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

[Keyser Soze]

I don't really see the benefit in creating an investor risk adjustment option. The site already has a fairly large bankroll, do we really need to accommodate larger bets? Why create a confusing and hard to implement (from my understanding) system that isn't really needed?

[SebastianJu]

I don't really see the benefit in creating an investor risk adjustment option. The site already has a fairly large bankroll, do we really need to accommodate larger bets? Why create a confusing and hard to implement (from my understanding) system that isn't really needed?

Why adjustable chances when just-dice could be a simple even bet site?

And what confusion? The gambler wouldnt see a difference at all and for investors that dont care wouldnt change anything at all too. They would stay at 0.5% as usual. But for all others there is a chance to adjust.

Its not hard to implement. When the profit per person really is calculated while divesting then the profit would be calculated by the set risk level. Before that at investing the playable max profit is adjusted matching the investors risk level too. Doesnt sound like many more calculations to me. I think even fully free setable risk levels could be possible. Though im not sure why someone wrote about too much calculations then. As far as i see it at the moment its only an adjustment in code, a database entry for risk level of every investor and a database field for the playable max profit for the house is new. Adjusted at every in- or divestment.

[Keyser Soze]

Why adjustable chances when just-dice could be a simple even bet site?

And what confusion? The gambler wouldnt see a difference at all and for investors that dont care wouldnt change anything at all too. They would stay at 0.5% as usual. But for all others there is a chance to adjust.

Its not hard to implement. When the profit per person really is calculated while divesting then the profit would be calculated by the set risk level. Before that at investing the playable max profit is adjusted matching the investors risk level too. Doesnt sound like many more calculations to me. I think even fully free setable risk levels could be possible. Though im not sure why someone wrote about too much calculations then. As far as i see it at the moment its only an adjustment in code, a database entry for risk level of every investor and a database field for the playable max profit for the house is new. Adjusted at every in- or divestment.

By investor risk I was referring to the max profit per roll percentage, currently 0.5%. I would not want to create different betting pools as dicenow has, for example.

Right now the site takes the results of any bet and distributes it based on each investor's portion of the bankroll. Only investing or divesting causes that percentage to change. If investors were able to adjust their risk (their portion of the max profit per roll), then the site would have to recalculate investor's percentage of ownership much more frequently. Not to mention implementing a different method to properly account for wins/losses.

Imagine we had many investors all with various amounts of risk (0.1% to 1% profit per bet, for example). Now think of how the site would handle bets of different sizes, not just max profit bets. As far as I know, there is no easy calculation to solve this problem. If you do have one I'd love to hear it.

Now I am not very familiar with server management, but I could see how a significantly more complex calculation for each bet could greatly increase the server's load.

This issue was discussed in great detail awhile back in this thread. I assume nothing has happened yet because it is not an easy change to make, nor is there an consensus in the implementation.

Edit: I've looked at dicenow, but don't really see how they are calculating the variable risk. It mentions leverage and I don't know why. The variable risk should have nothing to do with leverage.

[nimda]

I don't really see the benefit in creating an investor risk adjustment option. The site already has a fairly large bankroll, do we really need to accommodate larger bets? Why create a confusing and hard to implement (from my understanding) system that isn't really needed?

I just gave three scenarios in which it might be useful.

[...] there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind:

• A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
• A lack of bitcoins
• Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)

Upon rereading I think maybe what you are suggesting by "leverage" would be raising your individual kelly percent above 1%. In other words, saying you're willing to bet bigger than the optimal amount  (because you like to gamble with a positive edge). I can sorta see some validity to that.

That is correct and the reason for the scare quotes.

[Keyser Soze]

I just gave three scenarios in which it might be useful.

[...] there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind:

• A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
• A lack of bitcoins
• Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)

We must be talking about two different things then. I am referring specifically to individual investors being able to change from the default 0.5% max profit, not leverage.

[VolanicEruptor]

so is just-dice the most popular btc gambling site right now?  what are the big competitors?

[GeoRW]

Thanks for explaining maqifrnswa!

You haven't answered my question, you keep explaining that 1% Kelly is better than 0.5% Kelly. Let me rephrase it: Suppose my investment setting is 0.5% Kelly, and yours is 1% Kelly, and we have invested the equal amount of BTC. The bettor bets 1BTC and looses. Does that mean that you get 2X the profit from that bet than I get? Or are you proposing something much more complicated? Once again - please give us one good example, it's far from obvious what exactly is your idea.

For a house advantage of 1% it would mean that 0.5% of your complete investment is taken and 1% of my full investment is taken and added to the max profit value. Thats the maximum a gambler can play for then. In case he plays for full profit as target and he wins i lose 1% of my investment and you 0.5%. If he loses we win proportionally to the risk played. It all boils down to the amount of bitcoins put into the jar that contains the winable amount of bitcoins.

This would be disadvantageous for current investors who want to stay at 0.5% Kelly. For the same amount of variance (or slightly higher) they would get less profit. Max profit is hit very rarely these days and only there you would experience full Kelly variance. Moreover, daytrading at these high-variance days has hit investors who did not divest greatly, which is not good for Dooglus and the site.

[gaba]

It's hard to watch Doge-Dice. Just one week old investor would never get back their money, me included. Minus is at least 7% and new investors are making my shear smaller and smaller. I did the same mistake in the begining of Just-dice. Some people will never learn .

[dooglus]

It's hard to watch Doge-Dice. Just one week old investor would never get back their money, me included. Minus is at least 7% and new investors are making my shear smaller and smaller. I did the same mistake in the begining of Just-dice. Some people will never learn .

What do you mean by "Minus is at least 7%"?

Recent daily wagered amounts have been:

2014-01-09 1470104439.13285180
2014-01-10 1272426906.11416900
2014-01-11 1485179035.07969600
2014-01-12 1339508235.87108920
2014-01-13 1401420378.62816760

That's more than is invested being wagered each day.  That means your expected investment growth is over 1% per day.

If "Minus is at least 7%" means you're 7% down on your investment, then doesn't the above suggest that you can expect to be back to even in 7 days?

There is a massive amount of betting on Doge-Dice compared to the size of the bankroll, which should be a good think for investors.  We've never seen anything like this on Just-Dice.  I guess the reason for this is that dogecoin's price is very volatile, so nobody wants to hold it long term, meaning people would rather gamble with it for a quick return than invest it for a slow return.  But that's just a guess.

[nimda]

I just gave three scenarios in which it might be useful.

[...] there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind:

• A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
• A lack of bitcoins
• Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)

We must be talking about two different things then. I am referring specifically to individual investors being able to change from the default 0.5% max profit, not leverage.

Alright, alright. I give up. I apologize for using a slightly incorrect word, in scare quotes, to describe the topic at hand. I had no idea it would cause this much confusion, and I certainly never thought someone would reply to a post with less than 200 words without actually reading the whole thing.

[Keyser Soze]

I just gave three scenarios in which it might be useful.

[...] there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind:

• A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
• A lack of bitcoins
• Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)

We must be talking about two different things then. I am referring specifically to individual investors being able to change from the default 0.5% max profit, not leverage.

Alright, alright. I give up. I apologize for using a slightly incorrect word, in scare quotes, to describe the topic at hand. I had no idea it would cause this much confusion, and I certainly never thought someone would reply to a post with less than 200 words without actually reading the whole thing.

My mistake then. Yes, some people may find it advantageous to potentially increase their profit and variance. It's hard to say how much it will really affect things though, the site rarely has bets for BTC100+ profit.

The implementation, as I understand it, is still no easy task though...

[gaba]

That's more than is invested being wagered each day.  That means your expected investment growth is over 1% per day.

Investment growth is about 30% form last week. So my share is 30% smaller and it keeps shrinking - theoretically. I'am out. It's to painful to watch.

[SebastianJu]

By investor risk I was referring to the max profit per roll percentage, currently 0.5%. I would not want to create different betting pools as dicenow has, for example.

I dont see that this is needed too. The house advantage at just-dice can stay at 1% like it always was, no other pool needed in my eyes. The kelly value is different from the house advantage.

Right now the site takes the results of any bet and distributes it based on each investor's portion of the bankroll. Only investing or divesting causes that percentage to change. If investors were able to adjust their risk (their portion of the max profit per roll), then the site would have to recalculate investor's percentage of ownership much more frequently. Not to mention implementing a different method to properly account for wins/losses.

Im not sure if im wrong now but i believe that wouldnt be a problem. At the moment there is only one value. The house. Every investment and divestment is calculated to or from it. When someone would invest at 1% kelly then the house would grow by the investment in total. The max profit wouldnt be a fixed value then anymore, taken from the house value, it would be its own value. So when someone adds an investment at 0.5% then the max profit is rising 0.5% of that investment. If someone invests at 1% kelly then max profit is rising 1% of the new investment.
While playing the house value and the max profit value is adjusted accordingly to the results of the bets and when someone is divesting the change of max profit value in comparison to the value of max profit at the time of investment is taken for calculating the profit or loss. I think thats just like it works now and it should even work with fully free adjustable kelly values. Only that the calculated max profit is independent from the kelly value then.
I might have a thought error i didnt see though.

Imagine we had many investors all with various amounts of risk (0.1% to 1% profit per bet, for example). Now think of how the site would handle bets of different sizes, not just max profit bets. As far as I know, there is no easy calculation to solve this problem. If you do have one I'd love to hear it.

Now I am not very familiar with server management, but I could see how a significantly more complex calculation for each bet could greatly increase the server's load.

This issue was discussed in great detail awhile back in this thread. I assume nothing has happened yet because it is not an easy change to make, nor is there an consensus in the implementation.

Edit: I've looked at dicenow, but don't really see how they are calculating the variable risk. It mentions leverage and I don't know why. The variable risk should have nothing to do with leverage.

I guess! that the server at the moment not even is using 5% of the CPU. I wouldnt know otherwise what its used for. I think the variable kelly wouldnt need a much higher CPU-Usage because the calculation of max profit out of the house or max profit calculating out of the last bets shouldnt mean a difference that is so much away from current status. (Under the premise i mentioned above...)

This would be disadvantageous for current investors who want to stay at 0.5% Kelly. For the same amount of variance (or slightly higher) they would get less profit. Max profit is hit very rarely these days and only there you would experience full Kelly variance. Moreover, daytrading at these high-variance days has hit investors who did not divest greatly, which is not good for Dooglus and the site.

So you dont want to take a higher risk but dont want that others take it too? I dont see the problem. Either you want the higher profit and take the risk or you play it safe. But at the moment its mathematically nonoptimal because some didnt want to take the risk of variance. Even though the past has shown that stochastics work pretty fine like it should.
Its correct that max profit bets are played seldom but then again... thats what a risk setting would be for. Setting your personal comfort zone between risk and possible gain.

Daytrading? For me it looks more like people invest when the profits are on top and divest when its below the value it should be. But i didnt observe that long enough maybe.


Anyone knows when the charts at https://bitcoinproject.net/ are back?

[eltopo]

Bitcoinproject should be back on the weekend.

It seems we have to get used to < 2000 wagered per day on JD without any whales. This is much too low for a site investment > 30k, the slice of the pie is getting really small...

Doog, please order some whales! 

[BayAreaCoins]

It's hard to watch Doge-Dice. Just one week old investor would never get back their money, me included. Minus is at least 7% and new investors are making my shear smaller and smaller. I did the same mistake in the begining of Just-dice. Some people will never learn .

What are you smoking?! I am 225ID and invested instantly when I saw it.  My investment is doing wonderful.  Never day trade a up trending market!

[dooglus]

What are you smoking?! I am 225ID and invested instantly when I saw it.  My investment is doing wonderful.  Never day trade a up trending market!

Shortly after launching Doge-Dice, I made a second account and invested 1 million DOGE, with a view to never touching the investment, just so I would have an easy answer to the common question "if someone invested X on day one, how would they be doing now?"

Here's how:



Edit: in case that isn't clear, it shows a 36% return over a one month period.  That's better than Pirate's BS&T ponzi!

Edit2: Re: "the slice of the pie is getting really small..." I agree.  My slice has shrunk from over 13% to a little over 0.1%.

[Dabs]

Much Wow! Too bad I didn't get into Doge much. Good luck to everyone involved. There's a lot of different alts to consider.

[VolanicEruptor]

I thought this guy doesn't advertise the investment part...

[Lohoris]

There's a lot of different alts to consider.

I disagree.
Most (almost all) of the alts are useless craps.
Doge would be as crap as the others, but it got so much attention that its purely speculative value increased a lot.
Still, since there is literally nothing backing it, it will likely pop.
If any other altcoin gets so much attention, it will be a good idea to consider offering services for it, but being aware that it is only a temporary fashon, that is going to end.

[gaba]

What are you smoking?! I am 225ID and invested instantly when I saw it.  My investment is doing wonderful.  Never day trade a up trending market!

Shortly after launching Doge-Dice, I made a second account and invested 1 million DOGE, with a view to never touching the investment, just so I would have an easy answer to the common question "if someone invested X on day one, how would they be doing now?"

Here's how:



Edit: in case that isn't clear, it shows a 36% return over a one month period.  That's better than Pirate's BS&T ponzi!

Edit2: Re: "the slice of the pie is getting really small..." I agree.  My slice has shrunk from over 13% to a little over 0.1%.

That can never happen again! But I admit good PR. Invest 1 million DOGE now and make the same report for 30 days.