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

[mechs]

Very good post oda, I agree especially on you analysis on "investment daytrading".

Regarding the competitive advantage of the 1% edge, it looks to me that 1.5% might be less attractive for guys like Nakowa, but nevertheless investors would make more money which is ultimately the goal of the site. I might be wrong and we could lose too much volume, it's difficult to calculate.

Finally, I see the chance of Nakowa cheating almost none. Yesterday he lost two smallish deposits and he did a bigger one to cover that losses, as a degenerate gambler would do. He started with a high bet of 130BTC, after a few hours he went to 170BTC, and the last hours he just went berserk and started to make bets as high as max profit allowed hin. The amount if high bets in relation to the smaller ones also increased dramatically at the end of his session, like he was getting anxious.

Finally, in the first few hours he took the house to - 6k, which meant +4k for him, but nevertheless he didn't stop because his goal was to cover the 5k loss of his previous two sessions. Finally and after 14 extenuating hours he stopped by winning 1k coins, but in the process he risked up to 8k. First, that doesn't seem like an unlikely outcome. Secondly, all the above completely looks to me as the behavior of a deluded compulsive gambler, and not the behavior  of a cheater.

I would move beyond the point of whether Nakowa is cheat at this point and instead more simply ask is the site functioning as intended. It seems we consistently come up with improbable results with yesterday just being the latest example. As an example, gambling for 14 hours straight and mostly spamming max bets should give the house edge an opportunity to work. That is on the gambling side.

On the investment side, the intention was for profit or gain  = % of bankroll X site profit or gain.   I understand their may be some slight deviations from that, but myself and many of the other passive investors are experiencing significant deviations from this expectation.  Personally, my personal loss was about 35% greater than expectations for the last session. This is due to meaningful fluctuation in the investment amount at the time of large fluctuations in the house profit.  

If Dooglus is okay with these phenomenon on both the gambling and and investment side, then let him say so and that will be the end of that.  If either of these are deviating far from Dooglus' expectations and plans for J-D, then some sort of corrective action should be considered.

Last 3 days % on USD lost/USD Wagered - Not really on the outside realm of possibilities
-1.69%
-0.19%
-0.71%

\
I said improbable, not impossible. And I am talking over the longer term since the site started.

[dragonkid]

I don't understand how to invest in this. I clicked invest, but there is no details of any address, which I can send it to.

[Rannasha]

I don't understand how to invest in this. I clicked invest, but there is no details of any address, which I can send it to.

Click Deposit first. After depositing coins, you can invest (and you can make the second step automatic if you enable auto-investing).

[bitcoin44me]

I don't understand how to invest in this. I clicked invest, but there is no details of any address, which I can send it to.

You need to make a deposit first and then invest from your balance

[dragonkid]

I don't understand how to invest in this. I clicked invest, but there is no details of any address, which I can send it to.

Click Deposit first. After depositing coins, you can invest (and you can make the second step automatic if you enable auto-investing).

Thanks I will give it another try.

[oda.krell]

@pascal257

re: withdrawal delay. Maybe not a withdrawal delay per se, because it could make the *gamblers* nervous, but an 'investment from new deposit' delay should have the same effect, and only affect investors

@rampion

re: house edge 1% vs 1.5%. Thanks for your support. I said I'd rather wait a bit with raising house edge. Let's be honest: if nakowa moves away completely now, we're in a deep minus that'll take a long time to reverse (though I hope nakowa's as compulsive as we think he is). So the edge might not affect him anyway.

On the other hand, if we wait another week, let's see what happens. If site profit keeps going down (to new lows), I agree, raise the house edge. But if it stabilizes or goes up, we won't have chased customers away to the competition.

But, yes, I ultimately agree with you: a site that is not profitbale for investors in a very very long time (say, many months), will ultimately become uninteresting.

[mechs]

@pascal257

re: withdrawal delay. Maybe not a withdrawal delay per se, because it could make the *gamblers* nervous, but an 'investment from new deposit' delay should have the same effect, and only affect investors

@rampion

re: house edge 1% vs 1.5%. Thanks for your support. I said I'd rather wait a bit with raising house edge. Let's be honest: if nakowa moves away completely now, we're in a deep minus that'll take a long time to reverse (though I hope nakowa's as compulsive as we think he is). So the edge might not affect him anyway.

On the other hand, if we wait another week, let's see what happens. If site profit keeps going down (to new lows), I agree, raise the house edge. But if it stabilizes or goes up, we won't have chased customers away to the competition.

But, yes, I ultimately agree with you: a site that is not profitbale for investors in a very very long time (say, many months), will ultimately become uninteresting.

It will stay interesting to gamblers.

[oda.krell]

@pascal257

re: withdrawal delay. Maybe not a withdrawal delay per se, because it could make the *gamblers* nervous, but an 'investment from new deposit' delay should have the same effect, and only affect investors

@rampion

re: house edge 1% vs 1.5%. Thanks for your support. I said I'd rather wait a bit with raising house edge. Let's be honest: if nakowa moves away completely now, we're in a deep minus that'll take a long time to reverse (though I hope nakowa's as compulsive as we think he is). So the edge might not affect him anyway.

On the other hand, if we wait another week, let's see what happens. If site profit keeps going down (to new lows), I agree, raise the house edge. But if it stabilizes or goes up, we won't have chased customers away to the competition.

But, yes, I ultimately agree with you: a site that is not profitbale for investors in a very very long time (say, many months), will ultimately become uninteresting.

It will stay interesting to gamblers.

Like I said: let's wait one week. If site profit goes up, we didn't cause any damage. But if we hit new lows/nothing changes, then I support 1% --> 1.5% house edge

[ottodv]

More importantly however, whatever you think the reason for this is, please look at nakowa's yesterday winning charts and tell me that there is no "exploitable" pattern to it:

That's all easy with hindsight. The hard part is being sure of the exploitable pattern of Nakowa's next run.

Similarly, I've noticed BTC trading in the 130-145 range over the last weeks. What's stopping you from selling at say 142 and buying back at 135 repeatedly? Would have been a winning strategy over the last weeks/months. What could possibly go wrong...

[ctlaltdefeat]

Well, the binomial distribution does not really fit here, as it measures the number of successes without placing any weight on losses.

This is wrong. It fits perfectly as there is only two possible outcomes win or loss and when n is large a reasonable approximation to it is given by the normal distribution.

Well, it fits perfectly in measuring the number of wins, but it does not take into account the losses incurred.
If you wanted to calculate the probability this way, you would need to look at the discrepancy between the number of wins, and not the overall profit:
Let's look at it from the perspective of the gambler this time (it doesn't matter)
Consider the binomial distribution of his wins with the same conditions. The expected value of this distribution is 8910 (which would mean house won 9090 times, and therefore house profit is 36000), and the variance around 4500. However, in order to have house profit be lower or equal to -3000, gambler must have won at least 9007.5 times.  As you said, with an n this big the distribution is essentially normal (as with every normalized sample average of independent and identically distributed finite-variance random variables - this is what the central limit theorem states). Therefore, plugging it into the normal distribution with mean 8910 and variance 4500, we get that the probability of this occurring is around 7.3%, which is what I got previously

[oda.krell]

More importantly however, whatever you think the reason for this is, please look at nakowa's yesterday winning charts and tell me that there is no "exploitable" pattern to it:

That's all easy with hindsight. The hard part is being sure of the exploitable pattern of Nakowa's next run.

Similarly, I've noticed BTC trading in the 130-145 range over the last weeks. What's stopping you from selling at say 142 and buying back at 135 repeatedly? Would have been a winning strategy over the last weeks/months. What could possibly go wrong...

I'm addressing that point in my post: I said, at around bet 6000, some people decided it's a "pattern" and traded accordingly.

You also noted that I said, several times in fact, that I'm aware that in the long run, investment "trading" should be -EV, right?

But that wasn't my argument anyway: in the short run, it can be +EV. So a loss like the one we suffer now isn't distributed evenly over investors. So the losing investors will be unhappy. So the site will lose investors, which is bad for everyone.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument why invest-trading hurts j-d. And the complementary argument is: there's no good reason to *want* invest-trading: j-d already has a gambling mechanism. Investments should be just that: investments.

[Bitsinmyhead]

Well, it fits perfectly in measuring the number of wins, but it does not take into account the losses incurred.
If you wanted to calculate the probability this way, you would need to look at the discrepancy between the number of wins, and not the overall profit:
Let's look at it from the perspective of the gambler this time (it doesn't matter)
Consider the binomial distribution of his wins with the same conditions. The expected value of this distribution is 8910 (which would mean house won 9090 times, and therefore house profit is 36000), and the variance around 4500. However, in order to have house profit be lower or equal to -3000, gambler must have won at least 9007.5 times.  As you said, with an n this big the distribution is essentially normal (as with every normalized sample average of independent and identically distributed finite-variance random variables - this is what the central limit theorem states). Therefore, plugging it into the normal distribution with mean 8910 and variance 4500, we get that the probability of this occurring is around 7.3%, which is what I got previously

Thank you for this explanation, I now think I understand your point  .

[mechs]

The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%.  This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%.  With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%.  Is that logic correct?  If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?

[ottodv]

So a loss like the one we suffer now isn't distributed evenly over investors. So the losing investors will be unhappy. So the site will lose investors, which is bad for everyone.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument why invest-trading hurts j-d. And the complementary argument is: there's no good reason to *want* invest-trading: j-d already has a gambling mechanism. Investments should be just that: investments.

Had Nak's run gone the other way, they would have been the winning investors, and they would have been quite happy to take a larger share of the gains I am sure. Nobody would now be calling for any tinkering of the system either.

There's no need to do anything. Investing in JD is a gamble anyway and in the long term daytrading will likely make no difference to those who stay invested. Besides we've only heard from the winners because they feel they've been smart, just like Nak feels he's a smart gambler whatever he calls himself.

My feeling is that some people who took a hit are pissed off that other people managed to make some money. While this is understandable, tinkering with the system just to appease them, with measures that probably don't work anyway and make no difference overall are just a waste of time.

There's even a chance that such tinkering is mildly detrimental for the site. What if a gambler decides to invest while he doesn't play? Say he wants to make a few rolls each day and always stops after 15 minutes, hoping to have made a profit, then reinvests. Why would you want to prevent that and either dissuade him from gambling or from investing or from keeping his money on the site. My impression is that are quite a lot of people doing both gambling and investing.

[oda.krell]

So a loss like the one we suffer now isn't distributed evenly over investors. So the losing investors will be unhappy. So the site will lose investors, which is bad for everyone.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument why invest-trading hurts j-d. And the complementary argument is: there's no good reason to *want* invest-trading: j-d already has a gambling mechanism. Investments should be just that: investments.

Had Nak's run gone the other way, they would have been the winning investors, and they would have been quite happy to take a larger share of the gains I am sure. Nobody would now be calling for any tinkering of the system either.

There's no need to do anything. Investing in JD is a gamble anyway and in the long term daytrading will likely make no difference to those who stay invested. Besides we've only heard from the winners because they feel they've been smart, just like Nak feels he's a smart gambler whatever he calls himself.

My feeling is that some people who took a hit are pissed off that other people managed to make some money. While this is understandable, tinkering with the system just to appease them, with measures that probably don't work anyway and make no difference overall are just a waste of time.

There's even a chance that such tinkering is mildly detrimental for the site. What if a gambler decides to invest while he doesn't play? Say he wants to make a few rolls each day and always stops after 15 minutes, hoping to have made a profit, then reinvests. Why would you want to prevent that and either dissuade him from gambling or from investing or from keeping his money on the site. My impression is that are quite a lot of people doing both gambling and investing.

re: "only people who lost want to tinker with the system". Nope. I'm still ahead in invest profit. And I'm in favor of a delay.

re: gamble&re-invest. You're right, I've done so as well. And you still can do that, only with one hour delay.

Also, you're not really addressing my point: invest-trading/gambling serves absolutely no purpose (the example you gave, of gambling, then re-investing is something else), and there is arguably negative consequences. If something has no positive side, and quite possibly a negative side, then it is only rational to get rid of it.

[Keyser Soze]

The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%.  This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%.  With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%.  Is that logic correct?  If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?

If I understand things correctly, the luck percentage has the house edge built in already.

The luck percentage displayed shows how many rolls you have won compared to how many you 'should' have won.

The luck percentage should, over time, be very close to 100%.

[mechs]

The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%.  This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%.  With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%.  Is that logic correct?  If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?

If I understand things correctly, the luck percentage has the house edge built in already.

The luck percentage displayed shows how many rolls you have won compared to how many you 'should' have won.

The luck percentage should, over time, be very close to 100%.

After 146 million bets it just seems like luck should be a lot closer to 100% than it is currently.  Though I do not have the math chops to really prove it.  Hoping someone else could tell us how probably the current luck of all users are.

[TheFuneral]

The problem I see is that we have all the small guys whining. The lowest I've seen investment is ~30k BTC. That leaves ~5-10k BTC left for swinging investors. What happened to the voice of the 30kBTC that has believed in the site from the start and has never left? I know this is america and the squeaky wheel gets the grease but for fucks sake. If you don't like it LEAVE. At this time YOU ARE THE MINORITY.

[mechs]

The problem I see is that we have all the small guys whining. The lowest I've seen investment is ~30k BTC. That leaves ~5-10k BTC left for swinging investors. What happened to the voice of the 30kBTC that has believed in the site from the start and has never left? I know this is america and the squeaky wheel gets the grease but for fucks sake. If you don't like it LEAVE. At this time YOU ARE THE MINORITY.

This is not america.  The site is run by a canadian and investors come from all over the world.

[chriswen]

The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%.  This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%.  With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%.  Is that logic correct?  If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?

If I understand things correctly, the luck percentage has the house edge built in already.

The luck percentage displayed shows how many rolls you have won compared to how many you 'should' have won.

The luck percentage should, over time, be very close to 100%.

Really?  I think luck is supposed to approach around 101%.  Dooglus made a comment about it being above 101% before.