Just-Dice.com game is rigged

[mechs]

This post is bullshit, a conclusion without any solid support.

No proof, no claim.

I'm the proof that doog's site is not rigged.

Yeah, unless you ARE me...

sigh, I hope I was you. Then I didn't have to prove to you anything... and I would have a much better "reputation" right now.

lol @ the newbies looking here and wondering what the heck is going on.

A complicated tale.

Thanks for defending Doog's honor.  Shouldn't you get back to DDoSing Just-Dice so people will go to your crappy letsdice with its 2% house edge?

[dooglus]

i had 11 times under 50 in a row.. can someone calc the chance of that crack? 0o

p.s. its not a rig its luck

Woa, that is many of them.  Were these wins or losses.  I got almost that many once before but too bad they weren't big bets.

People never complain when they win 11 times in a row.  They usually don't even notice, because they're typically not doubling their bet every time they win.

It's when they lose 11 times in a row that the accusations start flying. 

[mc1225]

i had 11 times under 50 in a row.. can someone calc the chance of that crack? 0o

p.s. its not a rig its luck

Woa, that is many of them.  Were these wins or losses.  I got almost that many once before but too bad they weren't big bets.

People never complain when they win 11 times in a row.  They usually don't even notice, because they're typically not doubling their bet every time they win.

It's when they lose 11 times in a row that the accusations start flying. 

You are so right.

[yvv]

i had 11 times under 50 in a row.. can someone calc the chance of that crack? 0o

p.s. its not a rig its luck

It's 1 in 2048.

How many rolls did you make?  The more you make, the more likely you are to see 1-in-2048 events.

Fuck, I lost 15 times in a row in your fucking game. Yes, I know what is a chance, and how bad I am fucked up.

I did below 1000 games. ))

[rfisher1968]

The only way just-dice.com can cheat anyone is to know how the gambler bets.

Say that I bet 70% of the time on high and I never let my nonce go past 200. The next time I hit randomize just-dice.com can pick a server seed and client seed that produces negative results based on my betting style. But this can be overcome by entering your own client seed. So my advice is to always pick your own client seed if you think just-dice.com is rigged.  What I don't know is if a entered in client seed is known to just-dice.com before a server seed is picked. If it is known, then this could/can be used by just-dice.com to produce negative results for the gambler.

This is just pure speculation.

[fenican]

One of the many fallacies with Martingale is that bettors think extended losing streaks are rare when, in fact, they are an exceedingly common - and statistically probable - outcome in any long sequence of bets

[jlcooke]

One of the many fallacies with Martingale is that bettors think extended losing streaks are rare when, in fact, they are an exceedingly common - and statistically probable - outcome in any long sequence of bets

Perhaps a bit OT (frankly, moving OT sounds a great idea at this point).

Question: is there a way to view my investment balance over time as a chart?  The past 30 days would be great to illustrate my question.

The past few weeks I saw my investment profits in JD go from 0.80 BTC Mondays up to 1.08 BTC Sundays only to see it go back down to 0.78 BTC the next Monday morning (Eastern Time zone).

Understanding that 10% of profits I make in a given week I wonder if others are seeing this would like to comment on why this is happening?

10% of (1.08-0.80) = 0.028

So Monday I should see my profit stand at 1.062 BTC but it's currently at about 0.78 BTC.

Volatility I understand, even this behaviour is statistically possible (lots of players losing Sundays but then they go on a winning streak last-Sunday to early-Monday).  But this seems like a very low probability to occurr 3 weeks in a row.

Code:

2013-09-07  15655.98310993
2013-09-08   5150.63159109
2013-09-09   1663.19716859
2013-09-10   2809.54404842
2013-09-11   3895.55491310
2013-09-12   3776.94898158
2013-09-13   3569.81366765
2013-09-14   4849.77142126
2013-09-15   4188.36475008

Code:

biggest cumulative gains in last 24 hours

+--------+--------------+
| uid    | profit       |
+--------+--------------+
| 127021 | 221.02813105 |
|  13839 |  27.23663092 |
|  12433 |    16.019802 |
| 124162 |      13.8435 |
|  88818 |       8.2501 |
|   9780 |   5.73832733 |
| 129398 |   5.09825233 |
| 114382 |     4.256836 |
| 128071 |         3.71 |
| 125863 |   3.07536812 |
+--------+--------------+

biggest cumulative losses in last 24 hours

+--------+---------------+
| uid    | profit        |
+--------+---------------+
| 128039 | -119.95574434 |
|  23069 |  -22.47396041 |
|  55555 |     -19.08584 |
|  78612 |    -7.4543464 |
| 128872 |            -7 |
| 129734 |         -6.76 |
| 110477 |    -6.0217465 |
| 113327 |       -4.7746 |
|  76634 |       -4.4653 |
| 123187 |        -4.337 |
+--------+---------------+

biggest cumulative amount wagered in last 24 hours

+--------+---------------+
| uid    | wagered       |
+--------+---------------+
| 127021 | 5266.83490895 |
| 128039 |  903.97145621 |
|  13839 |  597.19132332 |
|  23069 |     465.92495 |
|   9780 |  356.15823636 |
| 128119 |  273.19112971 |
| 129398 |  166.05712256 |
| 124162 |      127.9935 |
| 129734 |  100.38998501 |
| 125863 |   94.32733625 |
+--------+---------------+

[dooglus]

So my advice is to always pick your own client seed if you think just-dice.com is rigged.  What I don't know is if a entered in client seed is known to just-dice.com before a server seed is picked.

The 'randomize' dialog shows you the hash of your new server seed before asking you for your client seed.

That's essential, because otherwise as you point out, the site could cheat you.

[dooglus]

Question: is there a way to view my investment balance over time as a chart?  The past 30 days would be great to illustrate my question.

Not currently, but I can show you the overall site profits over the last few weeks.  Your investment balance will go up and down with the site bankroll.



The vertical gridlines correspond to midnight Sunday UTC, ie. when commission is taken.  You can see that yesterday there was a big drop in profits (due to Doctor Lee martingaling a small deposit up to 900 BTC!) but I don't see the same thing on previous weeks.

Edit: replaced chart with up-to-date one

[aksplace]

Infinite law of probability should not be used as a mathematical stance when in regards to statistical gambling Douglas. If that was the case surely this would have happened by someone at sometime during the past 100 years.

[dooglus]

Infinite law of probability should not be used as a mathematical stance when in regards to statistical gambling Douglas. If that was the case surely this would have happened by someone at sometime during the past 100 years.

I've no idea what you're referring to or what you mean.  Maybe quote the point I made that you're disagreeing with; that might help.

Are you saying that just because there's a 1 in 1024 chance of losing 10 50/50 rolls in a row you can't use that fact when looking at a sequence of real dice rolls?  Because that sounds silly to me.  But I can't think what else you're getting at.

And that looks like a photo of something that happened.  Some time during the past 100 years someone folded up some clothes and put them in a dryer.  But what's your point?

[aksplace]

Infinite law of probability should not be used as a mathematical stance when in regards to statistical gambling Douglas. If that was the case surely this would have happened by someone at sometime during the past 100 years.

I've no idea what you're referring to or what you mean.  Maybe quote the point I made that you're disagreeing with; that might help.

Are you saying that just because there's a 1 in 1024 chance of losing 10 50/50 rolls in a row you can't use that fact when looking at a sequence of real dice rolls?  Because that sounds silly to me.  But I can't think what else you're getting at.

And that looks like a photo of something that happened.  Some time during the past 100 years someone folded up some clothes and put them in a dryer.  But what's your point?

The point is law of probability is a farce and not mathematics. According to the infinite law of probability by putting your wet clothes into a dryer some day or time they will be perfectly folded and organized which we both know is not a reality. I'm not necessarily arguing any particular comment you made accept the fact 1 in 1024 chances is assuming the particular program is legitimate. Now we both know I think Just-Dice is but should only be used if a legitimate 3rd party has the winning/losing draws prior to the roll. If not any scam company could claim as such which is a green card for cheats and scammers to exploit legitimate customers.

[Dabs]

The rolls from just-dice are fixed as soon as you randomize and input your client seed. The server seed is fixed. The client seed is fixed. And the nonce is known all the way to the next billion rolls. All results can be computed. You can verify it after, just randomize again to get the previous server seed.

Then you can now compute the same rolls from start to finish.

[organofcorti]

Infinite law of probability should not be used as a mathematical stance when in regards to statistical gambling Douglas. If that was the case surely this would have happened by someone at sometime during the past 100 years.

I've no idea what you're referring to or what you mean.  Maybe quote the point I made that you're disagreeing with; that might help.

Are you saying that just because there's a 1 in 1024 chance of losing 10 50/50 rolls in a row you can't use that fact when looking at a sequence of real dice rolls?  Because that sounds silly to me.  But I can't think what else you're getting at.

And that looks like a photo of something that happened.  Some time during the past 100 years someone folded up some clothes and put them in a dryer.  But what's your point?

The point is law of probability is a farce and not mathematics.
<snip>

I must take issue with this statement.

[dooglus]

I must take issue with this statement.

He PM'ed me and we continued the discussion there.  He seems a little confused about things.

Here's how it went:

(08:30:44 PM) dooglus: I don't know the infinite law of probability you refer to
(08:30:55 PM) dooglus: I don't know any mathematical law about clothes dryers
(08:31:09 PM) aksplace: hehe no worries
(08:31:15 PM) dooglus: but to say probability isn't math is odd
(08:31:22 PM) dooglus: it is a part of math
(08:31:25 PM) aksplace: well it is
(08:31:39 PM) aksplace: but only if that probability could be verified prior to any drawing
(08:31:49 PM) aksplace: if not its a theory
(08:31:59 PM) dooglus: we can test the theory
(08:32:22 PM) dooglus: generate a billion rolls using the roll algorithm.  see that the distribution is very nearly linear
(08:32:56 PM) aksplace: agree but again with that happening thats only based on the fact the player would get the same distibution
(08:33:01 PM) dooglus: you don't have to trust Just-Dice - it is provably fair.  I publish the hash of the server seed before you roll, and the algorithm that does the rolling
(08:33:17 PM) aksplace: we dont know that for a certainty to many shady companies
(08:33:20 PM) dooglus: then when you're done, I publish the seed, so you can generate the rolls for yourself and see that they're the same
(08:34:01 PM) dooglus: the point of probably fairness is that you don't have to trust the company - you can check for yourself whether the rolls were fair
(08:34:11 PM) dooglus: you have to trust them to pay you when you click 'withdraw' of course

Nice typo towards the end. 

That's all that was said about it.  After that he changed the subject.

[mechs]

If Just-Dice is rigged, it is apparently rigged so the house loses judging by house much we are down since the last commission period.  Please rig it the other way!

[aksplace]

(08:34:01 PM) dooglus: the point of provably fairness is that you don't have to trust the company - you can check for yourself whether the rolls were fair

Not true the point is a company can exploit the roll based on the outcome they want it to be http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

I agree just-dice got hit hard by dr lee in which we considered lowering the financial security of the company based on it. I still don't see a reason though to do such just yet.

[The Goat Master]

(08:34:01 PM) dooglus: the point of provably fairness is that you don't have to trust the company - you can check for yourself whether the rolls were fair

Not true the point is a company can exploit the roll based on the outcome they want it to be http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

Yes, kingpfsports posted that I believe.

[aksplace]

I think he did but has been mentioned int he past by several companies prior to that. This is why I repeat the following:

The point is law of probability is a farce and not mathematics. According to the infinite law of probability by putting your wet clothes into a dryer some day or time they will be perfectly folded and organized which we both know is not a reality. I'm not necessarily arguing any particular comment you made accept the fact 1 in 1024 chances is assuming the particular program is legitimate. Now we both know I think Just-Dice is but should only be used if a legitimate 3rd party has the winning/losing draws prior to the roll. If not any scam company could claim as such which is a green card for cheats and scammers to exploit legitimate customers.

[dooglus]

(08:34:01 PM) dooglus: the point of provably fairness is that you don't have to trust the company - you can check for yourself whether the rolls were fair

Not true the point is a company can exploit the roll based on the outcome they want it to be http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

Do you think any of those points apply to Just-Dice?  If so, which?

It's hard to argue against such a large wall of text which was written about a different site with quite different provably fairness.

I claim that the user can independently verify that we're not cheating him and offer a description of how to do it, and even link to third-party tools that do it for him.  Do you see any way Just-Dice can cheat its users given this?  If so, how specifically?

I agree just-dice got hit hard by dr lee in which we considered lowering the financial security of the company based on it. I still don't see a reason though to do such just yet.

Who is "we" and how would you be able to lower Just-Dice's "financial security"?