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

[elm]

Dooglus,

Is there anything you can do to fix the lag issue? many bets take 5-10 seconds to finish.  I'm able to spam 5-10 bets in a row, and then have to wait 5 seconds on random bets.

You can see that it makes for frustrating gambling, and since that is our main product, what can we do address this service issue ??

yes that frustrated me also

[pascal257]

Dooglus,

Is there anything you can do to fix the lag issue? many bets take 5-10 seconds to finish.  I'm able to spam 5-10 bets in a row, and then have to wait 5 seconds on random bets.

You can see that it makes for frustrating gambling, and since that is our main product, what can we do address this service issue ??

Have you checked this: https://just-dice.com/#a12

[wachtwoord]

A little on Naks run last night

He started at about -2839 with 36k invested amd max profit about 180.  Got down to +300ish and ran it back up to -4300 up 1500ish.  All in about a half hour.

Then he invested about 12k and site sits at -2700 now and with about 25% of bankroll he made about 400 of the 1600 coins thus the 36k bankroll he prior to him investing is down 300 coins.

si his total haul since lasr night is 1900 coins nice day at the office.

He definitely knows how to annoy the investors.

Thx for the report.

I love this guy

[nicolaennio]

HOWEVER!!!

Watching yesterday's ridiculous action and reading the comment above from eltopo (There is no regression to the mean. If we're at +5000, we can go to +10000 as likely as to 0.) have made me realize something: while that statement is true, there is a way you can successfully daytrade because while you do not know future rolls, there is some publicly available info about the future. Bear with me:

IF:

A) You know nokawa follows a random walk, up and down, betting close to max bet, until he loses his entire last deposit OR he makes X BTC (for example, yesterday it was 2k + making up for his previous losses, so 5k)
B) You can see what his balance is (people seem to be able to do this, not sure how)
C) You can see when he is depositing again
D) All other betting going on is relatively so small that we can safely ignore it.

THEN:

A strategy where you divest when he is near losing his last deposit and invest when he is near reaching his goal, then you can make the decision to daytrade EV+ with respect to passive investing. This is because when he is near losing his entire deposit, you only stand to gain very little from him losing it all, and a lot to gain if he doesn't; similarly, when he is near his goal, you stand to lose little if he reaches his goal as compared to how much you stand to gain if he dips back down toward losing his latest deposit. Finally, because (somehow) people know how much his balance is and they see when he has incoming deposits, even if you divest and he loses another, say, 500BTC and loses his deposit, there will be a break while he reloads, so you can invest again and start a new "session".

The point is, like dooglus said, the downside to daytrading is that you might miss a huge 30k slide by nakowa at any point. But the problem with this is that you WON'T miss it (if you're paying attention and day trading), because you'll see nakowa lose his whole balance and then see the new deposit coming.


Does this make sense? So, this would push me toward being anti-daytrading being permitted, but so far I haven't heard any effective methods for preventing it given that you can open unlimited accounts.

Trolling? What part of what I wrote makes you think I'm trolling? I was just thinking out loud, playing devils advocate on the daytrading thing (I made it clear at the beginning of my post). And what does, "I cannot see why everyone here would blame a martingale 1,2,4,8" mean?

I did not mean to offend you personally, if I did please accept my excuses.

Suppose that just-dice had not 1% of edge but 99%, so that if we toss a coin there is 0.05% of winning two times the bet. In that case players have a bad life and we agree that investing/divesting (daytrading) at any time (even knowing the bankroll of the players) does not make sense, we would be investors of a quite greedy casino' indeed. Do you agree?  If you agree suppose that the edge is 98%, has something changed? Will you make daytrading? No. If it is 97%? 96%? ..20%? Is there an edge where you start to "daytrade"?

[tucenaber]

Very clear, thanks so much. Very valuable information!  


Is it correct to state that it now already happened that a whale took bankroll down to 57%? So the 10% chance already happened?

(Considering bankroll should now normally be around 40k + 37k profit, but is only 40k (or 50k with whale included).)

I don't think my numbers can give exact answers like that. I think their value is in showing what the important risk factor is, and that seems to be maximum win.

[oda.krell]

A lot of the discussion about investment daytrading daygambling misses the point:

It doesn't matter if investment daytrading is long-term -EV or not (as I said before, if the site is compromised it could be +EV, because then the bets aren't random either anymor), but the real point is this:

What's the point of allowing investments in the site to be another form of gambling, when there already *is* a way to gamble if you want to do so?

Right now, a number of investors lost more than their share of the house loss because of this trading. It makes them unhappy.

So the only relevant question, in my opinion is:

Is a majority of investors in favor of daytrading (because they like to do so themselves)

or

Is a majority of investors against daytrading (because they suffered additional losses because of it)

(yes, there could be a third, indifferent group, but I'm simplifying here)

I propose we find out what the majority of investors think about this, and then bring the issue to dooglus for consideration.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting investment daytrading: introduce a one hour (or so) delay to re-investing after divesting (and add additional measure to reduce the risk of circumvention via multiple accounts). The goal is not to reduce daygambling to 0%, but to limit it.

[GOB]

I did not mean to offend you personally, if I did please accept my excuses.

Suppose that just-dice had not 1% of edge but 99%, so that if we toss a coin there is 0.05% of winning two times the bet. In that case players have a bad life and we agree that investing/divesting (daytrading) at any time (even knowing the bankroll of the players) does not make sense, we would be investors of a quite greedy casino' indeed. Do you agree?  If you agree suppose that the edge is 98%, has something changed? Will you make daytrading? No. If it is 97%? 96%? ..20%? Is there an edge where you start to "daytrade"?

I see your point, that's a good argument. What I would say is that your argument can be made even simpler looking at %-win instead of the question of edge: if Nakowa was spamming 98% bets, betting 40,000BTC per bet to win ~200btc per bet, you'd have to be invested all the time because you don't know when that 1 in 50 huge loss is coming. Same goes if he's betting 2btc over and over at 1%-- You never know when that big loss is coming. But my argument before holds for 50% bets with a small edge because his bankroll follows a sort of random walk and you have enough time to invest divest as he is reaching one end or another of his Goal <---> Last Deposit spectrum.

Again, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that the day traders under those conditions could make EV+ decisions. But only under those conditions. For example, if you don't know how much nakowa has deposited, you don't know where his lowerbound is, and by divesting you could lose out on a huge loss by the player.

[GOB]

A lot of the discussion about investment daytrading daygambling misses the point:

It doesn't matter if investment daytrading is long-term -EV or not (as I said before, if the site is compromised it could be +EV, because then the bets aren't random either anymor), but the real point is this:

What's the point of allowing investments in the site to be another form of gambling, when there already *is* a way to gamble if you want to do so?

Right now, a number of investors lost more than their share of the house loss because of this trading. It makes them unhappy.

So the only relevant question, in my opinion is:

Is a majority of investors in favor of daytrading (because they like to do so themselves)

or

Is a majority of investors against daytrading (because they suffered additional losses because of it)

(yes, there could be a third, indifferent group, but I'm simplifying here)

I propose we find out what the majority of investors think about this, and then bring the issue to dooglus for consideration.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting investment daytrading: introduce a one hour (or so) delay to re-investing after divesting (and add additional measure to reduce the risk of circumvention via multiple accounts). The goal is not to reduce daygambling to 0%, but to limit it.

What would this be? I'm afraid any limitations would be foiled by the reality that I can have hundreds of accounts. If you mean introduce delays and other complications merely to make it difficult or annoying for daytraders, that seems like a bad deal for investors who would suffer the same encumbrances without actually putting much of a dent in daytrading.

Also, when talking about daytrading/daygambling, I, for one, talk about it being EV+ or EV- as compared to leaving the investment alone, which is EV+. So if by daytrading I can't do any better than just leaving the investment alone, the expected value of daytrading would be zero as compared to investing straight, which is EV+.

Finally, if daytrading (as compared to straight investing) is EV=0, then the fact that in the last few rounds of nakowa insanity they diluted the pot for everyone else should be irrelevant. If it truly is EV=0, then the chances of that happening balance out with the chances that they'll miss out on a big nakowa loss and investors that stayed invested will take home a greater share of the win.

[Rampion]

A lot of the discussion about investment daytrading daygambling misses the point:

It doesn't matter if investment daytrading is long-term -EV or not (as I said before, if the site is compromised it could be +EV, because then the bets aren't random either anymor), but the real point is this:

What's the point of allowing investments in the site to be another form of gambling, when there already *is* a way to gamble if you want to do so?

Right now, a number of investors lost more than their share of the house loss because of this trading. It makes them unhappy.

So the only relevant question, in my opinion is:

Is a majority of investors in favor of daytrading (because they like to do so themselves)

or

Is a majority of investors against daytrading (because they suffered additional losses because of it)

(yes, there could be a third, indifferent group, but I'm simplifying here)

I propose we find out what the majority of investors think about this, and then bring the issue to dooglus for consideration.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting investment daytrading: introduce a one hour (or so) delay to re-investing after divesting (and add additional measure to reduce the risk of circumvention via multiple accounts). The goal is not to reduce daygambling to 0%, but to limit it.

I fully agree with your analysis on daygambling. I think the "daygambling" possibility adds a random gambling aspect on to of the volatility created by the small house edge. I love the fact JD is extremely liquid, but I strongly believe a stable bankroll will be better for the site in the long run. The fact is that investors who do not "daygamble" are getting hurt, and I have the impression this won't be good in the long run.

[nicolaennio]

A lot of the discussion about investment daytrading daygambling misses the point:

It doesn't matter if investment daytrading is long-term -EV or not (as I said before, if the site is compromised it could be +EV, because then the bets aren't random either anymor), but the real point is this:

What's the point of allowing investments in the site to be another form of gambling, when there already *is* a way to gamble if you want to do so?

Right now, a number of investors lost more than their share of the house loss because of this trading. It makes them unhappy.

So the only relevant question, in my opinion is:

Is a majority of investors in favor of daytrading (because they like to do so themselves)

or

Is a majority of investors against daytrading (because they suffered additional losses because of it)

(yes, there could be a third, indifferent group, but I'm simplifying here)

I propose we find out what the majority of investors think about this, and then bring the issue to dooglus for consideration.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting investment daytrading: introduce a one hour (or so) delay to re-investing after divesting (and add additional measure to reduce the risk of circumvention via multiple accounts). The goal is not to reduce daygambling to 0%, but to limit it.

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

[oda.krell]

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.


Say you want to invest amount X from an existing account deposit: you can do so immediately (assuming you didn't divest less than an hour ago).

Say you make a new account deposit: you'll have to wait one hour. If you plan to leave your money invested for a while (even if it's only a few days), then one hour won't matter much.

Turn it anyway you want: the only people hit by a 1 hour delay are the daygamblers. Even short-term investors (who want to stay invested for less than a day) can still do so! It only prevents "riding the waves" of a whale like nakowa, and adds a minimum of investment stability, which I would think is beneficial.


EDIT: account --> deposit, otherwise it won't work.

this won't completely eliminate daygambling, but it will greatly reduce it:

Say you have amount X available. Currently, you can use that full amount for daygambling. Under the rules I propose, you can only use a fraction of desired daygambling frequency per hour - 1 of that amount for daygambling, because you'll have to split up the amount over that many different accounts ahead of time.

[GOB]

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account, if account age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.


Say you want to invest amount X from an existing account: you can do so immediately (assuming you didn't divest less than an hour ago).

Say you open a new account: you'll have to wait one hour. If you plan to leave your money invested for a while (even if it's only a few days), then one hour won't matter much.

Turn it anyway you want: the only people hit by a 1 hour delay are the daygamblers. Even short-term investors (who want to stay invested for less than a day) can still do so! It only prevents "riding the waves" of a whale like nakowa, and adds a minimum of investment stability, which I would think is beneficial.

This still has the same multiple-accounts weakness. If I already have 100 accounts, all more than 1 hour old. I can invest/divest 100 times with no restrictions.

[Rampion]

FUD is growing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nidbv/statisticsjustdice_scam_investigation_conclusion/

[oda.krell]

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account, if account age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.


Say you want to invest amount X from an existing account: you can do so immediately (assuming you didn't divest less than an hour ago).

Say you open a new account: you'll have to wait one hour. If you plan to leave your money invested for a while (even if it's only a few days), then one hour won't matter much.

Turn it anyway you want: the only people hit by a 1 hour delay are the daygamblers. Even short-term investors (who want to stay invested for less than a day) can still do so! It only prevents "riding the waves" of a whale like nakowa, and adds a minimum of investment stability, which I would think is beneficial.

This still has the same multiple-accounts weakness. If I already have 100 accounts, all more than 1 hour old. I can invest/divest 100 times with no restrictions.

True See my edit, please. Deposit age, instead of account age, should solve this (or at least greatly reduce the ability to daygamble)

[nicolaennio]

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.

I would suggest a slight modification

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'divest' action.

The change in rule 2 makes less annoying to deposit and I would not expect that someone who just deposited is going to divest after investing.

[nicolaennio]

FUD is growing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nidbv/statisticsjustdice_scam_investigation_conclusion/

Probably the author is the one of the email who did not receive the 400BTC :-D. Not much sense in that article however.

[oda.krell]

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.

I would suggest a slight modification

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'divest' action.

The change in rule 2 makes less annoying to deposit and I would not expect that someone who just deposited is going to divest after investing.

Good point. But it's a bit of a trade-off: under my rules, you were *always* able to divest and withdraw, so noone could have ever complained "But I need my money for something else RIGHT NOW!".

In principle, I like your solution slightly better though, because it allows new investors to jump in right away.

[elm]

FUD is growing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nidbv/statisticsjustdice_scam_investigation_conclusion/

Probably the author is the one of the email who did not receive the 400BTC :-D. Not much sense in that article however.

yep it could be the one who send the ugly blackmail letter. but I dont agree with You that the article/theory doesnt make sense. it is a possible scenario imo.

[wolverine.ks]

what about a script that text messages every time a whale starts playing?....

I've used auto hotkey, and can  text message or email with that, but I'm not sure how to detect when the whale. mp3 plays.

any suggestions?

[oda.krell]

Tucenabar, I cannot really understand you graphs, care to explain them again?

Ok, I will try. (I updated the previous post with a line explaining what's on the axes)

We know that the player will alway go bust eventually, if he keeps playing. So I ignored the number of plays and just asked the question, during the whole time from the point he starts and until he goes bankrupt, what is the minimum bankroll for the house? Or equivalently, what is the maximum capital of the player?

The graphs show the percentiles of the minimum bankroll.

With kelly bet. There is a 10% chance that the bankroll goes down to below 0.35, i.e. 35% of initial bankroll.

With 50% Kelly, there is a 10% risk of reaching going below 0.57 or 57% of initial bankroll.

With 25% Kelly bet, the 10% risk is 0.74 or 74%.

Does that make it clearer? I'm not very good at explaining I'm afraid

Thanks a lot for posting those results, tucenaber. I started doing some simple simulations myself yesterday, but I keep running into one conceptual problem, and was wondering if you maybe have an idea how to solve it:

You start from the premise of a single player playing until he goes bust.

First question: for a sufficiently large player bankroll (say, 10 times the casino bankroll) there should be the possibility as well that the casino does in fact go broke. Can you quantify that risk?

Second question: As your simulation shows, there's a 10% risk that we reach 57% of initial bankroll, assuming 1/2 kelly (it's a bit of a simplification I guess, since casino bankroll is dynamic, but it doesn't matter for our purposes). Say the whale/player stops at this point. That's a possibility, right? We could specify, ahead of time, "player keeps gambling until he brought the house down 40%". It was your choice to let the simulation run until the player is broke, but in reality, a player could pull out, leaving the site at 40% loss.

Now comes the tricky part, at least for me: (a) What if another whale comes along? (b) What if "the other whale" is the old whale, continuing to play. Is the correct way to think about this situation as independent probabilities, so in this case: there's a 10% chance the house lost 43% (assuming the whale "left"), and there's a 10% chance that this will happen again (from the current, reduced bankroll), either by the same whale, or another whale who plays maximum profit bets?