves, you're having to do it for them.

For those who want to avoid massive losses, the amusing thing is that a high risk level SHOULD be their friend.  Their optimal strategy if they want to avoid large downswings is to invest a small percentage of their BR at a very high level risk level - giving them tiny CP risk AND a stop-loss to curtail losses if a whale hits a large winning streak.  Of course they then also give up a lot in situations where a large down-swing is followed by a large up-swing - but until they accept they can't get the benefits of massive variance in an upward direction without accepting the reverse nothing is going to make them happy.  Unless you were to specifically cater for them by allowing them to only cover small bets (where their money isn't needed) out of some sense of charity.

My analysis agrees with Deprived. If you have 500BTC to invest, and your options are either to put it all on the site at 0.25% or 1/4 of it at 1%:

20 wins for 500BTC investor @ 0.25%:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1+0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a),
...
501.25 502.50 503.76 505.02 506.28 507.55 508.82 510.09 511.36 512.64 513.92 515.21 516.50 517.79 519.08 520.38 521.68 522.98 524.29 525.60

20 wins for 125BTC investor @ 1% (+375 coins kept in storage):

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1+0.01); print "%.2f" % (a+375),
...
501.25 502.51 503.79 505.08 506.38 507.69 509.02 510.36 511.71 513.08 514.46 515.85 517.26 518.68 520.12 521.57 523.04 524.52 526.01 527.52


20 loses for 500BTC investor @ 0.25%:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.002500); print "%.2f" % (a),
...
498.75 497.50 496.26 495.02 493.78 492.55 491.32 490.09 488.86 487.64 486.42 485.20 483.99 482.78 481.57 480.37 479.17 477.97 476.78 475.58

20 loses for 125BTC investor @ 1% (+375 coins kept in storage):

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0100); print "%.2f" % (a+375),
...
498.75 497.51 496.29 495.07 493.87 492.69 491.51 490.34 489.19 488.05 486.92 485.80 484.69 483.59 482.51 481.43 480.37 479.31 478.27 477.24


10 wins followed by 10 loses for 500BTC investor @ 0.25%:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(10): a *= (1+0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a),
...
501.25 502.50 503.76 505.02 506.28 507.55 508.82 510.09 511.36 512.64
>>> for i in range(10): a *= (1-0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a),
...
511.36 510.08 508.81 507.53 506.27 505.00 503.74 502.48 501.22 499.97

10 wins followed by 10 loses for 125BTC investor @ 1% (+375 coins kept in cold storage):

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(10): a *= (1+0.01); print "%.2f" % (a+375),
...
501.25 502.51 503.79 505.08 506.38 507.69 509.02 510.36 511.71 513.08
>>> for i in range(10): a *= (1-0.01); print "%.2f" % (a+375),
...
511.70 510.33 508.98 507.64 506.31 505.00 503.70 502.41 501.14 499.88


alternating win/loss for 20 bets, 500BTC investor @ 0.25%:
>>> a=500
>>> sign=1
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1+(0.0025*sign)); print "%.2f" % (a),; sign=(-1)*sign;
...
501.25 500.00 501.25 499.99 501.24 499.99 501.24 499.99 501.24 499.98 501.23 499.98 501.23 499.98 501.23 499.98 501.22 499.97 501.22 499.97


alternating win/loss for 20 bets, 125BTC investor @ 1% (+375 coins held offline):
>>> a=125
>>> sign=1
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1+(0.01*sign)); print "%.2f" % (a+375),; sign=(-1)*sign;
...
501.25 499.99 501.24 499.98 501.22 499.96 501.21 499.95 501.20 499.94 501.19 499.93 501.17 499.91 501.16 499.90 501.15 499.89 501.14 499.88


Maybe over the long term there's more of a big difference?

If there's essentially no difference, then this new feature is just a fancy way of divesting a portion of your balance.

[organofcorti]

This is my proposal (same as before)
1) if bets are lower than the lowest percentile than everyone gets an equal piece of the pie based on holdings
2) if bets is between percentiles of the max profit then the lowest percentiles will risk as much as they can, then the remaining holders will split risk among themselves based on holdings.
3) if bets are the max profit then everyone invests there max risk
4)highRisk investors DO get higher profit share.  As you can see the high risk investor gets more action.

I think i understand where you're coming from. The main problem with your proposal for me is that piecemeal functions are way too hard for me to analyse, and analysing just-dice investment variance was already a PITA.

The beauty of doogs proposal is that it's no more difficult to analyse from the site's perspective, a given investor's perspective or a player's perspective than previously. I'm not sure how I'd go about analysing your proposal with using a simulation.

[chriswen]

I've lost track of exactly how you're planning on implementing it, when it was first suggested I thought that the obvious implementation would be that the 0.25% people would be in for their share of the bankroll on all bets and the impact would only be on the bets above this threshold of the bankroll. How does the math work out that people with higher thresholds would be getting 4x return of the nits on all bets? As I see it this would only happen on max bets.

FWIW I will be at full Kelly regardless.

Think you're misunderstandign what the 0.25% and 1% are.

They're the amount each investor is PERSONALLY willing to risk per bet - and what their investment adds to the MAX WIN.  With all alternatives suggested there are ratios of HIGH:LOW risk investments where someone coming in with new investment doesn't increase MAX WIN - making their investment fundamentally useless as it dilutes profit for everyone else without adding anything.

Worse still, in some suggestions, if low risk investment is a lot larger than high risk then high risk end up being forced into being low risk - as MAX WIN gets set based on low-risk.  Just try looking at something like 20K low-risk investment, 5K high-risk for some of the proposals - and you'll see it works out that low-risk get to force high-risk into also only risking 0.25% of investment at most.

A proposal that relies on assumptions about the ratio of low to high risk investment is NOT a valid proposal.
Nor is one which can allow more investment to join without raiding MAX WIN - as by definition existing investors are already willing to cover any bet up to current MAX WIN - so no more investment is wanted if it doesn't raise it.

This whole debate is largely about a minority of investors who want some way to only personally accept small bets whilst passing all big bets to others.  Which is based on some sort of entitlement belief that they should be allowed a disproportionate share of low-risk action whilst leaving higher-risk action to others.

What would totally amuse me right now is if dooglus said : "OK - mechs and co have convinced me that it's fine for some people to only partake in the first part of bets and leave the high-variance stuff completely to others.  So I'll personally cover 100% the first 1 BTC of every bet and the rest of investors can have everything above it."  And then the really juicy low-variance stuff would go to someone who actually had some entitlement rather than to those with a mistaken belief that they have a right to only back the stuff that doesn't need backing (as those willing to cover all the action could back it without their money).

Oy gevalt. Aren't you an entitled little bugger.

Anyway, count me in as part of the "minority" who's in favor of being able to set their own risk percentage. I'll probably leave mine at 1%, but I see absolutely no reason why dooglus' brilliant idea of a market-determined maxwin shouldn't be implemented.

You misunderstand me.

I have no problem at all with dooglus' proposal.

My problem is with those who want to change it so they get more exposure to low-variance and less to high-variance.  i.e. they don't just want to be able to reduce what they risk (which is fine) but also to cherry-pick (in terms of variance) which action they have exposure to.  Which means that they want to be allowed to reduce their portion of the site's variance at the expense of higher-risk investors getting MORE variance without a commensurate increase in profit-share.

I repeat : dooglus' proposal is fine with me. 

And if those wanting lower variance in their bank-roll prefer to achieve it by unnecessarily have 4* the CP risk they could have by divesting 3/4 of their bank-roll and going at 1% then that's a price I'd accept (that decisions DOES very trivially increase my risk as well - once I've reinvested, that is - as it increases my CP risk as well by unnecessarily bloating funds in the cold wallet).

You misunderstand me.

You have the wrong frame of reference.  My proposal is like what is being implemented right now.  Currently everyone get a proportionate amount of risk based off of bitcoin invested.  My proposal is the exact same,  except that high risk investors have the ability to risk more on to increase the max profit.

See my example.  If everyone had equal risk level than the max profit is 62.5 BTC.
But the high risk investor is willing to risk an extra 37.5 more.  And for the bigger profits high risk investors will get a proportionate amount based off of how much they risk.

[Deprived]

I understand the max bet part, but what if a player bets 1BTC and wins (way below a max bet).  Do the 0.25% and 1% guy participate equally based on portion of the bankroll or does the 1% person get 4X more than the 0.25% investor?

People who run 100% kelly get 4 times the action of people running 25% kelly, yes.  By definition, pretty much.

A says "I'm willing to risk up to 0.25 BTC".  B says "I'm willing to risk up to 1 BTC".  We sum those two, and present to the gambler "the site is willing to risk up to 1.25 BTC".

If the gambler comes back and says to the site "I'll take 50% of what you're offering", we say to each investor "he's taking 50% of your offer".

I don't see how any other way would be fair.

No, because low risk investors are just as okay as high risk investors for lower bets.  They're okay with it.  But, they're not okay with betting more than 0.25% in one shot.  That is the definition of kelly.

No - Kelly in this context relates to what the INVESTOR risks.  And the low-risk is NOT risking more than 0.25% of his bank-roll in any one shot.  Where in dooglus' proposal does the low-risk bet over 0.25% of his bank-roll?

Think of it in terms of a single bet with only investors.

Investor A (low risk) says : I'm willing to risk up to 0.25 BTC on this bet.
Investor B (high risk) says : I'm willing to risk up to 1 BTC on this bet.

The house says to Gambler : "You can bet up to 1.25 BTC - how much would you like to bet"?

Without knowing the answer what is the fair way to share exposure?  To me (and to dooglus) the obvious answer is A gets 20% of the action, B gets 80% - in ratio to what they're willing to risk on that single bet.

You seem to believe A is allowed to say "I'm willing to risk up to 0.25 BTC but I want half of all action until my money is all in play".

So why isn't B allowed to say "Fuck you - I'll take the first 1 BTC and you can go without unless he bets more than that?"

If one can make stupid claims for preferential treatment relative to what they're risking, why can't the other?

Remember that the money is exposed to risk BEFORE the bet is made - it's all exposed to accepting action (and displayed as such in the MAX WIN area).  If you want a bigger share of each bet then offer to expose more of your money per bet (either by a higher risk % or by depositing more).

[Deprived]

See my example.  If everyone had equal risk level than the max profit is 62.5 BTC.
But the high risk investor is willing to risk an extra 37.5 more.  And for the bigger profits high risk investors will get a proportionate amount based off of how much they risk.

You fail to grasp what risk is.

The money is risked as soon as it's added to the available MAX WIN.  ALL of it is risked then.

When someone clicks the bet button and rolls it ceases to be risked - and turns into either winnings or loss.

Between every bet the low-risk better IS risking 0.25% of his bank-roll and the high risk 1% of his.  That's what being invested means - that you accept the risk of someone making a bet and winning in return for the benefit of them making a bet and losing.  And the amount each investor risks is determined BEFORE the next bet occurs - the amount wagered, the bet chosen and the results then determine what the result was of that specific instance of risk.

EDIT: To be clearer, consider what the MAX WIN actually is.  It's a statement by the house that "we have investors who are collectively risking X BTC on any gamble you choose to make where your winnings would not exceed that".  It's on offer - so it's at risk.

[allover]

FACT: investing on JD is of gamble just as wagering, and in theory, investors have an advantage of 1%.

However, big variances do happen from time to time (as shown by me before, for example; and ID 105829 won 1007 last 24 hours.)

The problem? A house edge of 1%, too small to shield investors who are trying to gamble against players. (Some developers in this community are evening trying 0.8% house edge, holy s..t).

Discussing how to rectify the mechanism of investment structure is pretty pointless. IMO.

[rarefied]

FACT: investing on JD is of gamble just as wagering, and in theory, investors have an advantage of 1%.

However, big variances do happen from time to time (as shown by me before, for example; and ID 105829 won 1007 last 24 hours.)

The problem? A house edge of 1%, too small to shield investors who are trying to gamble against players. (Some developers in this community are evening trying 0.8% house edge, holy s..t).

Discussing how to rectify the mechanism of investment structure is pretty pointless. IMO.

Come back any time.

[knowitnothing]

The problem? A house edge of 1%, too small to shield investors who are trying to gamble against players. (Some developers in this community are evening trying 0.8% house edge, holy s..t).

You can send me a PM or just clearly mention that it is me the one running with 0.8% edge. You should also notice the bankroll of such site.

Are you aware that there are actual casino games with edge lower than this (like Blackjack in certain settings) ? The only thing I'm getting from your posts is that you want other sites to increase their edge, so the one you defined for your site doesn't look as bad. If you have something constructive to tell me, I would be glad to hear. Telling me to look at some other site profit is not constructive.

[broolstoryco]

FACT: investing on JD is of gamble just as wagering, and in theory, investors have an advantage of 1%.

However, big variances do happen from time to time (as shown by me before, for example; and ID 105829 won 1007 last 24 hours.)

The problem? A house edge of 1%, too small to shield investors who are trying to gamble against players. (Some developers in this community are evening trying 0.8% house edge, holy s..t).

Discussing how to rectify the mechanism of investment structure is pretty pointless. IMO.

Seems like now everyone is an expert, even the degenerate gambler

[bitfromit]

whale is on again now:

12:56:23 *** berathea (161188) [#143838622] bet 5.12 BTC at 49.5% and won 5.12 BTC ***
12:56:26 *** berathea (161188) [#143838670] bet 10.24 BTC at 49.5% and won 10.24 BTC ***
12:56:28 *** berathea (161188) [#143838699] bet 20.48 BTC at 49.5% and lost ***
12:56:34 *** berathea (161188) [#143838729] bet 10.24 BTC at 49.5% and won 10.24 BTC ***
12:56:34 *** berathea (161188) [#143838755] bet 20.48 BTC at 49.5% and lost ***
12:52:08 (149425) <hu> SHIT!
12:56:34 *** berathea (161188) [#143838804] bet 81.92 BTC at 49.5% and won 81.92 BTC ***
12:56:42 *** berathea (161188) [#143838850] bet 20.48 BTC at 49.5% and won 20.48 BTC ***
12:56:42 *** berathea (161188) [#143838880] bet 20.48 BTC at 49.5% and lost ***
12:56:42 *** berathea (161188) [#143838924] bet 40.96 BTC at 49.5% and won 40.96 BTC ***
12:52:21 (163512) <chelsea> This is a NONPROFIT gambling site ..... )))))))))))
12:56:47 *** berathea (161188) [#143839057] bet 5.12 BTC at 49.5% and lost ***
12:56:49 *** berathea (161188) [#143839085] bet 10.24 BTC at 49.5% and won 10.24 BTC ***
12:56:54 *** berathea (161188) [#143839178] bet 10.24 BTC at 49.5% and lost ***

[Rampion]

Yep, Nakowa just lost and reloaded 1,790BTC. A degenerate gambler is a degenerate gambler. That's why casinos exist

[broolstoryco]

Yep, Nakowa just lost and reloaded 1,790BTC. A degenerate gambler is a degenerate gambler. That's why casinos exist

christmas came early

[broolstoryco]

profit at 4300, 3000btc incoming... ugh

[BitcoinLeader]

Wow, I just saw this user "berathea" winning around 500 BTC in just  5 minutes. Insane!

[RationalSpeculator]

profit at 4300, 3000btc incoming... ugh

seriously, he just deposited another 3000 btc?  

After just losing 4000 btc in few hours???

He really is going all in.

This might take the house down, divest bitches!

[DiamondCardz]

profit at 4300, 3000btc incoming... ugh

seriously, he just deposited another 3000 btc?  

After just losing 4000 btc in few hours???

He really is going all in.

This might take the house down, divest bitches!

I will never know how these people have hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around to gamble. They must be millionaires. 

[wachtwoord]

I will never know how these people have hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around to gamble. They must be millionaires. 

I suspect that people who mined early take it as free money, and thus are much more prone to gamble it (on casinos or stupid investments). When I made a lot of easy bitcoins with Primecoin mining, I was also much more bold.

Still, just take a minute to take in how much money it really is. Calculate how long you have to do your day job to earn these amounts.