The story behind my investment on letsdice.com

[organofcorti]

......

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

If you don't publish the 'hole', someone else will find it and exploit it (if it works). You have a duty to publish what you know if you want to be seen as open and honest.

Further, investing in a new site means I have to be able to trust the owners math ability. If you publish your analysis of the exploit you found and I find your analysis sound, then I'd be much more likely ot invest with you. Plus you will have saved JD investors from potential losses since a provable exploit will need to be fixed.

[towtoad]

......

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

If you don't publish the 'hole', someone else will find it and exploit it (if it works). You have a duty to publish what you know if you want to be seen as open and honest.

Further, investing in a new site means I have to be able to trust the owners math ability. If you publish your analysis of the exploit you found and I find your analysis sound, then I'd be much more likely ot invest with you. Plus you will have saved JD investors from potential losses since a provable exploit will need to be fixed.

I told dooglus about that in details. but I was told I was in a gambler's fallcy. so I've already given up on explaining.

I've tried amend that "hole" (if I'm not in a gambler's fallacy) on letsdice.com. Since LD is going to open, you'll see that. no secret on LD.

[opusdigitus]

......

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

If you don't publish the 'hole', someone else will find it and exploit it (if it works). You have a duty to publish what you know if you want to be seen as open and honest.

Further, investing in a new site means I have to be able to trust the owners math ability. If you publish your analysis of the exploit you found and I find your analysis sound, then I'd be much more likely ot invest with you. Plus you will have saved JD investors from potential losses since a provable exploit will need to be fixed.

He claimed in the just-dice chat room to have sold it to two people for 100btc each.  Yes, he is trying to make money off the "hole".  Seems legit, right?  What was the web address where people can buy it from you again, towtoad?

Edit:  nevermind, found it! For the bargain basement price of 111 BTC:    http://nakowa.herokuapp.com/

[organofcorti]

I told dooglus about that in details. but I was told I was in a gambler's fallcy. so I've already given up on explaining.
[/quote]

Telling dooglus is not the same as publishing it publicly. If dooglus is wrong, then you'll find more investors might move to your site. If he's right, then you've fixed a hole that doesn't need fixing and may have left your self open to some other exploit in the process - in which case you'll want to know that.

I've tried amend that "hole" (if I'm not in a gambler's fallacy) on letsdice.com. Since LD is going to open, you'll see that. no secret on LD.

I might see that if you weren't being so goddamn inscrutable

[towtoad]

I told dooglus about that in details. but I was told I was in a gambler's fallcy. so I've already given up on explaining.

Telling dooglus is not the same as publishing it publicly. If dooglus is wrong, then you'll find more investors might move to your site. If he's right, then you've fixed a hole that doesn't need fixing and may have left your self open to some other exploit in the process - in which case you'll want to know that.

I've tried amend that "hole" (if I'm not in a gambler's fallacy) on letsdice.com. Since LD is going to open, you'll see that. no secret on LD.

I might see that if you weren't being so goddamn inscrutable
[/quote]

only in this single respect. nothing more.

[dooglus]

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

You told me two different ideas of what the 'hole' is.  First you claimed the hole was that the min and max bets were too far apart:

(11:01:12 AM) Chris: so how did you do it?
(11:01:32 AM) nakowa: you didn’t set a maximum bet limit, that’s a flaw.
(11:01:58 AM) Chris: oh really?
(11:02:00 AM) nakowa: without a maximum bet limitation, any martingale is working, with the right strategy
(11:02:05 AM) Chris: the 1% isn't a limit?
(11:02:19 AM) nakowa: What I did is going like this:
(11:02:26 AM) nakowa: bet a 2x
(11:02:29 AM) nakowa: bet 0.01
(11:02:36 AM) nakowa: if it lost, I’ll bet 50
(11:03:00 AM) Chris: there is a maximum bet - it is around 300 BTC
(11:03:17 AM) nakowa: but if 50 is lost, then don’t go back, bet 0.01 again, until one 0.01 lost happened, bet 50 again.
(11:03:30 AM) nakowa: yes, I saw that.
(11:03:52 AM) nakowa: since I won 2500, that mean I can win 250 or 15 easily...
(11:04:23 AM) Chris: can you explain what you meant with: "you didn’t set a maximum bet limit, that’s a flaw"?
(11:04:49 AM) nakowa: a martingale goes like this;
(11:05:11 AM) nakowa: 1. 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. 64....
(11:06:04 AM) nakowa: but I can bet from 0.00001, then I have a very large chance to win even when I get a bad luck that does a long roll of losses (say 1000 times losses), and then I win.
(11:06:22 AM) Chris: yes
(11:06:28 AM) Chris: but when you lose, you lose everything
(11:06:35 AM) nakowa: since the min starts from 0.0000001, a max of 320BTC is too large.
(11:06:42 AM) nakowa: did I make myself clear?
(11:06:49 AM) Chris: yes

but you don't start that low, and don't martingale.  So that didn't ring true, as I mentioned here:

(09:11:45 AM) nakowa: I’ve told you, the flaw is that you have no max and min limitation.
(09:12:00 AM) Chris: min isn't important - you start at 11!
(09:12:16 AM) Chris: 11 - 22 - 44 - 88 - 176 - bust
(09:12:21 AM) Chris: 5 losses and you are at max
(09:12:23 AM) Chris: that isn't much
(09:12:27 AM) nakowa: try to figure it out.
(09:12:30 AM) Chris: but somehow you don't get 5 losses
(09:12:32 AM) nakowa: I’m clicking mouse...
(09:12:36 AM) nakowa: not with any program...
(09:16:23 AM) nakowa: When I’m betting big, that’s just because I’m losing patience...

Later you changed your story, saying that it's all about creating large variance, and relying on the 'fact' that WLWL is the most common sequence of results.  When I challenged you on that, you changed the subject to selling your 'strategy':

(09:48:33 PM) nakowa: doog, you there?
(09:48:51 PM) nakowa:  I wrote a simple description of my strategy, you want to read?
(10:11:28 PM) nakowa has signed on.
(10:20:48 PM) nakowa: ?
(10:21:14 PM) Chris: hey
(10:21:18 PM) Chris: yes please
(10:21:26 PM) nakowa: 1. set chance to win to 50%, and bet on the pattern: lose win lose win lose win lose win; since this pattern will be ultimately most prevalent, and believing in this is not a gambler's fallacy.
2. bet very small until a lose occurs, then bet big;
2.a if won, back to test mode, bet very small and wait for another lose;
2.b if lose, don't panic, bet very small and and wait for another lose, no matter how many wins you get in this course...
3. do not increase the big bet often (double or triple); though you could test your luck from time to time
4. do not chase successive loses, don't think the chance will be altered because "too many lose happened in a roll", which is exactly the most lethal gambler killer.

the key is to create large variance
1. be patient when negative variance is happening. since it's 50:50 game, if you don't raise bet size, all you lose will be only 1% (house edge) in the long run.
2. take a rest, or quit, when you are in positive variance long enough.

(10:21:47 PM) Chris: I read step 1
(10:21:57 PM) Chris: and falter at "and believing in this..."
(10:22:05 PM) Chris: why do you believe that WLWL is the most common?
(10:22:11 PM) Chris: LLLL is the most common
(10:22:17 PM) nakowa:
(10:22:28 PM) nakowa: wwww
(10:22:44 PM) nakowa: also very common, but I’m trying bypass those wwwww llllll
(10:23:03 PM) nakowa: you can see in my betting history how many wwwwwwwww I bypassed.
(10:23:42 PM) Chris: you usually play at the 49.5% chance game
(10:23:51 PM) Chris: in that game LLLL is the most common sequence of 4 results
(10:23:59 PM) Chris: (because 50.5% of results are L)
(10:24:00 PM) nakowa: I have an idea this morning, what if I sell this strategy for 1300 btc, with the celeste’s address? if someone buys, the btc will directly go to your site.
(10:25:26 PM) nakowa: don’t know that effect this sell will bring?
(10:28:20 PM) Chris: do you think someone will buy it?
(10:28:37 PM) Chris: your strategy is clear from your bets, which everyone can watch
(10:29:36 PM) nakowa: don’t know.
(10:30:09 PM) nakowa: but who knows in this crazy world?

(An incident happened, which I have no interest to discuss here. They call me thief here: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gambler-cheats-satoshidice-competitor-just-dice-out-of-1300-btc/ However, Dooglus knew how that exactly happened. He didn’t disallow my further investment and play.)

I don't know how that happened at all.  You claim you left 1300 BTC unprotected on a laptop in a public cafe when you went outside to smoke.  That's pretty hard to believe, but also impossible to disprove.  If true, it does seem somewhat negligent.  But I'm in no position to throw that word around having accidentally left the 1300 BTC in your account in the first place.

[FanEagle]

If you have so much BTC in your pockets you should start giving away some fortune to us poor people that merely wins 0.01BTC in a week.

[KingOfSports]

If you have so much BTC in your pockets you should start giving away some fortune to us poor people that merely wins 0.01BTC in a week.

Get out begger. I wouldn't take 50 BTC if towtoad offered it, he/she owes 1300 BTC the way I see it. Let the degenerate keep his winnings. According to the story he told Dooglus he thinks that a couple losses in a row increases your odds of the next one being a winner. WRONG.

Every roll is independent of the previous ones. There is no difference. You can bet .01 100x and lose them all and its still a 49.5% chance of winning if you bet 50 BTC on the next roll as Towtoad tried to argue saying its different with Dooglus. What a joke.

[opusdigitus]

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

You told me two different ideas of what the 'hole' is.  First you claimed the hole was that the min and max bets were too far apart:

(11:01:12 AM) Chris: so how did you do it?
(11:01:32 AM) nakowa: you didn’t set a maximum bet limit, that’s a flaw.
(11:01:58 AM) Chris: oh really?
(11:02:00 AM) nakowa: without a maximum bet limitation, any martingale is working, with the right strategy
(11:02:05 AM) Chris: the 1% isn't a limit?
(11:02:19 AM) nakowa: What I did is going like this:
(11:02:26 AM) nakowa: bet a 2x
(11:02:29 AM) nakowa: bet 0.01
(11:02:36 AM) nakowa: if it lost, I’ll bet 50
(11:03:00 AM) Chris: there is a maximum bet - it is around 300 BTC
(11:03:17 AM) nakowa: but if 50 is lost, then don’t go back, bet 0.01 again, until one 0.01 lost happened, bet 50 again.
(11:03:30 AM) nakowa: yes, I saw that.
(11:03:52 AM) nakowa: since I won 2500, that mean I can win 250 or 15 easily...
(11:04:23 AM) Chris: can you explain what you meant with: "you didn’t set a maximum bet limit, that’s a flaw"?
(11:04:49 AM) nakowa: a martingale goes like this;
(11:05:11 AM) nakowa: 1. 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. 64....
(11:06:04 AM) nakowa: but I can bet from 0.00001, then I have a very large chance to win even when I get a bad luck that does a long roll of losses (say 1000 times losses), and then I win.
(11:06:22 AM) Chris: yes
(11:06:28 AM) Chris: but when you lose, you lose everything
(11:06:35 AM) nakowa: since the min starts from 0.0000001, a max of 320BTC is too large.
(11:06:42 AM) nakowa: did I make myself clear?
(11:06:49 AM) Chris: yes

but you don't start that low, and don't martingale.  So that didn't ring true, as I mentioned here:

(09:11:45 AM) nakowa: I’ve told you, the flaw is that you have no max and min limitation.
(09:12:00 AM) Chris: min isn't important - you start at 11!
(09:12:16 AM) Chris: 11 - 22 - 44 - 88 - 176 - bust
(09:12:21 AM) Chris: 5 losses and you are at max
(09:12:23 AM) Chris: that isn't much
(09:12:27 AM) nakowa: try to figure it out.
(09:12:30 AM) Chris: but somehow you don't get 5 losses
(09:12:32 AM) nakowa: I’m clicking mouse...
(09:12:36 AM) nakowa: not with any program...
(09:16:23 AM) nakowa: When I’m betting big, that’s just because I’m losing patience...

Later you changed your story, saying that it's all about creating large variance, and relying on the 'fact' that WLWL is the most common sequence of results.  When I challenged you on that, you changed the subject to selling your 'strategy':

(09:48:33 PM) nakowa: doog, you there?
(09:48:51 PM) nakowa:  I wrote a simple description of my strategy, you want to read?
(10:11:28 PM) nakowa has signed on.
(10:20:48 PM) nakowa: ?
(10:21:14 PM) Chris: hey
(10:21:18 PM) Chris: yes please
(10:21:26 PM) nakowa: 1. set chance to win to 50%, and bet on the pattern: lose win lose win lose win lose win; since this pattern will be ultimately most prevalent, and believing in this is not a gambler's fallacy.
2. bet very small until a lose occurs, then bet big;
2.a if won, back to test mode, bet very small and wait for another lose;
2.b if lose, don't panic, bet very small and and wait for another lose, no matter how many wins you get in this course...
3. do not increase the big bet often (double or triple); though you could test your luck from time to time
4. do not chase successive loses, don't think the chance will be altered because "too many lose happened in a roll", which is exactly the most lethal gambler killer.

the key is to create large variance
1. be patient when negative variance is happening. since it's 50:50 game, if you don't raise bet size, all you lose will be only 1% (house edge) in the long run.
2. take a rest, or quit, when you are in positive variance long enough.

(10:21:47 PM) Chris: I read step 1
(10:21:57 PM) Chris: and falter at "and believing in this..."
(10:22:05 PM) Chris: why do you believe that WLWL is the most common?
(10:22:11 PM) Chris: LLLL is the most common
(10:22:17 PM) nakowa:
(10:22:28 PM) nakowa: wwww
(10:22:44 PM) nakowa: also very common, but I’m trying bypass those wwwww llllll
(10:23:03 PM) nakowa: you can see in my betting history how many wwwwwwwww I bypassed.
(10:23:42 PM) Chris: you usually play at the 49.5% chance game
(10:23:51 PM) Chris: in that game LLLL is the most common sequence of 4 results
(10:23:59 PM) Chris: (because 50.5% of results are L)
(10:24:00 PM) nakowa: I have an idea this morning, what if I sell this strategy for 1300 btc, with the celeste’s address? if someone buys, the btc will directly go to your site.
(10:25:26 PM) nakowa: don’t know that effect this sell will bring?
(10:28:20 PM) Chris: do you think someone will buy it?
(10:28:37 PM) Chris: your strategy is clear from your bets, which everyone can watch
(10:29:36 PM) nakowa: don’t know.
(10:30:09 PM) nakowa: but who knows in this crazy world?

(An incident happened, which I have no interest to discuss here. They call me thief here: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gambler-cheats-satoshidice-competitor-just-dice-out-of-1300-btc/ However, Dooglus knew how that exactly happened. He didn’t disallow my further investment and play.)

I don't know how that happened at all.  You claim you left 1300 BTC unprotected on a laptop in a public cafe when you went outside to smoke.  That's pretty hard to believe, but also impossible to disprove.  If true, it does seem somewhat negligent.  But I'm in no position to throw that word around having accidentally left the 1300 BTC in your account in the first place.

Interesting chat.  Doog, I hope you don't expect me to pay you 111 BTC for revealing your "hole."  

[01BTC10]

This guy found a flaw on live roulette: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGCdBsOIKYA

[petrescuerz]

Interesting chat.  Doog, I hope you don't expect me to pay you 111 BTC for revealing your "hole." 

Oooh opus, can you please reveal his 'hole' to me??? You know I'm good for it!

[FanEagle]

If you have so much BTC in your pockets you should start giving away some fortune to us poor people that merely wins 0.01BTC in a week.

Get out begger. I wouldn't take 50 BTC if towtoad offered it, he/she owes 1300 BTC the way I see it. Let the degenerate keep his winnings. According to the story he told Dooglus he thinks that a couple losses in a row increases your odds of the next one being a winner. WRONG.

Every roll is independent of the previous ones. There is no difference. You can bet .01 100x and lose them all and its still a 49.5% chance of winning if you bet 50 BTC on the next roll as Towtoad tried to argue saying its different with Dooglus. What a joke.

Oh take it easy I was kidding.
From my side, I'm quite happy of the winnings I'm making myself on the casinos so I'm not caring how much he is winning nor I need his money.
I know how the dices works, and I know every roll is independent.
I had streaks of 12 winnings like I had streaks of 12 loosings. He had pure luck like a guy I met and saw playing an online poker tournament, and without even knowing the value of cards he won the first place.
Same stuff.

[GigaDice]

The thing I don't seem to understand is why wouldn't you privately fund LetsDice as you were upset with your investments being diluted in Just-Dice. Instead you encourage others to invest by giving them incentives for doing so further diluting your investment. This smells way too much like a ponzi.

[KingOfSports]

The thing I don't seem to understand is why wouldn't you privately fund LetsDice as you were upset with your investments being diluted in Just-Dice. Instead you encourage others to invest by giving them incentives for doing so further diluting your investment. This smells way too much like a ponzi.

In my opinion here is what is probably going to happen:
The owner creates the site, Towtoad invests, and then plays the game with the secret seeds told to him before he begins, and he slowly drains all of the other investors' monies. Then he claims he has an unbeatable strategy and tries making more funds off his illegitimate schemes.

The owner closes the site and splits the made off funds with Towtoad. And no one can fully prove that either party was involved in the bankroll being destroyed.

[w33mhz]

Sorry I think I am lost 19,601 BTC wagered with a profit of 47BTC and you have found a "hole".  I understand you are ending up with profit but thats a lot of risk to get 47BTC......  Thats .2% with the average bet around 4.3BTC sorry .2% is not worth it to me....  Investing in the bank has a better payout.

[GigaDice]

Sorry I think I am lost 19,601 BTC wagered with a profit of 47BTC and you have found a "hole".  I understand you are ending up with profit but thats a lot of risk to get 47BTC......  Thats .2% with the average bet around 4.3BTC sorry .2% is not worth it to me....  Investing in the bank has a better payout.

He profited over 4K Bitcoins

[joele]

The thing I don't seem to understand is why wouldn't you privately fund LetsDice as you were upset with your investments being diluted in Just-Dice. Instead you encourage others to invest by giving them incentives for doing so further diluting your investment. This smells way too much like a ponzi.

In my opinion here is what is probably going to happen:
The owner creates the site, Towtoad invests, and then plays the game with the secret seeds told to him before he begins, and he slowly drains all of the other investors' monies. Then he claims he has an unbeatable strategy and tries making more funds off his illegitimate schemes.

The owner closes the site and splits the made off funds with Towtoad. And no one can fully prove that either party was involved in the bankroll being destroyed.

+1 possible

[organofcorti]

I figure out there’s a hole in the game. I told what I thought to the site’s owner, Dooglus. Partly because of my poor English, I wasn’t capable of convincing him. (sorry, I don’t think I should write up what the hole really is here.) I was told that I was in a gambler’s fallacy. And for some days, I thought I was in a gambler’s fallacy too.

You told me two different ideas of what the 'hole' is.  First you claimed the hole was that the min and max bets were too far apart:
<snip>

Towtoad, if dooglus has indeed just revealed what you consider to be his "hole", then you're in no position to be starting, running or otherwise being associated with a dice site. Your ideas show a complete lack of knowledge, and I don't want someone who knows less than me about probability running a site where probability determines investor profit.

[b!z]

more reserved. Stocking up popcorn for dramas.

[towtoad]

The thing I don't seem to understand is why wouldn't you privately fund LetsDice as you were upset with your investments being diluted in Just-Dice. Instead you encourage others to invest by giving them incentives for doing so further diluting your investment. This smells way too much like a ponzi.

20% * 45% = 9%, and the shares will not be diluted, so, I think 9% is great for me.

I don't quite understand why you think "encouraging others to invest" is equivalent to "further diluting investment"?