Hi, guys, I (NAKOWA) was beaten. Lost 5k BTC in two days (Still UP).

[DumbFruit]

Holy Cow!, while I was looking around allover's profile I found out something astonishing!
Stay puckered, I'm about to blow this case wide open.

Gender:   Female

~DRAMATIC MUSIC~ DUH NUH NUH NUH NUH NUH DUH DUH DUH DUH NUUUUUH

This was all a ploy to get Dooglus' attention! Nakowa is attracted to Dooglus! -sexually-

That is really cute and all, but do you have any idea how many pairs of investors underwear needed to be thrown out after this little flirt festival? I don't have an exact number but my guesstimation is; Alot.

If you wanted to get his attention you could have just sent him a picture of your feet. (I bet he's a feet person.)

Oh but what am I saying, that is so romantic!

Sure I don't have any proof, but it's very UNFAIR to be a woman and play on Dooglus' site. Heck, I am straight dude, and I'VE got the hots for the Doog. A woman doesn't stand a chance.

And what are the flipping odds? A woman on just-dice that doesn't want to get into Dooglus' pants. HAH! I don't think so. You think I'm gullible or something? I'm onto you, Nakowa, there's no denying it any longer!

Follow your heart, stop all the bickering. Kiss and makeup. You know you want to.
(I want you to.)

[allover]

As you are aware, Just-Dice is under DDoS attack.  The attack is constantly ongoing.

Nice try Doog, but why it's always lagging more often when bigger bets lost?

Quite simply, it isn't.  You're imagining it.  Or if it is, it's a coincidence.  Random chance.

Psychologists call it an "observation bias"

You're right... only if I'm the only one who observes this. Oh, if I was the only one, JD is more suspicious.

[CBitz]

rumor has it that you DDOSed JD, is that playing by rule? or how about that 1300 free chips bitch move drama, or the swallowing of your own words not coming back to JD. Not that I care but Doog may owe one apology to you, while you owe at least 3 apologies to him.

People have DDOSed JD before. What proof do you have he's the one behind it this time?

[dooglus]

But another 1000 was waiting for confirmation, you didn't see that? you're always broadcasting my account information in the Chat room: like "4 left in the balance, 500 is coming..." (1)
And did you say something like this: "the change will protect investor from someone"? (2)

I saw that you had a deposit pending and so weren't playing at the time, yes.  I wanted to reduce the variance to protect the bankroll and waited for betting activity to stop before I did so.  It was the early hours of the morning and I wanted to sleep.  If I had waited for you to stop depositing and playing I could well have been waiting all night.

I don't think I said anthing like that, no.  But the forum had a 'quote' mechanism which you can use to quote people.  This wasn't about you.  It was about protecting the site from the massive swings we had been seeing.

[dooglus]

You have some points. However, the obvious thing Doog has changed is Max Profit, and the change is specifically for me, even Doog himself doesn't deny this.

I deny this.  The change was to protect the bankroll from the risk of ruin that I perceived.  It doesn't matter whether it was you or someone else with a large bankroll getting lucky.  I was acting to defend the site, not to attack any particular player.

[Rampion]

But another 1000 was waiting for confirmation, you didn't see that? you're always broadcasting my account information in the Chat room: like "4 left in the balance, 500 is coming..." (1)
And did you say something like this: "the change will protect investor from someone"? (2)

I saw that you had a deposit pending and so weren't playing at the time, yes.  I wanted to reduce the variance to protect the bankroll and waited for betting activity to stop before I did so.  It was the early hours of the morning and I wanted to sleep.  If I had waited for you to stop depositing and playing I could well have been waiting all night.

I don't think I said anthing like that, no.  But the forum had a 'quote' mechanism which you can use to quote people.  This wasn't about you.  It was about protecting the site from the massive swings we had been seeing.

Doog, let's do not make up reality, the change was made to protect the bankroll from the swings caused precisely by Nakowa and ONLY by Nakowa, for the simple reason he is the only one pushing max profit.

Changing the max profit while he was playing was kinda unfair and counter productive, there's no shame in admitting a mistake, you already apologized for this to Nakowa and IMO we should just move on.

Max profit will be soon at 0.5%, IMO is a decent compromise (even if I prefer optimal kelly) and anyhow any change to this or other parameters should be announced with at least 12h advance. This way Nakowa can prove to all us naysayers how his strategy really works.

My bet is his strategy is just BS, and he will go busto long before the house.

[DumbFruit]

Don't feed her, Dooglus, that will only strengthen the unbearable lust she feels for you.

Instead, you just need to let her down easy.

Or... Maybe you two could "partner up", "merge assets", and "start a new baby".

Call it;

LetsJustDice
And stop all the drama.

[dooglus]

Doog, let's do not make up reality, the change was made to protect the bankroll from the swings caused precisely by Nakowa and ONLY by Nakowa, for the simple reason he is the only one pushing max profit.

If nobody was making huge bets causing the bankroll to plummet then I wouldn't have made the change, that's true.  And nakowa was the only one doing it.

So in that sense I made the change because of nakowa.

But he sees it as a personal attack and was offended by it.  It wasn't personal.  It was for the good of the site's bankroll, not an attack on nakowa.

I doubt it makes any sense trying to explain that to him.  He thinks that the lag on the site is somehow working against him too.  He's not being rational at the moment.

[dooglus]

Don't feed her, Dooglus, that will only strengthen the unbearable lust she feels for you.

Instead, you just need to let her down easy.

Or... Maybe you two could "partner up", "merge assets", and "start a new baby".

Call it;

LetsJustDice
And stop all the drama.

I just checked whether LetsF*ck.com was available.  It wasn't.  And I wouldn't recommend going there.  NSFW indeed.

[DumbFruit]

 

[allover]

Doog, let's do not make up reality, the change was made to protect the bankroll from the swings caused precisely by Nakowa and ONLY by Nakowa, for the simple reason he is the only one pushing max profit.

If nobody was making huge bets causing the bankroll to plummet then I wouldn't have made the change, that's true.  And nakowa was the only one doing it.

So in that sense I made the change because of nakowa.

But he sees it as a personal attack and was offended by it.  It wasn't personal.  It was for the good of the site's bankroll, not an attack on nakowa.

I doubt it makes any sense trying to explain that to him.  He thinks that the lag on the site is somehow working against him too.  He's not being rational at the moment.

Doog, let's make this more clear:

You did make the change because of me, not "in a sense". And in a sense, it IS a personal attack. I played by rules you set, and you fought back by changing rules, is that what "provable fairness" is about?

I do NOT see it as me being offended, I see it as you being UNFAIR.

You said I'm taking things personal, but in fact, it's you taking things personal:

If nobody was making huge bets causing the bankroll to plummet then I wouldn't have made the change, that's true.  And nakowa was the only one doing it.

If you're a true believer of mathematics as you alleged, you should know it's maths, or variation that causinng the bankroll to plummet, NOT me, a player who plays by rules! But you think it's me doing it, WOW! you surprised me!

Whereas you're under the great pressure, you always choose the wrong direction. Otherwise, you're a nice guy.

About the lagging, I'm clearly not the only one who got hurt. I had no proof, so I use the word "supect", and hoping you can prove yourself clear. That's all.

[Rampion]

Doog, let's do not make up reality, the change was made to protect the bankroll from the swings caused precisely by Nakowa and ONLY by Nakowa, for the simple reason he is the only one pushing max profit.

If nobody was making huge bets causing the bankroll to plummet then I wouldn't have made the change, that's true.  And nakowa was the only one doing it.

So in that sense I made the change because of nakowa.

But he sees it as a personal attack and was offended by it.  It wasn't personal.  It was for the good of the site's bankroll, not an attack on nakowa.

I doubt it makes any sense trying to explain that to him.  He thinks that the lag on the site is somehow working against him too.  He's not being rational at the moment.

Doog, let's make this more clear:

You did make the change because of me, not "in a sense". And in a sense, it IS a personal attack. I played by rules you set, and you fight back by changing rules, is that what "provable fairness" is about?

I do NOT see it as me being offended, I see it as you being UNFAIR.

Whereas you're under the great pressure, you always choose the wrong direction. Otherwise, you're a nice guy.

About the lagging, I'm clearly not the only one who got hurt. I had no proof, so I use the word "supect", and hoping you can prove yourself clear. That's all.

Nakowa: just use a third party tool to check your rolls, they will completely match what you had during your last sessions - the site is PROVABLY FAIR, meaning that you can check for yourself that there was no cheating, and that's a fact. The lag, if it existed at all, had absolutely no effect on the dice numbers. This is non debatable, Dooglus already proved himself uploading a screenshot, you can check by yourself using a third party tool - end of the story.

If you think the problem here was the max profit %, no problem - in a while you will be able to prove to us how your strategy beats the house if the max profit is taken to 0.5%.

[allover]

But another 1000 was waiting for confirmation, you didn't see that? you're always broadcasting my account information in the Chat room: like "4 left in the balance, 500 is coming..." (1)
And did you say something like this: "the change will protect investor from someone"? (2)

I saw that you had a deposit pending and so weren't playing at the time, yes.  I wanted to reduce the variance to protect the bankroll and waited for betting activity to stop before I did so.  It was the early hours of the morning and I wanted to sleep.  If I had waited for you to stop depositing and playing I could well have been waiting all night.

I don't think I said anthing like that, no.  But the forum had a 'quote' mechanism which you can use to quote people.  This wasn't about you.  It was about protecting the site from the massive swings we had been seeing.

Doog, could you give me the log of JD's chat room, where you said it, and hence I cannot "quote" you here in the forum.

[Cluster2k]

Nakowa is still going.  I'll just leave this here:

"One observer recorded a video of the Just-Dice’s public bet log which shows Nakowa beginning Friday night with over $111,000 in losses before winning a single bet. At the risk of making the understatement of the century, things soon turned around for Nakowa in a big way."

http://www.dailydot.com/news/biggest-bitcoin-win-gambling-history-nakowa/

Was JD rigged when you started playing, unrigged to allow many investors to flee and the site to record a large loss, and then rerigged as you came back to play?  You're making it sound that you only started losing after dooglus publicly changed the rules.  That the game was 'totally different' when the betting limit was reduced.  How totally different was it when you were losing early on?  Leave aside gambler's fallacies in the process.

[dooglus]

You did make the change because of me, not "in a sense". And in a sense, it IS a personal attack.

I made the change because of what was happening to the bankroll.  It doesn't matter who was causing it to happen.  It doesn't matter who you are.  I would have reacted the same way if any other anonymous bettor was causing the site's bankroll to plummet.

I played by rules you set, and you fought back by changing rules, is that what "provable fairness" is about?

No.  Provable fairness is about proving that the numbers you get are chosen fairly, nothing else.  It proves that when you say "I bet 60 BTC that a random number will be bigger than 50.5" we don't and can't pick a number lower than 50.5 to make you lose.  It proves that we have no control over the number that is picked.  Please take the time to understand provable fairness and then you won't have doubts about lag etc.

About the lagging, I'm clearly not the only one who got hurt. I had no proof, so I use the word "supect", and hoping you can prove yourself clear. That's all.

And I have proved myself clear.  I even provided a screenshot.  I linked to third party tools that allow you to reproduce the rolls.  What more do you need?

[allover]

Nakowa: just use a third party tool to check your rolls, they will completely match what you had during your last sessions - the site is PROVABLY FAIR, meaning that you can check for yourself that there was no cheating, and that's a fact. The lag, if it existed at all, had absolutely no effect on the dice numbers. This is non debatable, Dooglus already proved himself uploading a screenshot, you can check by yourself using a third party tool - end of the story.

If you think the problem here was the max profit %, no problem - in a while you will be able to prove to us how your strategy beats the house if the max profit is taken to 0.5%.

It's suspecious about lagging, not "provably fair". With the same algorithm, the game could simply ignore the previous winning result, and place another bet (win or lose, doesn't matter, equivalent to raise the house edge two folds higher), and give the player a tremendous hit, especially when betsize is large. Don't know whether I've made myself clear.

[Rampion]

Nakowa, let's put it this way:

As an investor, I'm the house. You won quite a lot of money from me and other investors. I watched you and I never thought you cheated, I'm 99.9% sure you are honest and playing in a fair way. I'm also 99.99999999% sure J-D is completely legit, and that you cannot beat the house edge if you play long enough. You can be lucky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times in a row, but not indefinitely.

Thus, I dare you to prove your strategy really works. If it really works you will be able to bankrupt the house. Its your money against mine, just play long enough until us or you go busto.

If you don't, it would just be like admitting you acknowledge there is no strategy, no patterns to spot, just luck and variance. Honestly, in that case I would be happy for you. You would have come out from your delusion, learnt a big lesson and cashed in a huge profit in the process.

What do you say?

[allover]

Nakowa, let's put it this way:

As an investor, I'm the house. You won quite a lot of money from me and other investors. I watched you and I never thought you cheated, I'm 99.9% sure you are honest and playing in a fair way. I'm also 99.99999999% sure J-D is completely legit, and that you cannot beat the house edge if you play long enough. You can be lucky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times in a row, but not indefinitely.

Thus, I dare you to prove your strategy really works. If it really works you will be able to bankrupt the house. Its your money against mine, just play long enough until us or you go busto.

If you don't, it would just be like admitting you acknowledge there is no strategy, no patterns to spot, just luck and variance. Honestly, in that case I would be happy for you then. You would have come out from your delusion, learnt a big lesson and cashed in a huge profit in the process.

What do you say?

I do have a stetegy, but not the kind with gambler's fallacy. JD's game has an exploit, by which I could easily create large variation. I've talked about that before, but no body believes me. And then, I proved by actions, won again and again, reaped the whole profit, until I was beaten by Doog changing rules. Believe it or not, if I was not UNFAIRLY trapped, I might well win more.

However, most people here tend to believe they truly are masters of Mathematics, with biased wishful thinking. No one could have that LUCK, used 700 bankroll (the maximum down I had), up to at most 16000. That's not luck, that's only because JD has something wrong. I'm reluctant to elaborate what's the exploit. I have no obligation to do so.

(NOT as people imagined that I knew the seed. I don't know the seed. I'm even reluctant to change my client seed, only changed once in the last session, because my loss is too unusual. Doog once suspected I hacked into JD's server, but he understand no one can copy data from a harddrive and leave no trace.)

[Peter R]

Thus, I dare you to prove your strategy really works. If it really works you will be able to bankrupt the house. Its your money against mine, just play long enough until us or you go busto.

What do you say?

Since I don't believe we treated Nakowa fairly, I would be willing to take this a step further.  [But I doubt this will be popular among investors, and I don't know how difficult this would be to implement].

Subject to ONE PROVISION, I would be willing to credit Nakowa's account by an amount equal to all the losses he has taken since the change was made.  

HERE'S THE PROVISION: His funds are *locked* at JD until the total volume of his bets is twice* the bet volume of the voided sequence.  I.e., he must keep betting and cannot withdraw any funds until his total bet volume is high enough**.  

*the reason I am saying twice the volume is to account for the fact that had Nakowa's bets after the change been winning bets, then he would have likely kept his winnings happily.

**I guess he must also exceed the volume within 7 days or so, or he forfeits this back to the investors.

EDIT: I am assuming we lock his account after the credit such that his total locked balance is higher than the credited amount by some factor that we would negotiate. 

[Rampion]

Nakowa, let's put it this way:

As an investor, I'm the house. You won quite a lot of money from me and other investors. I watched you and I never thought you cheated, I'm 99.9% sure you are honest and playing in a fair way. I'm also 99.99999999% sure J-D is completely legit, and that you cannot beat the house edge if you play long enough. You can be lucky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times in a row, but not indefinitely.

Thus, I dare you to prove your strategy really works. If it really works you will be able to bankrupt the house. Its your money against mine, just play long enough until us or you go busto.

If you don't, it would just be like admitting you acknowledge there is no strategy, no patterns to spot, just luck and variance. Honestly, in that case I would be happy for you then. You would have come out from your delusion, learnt a big lesson and cashed in a huge profit in the process.

What do you say?

I do have a stetegy, but not the kind with gambler's fallacy. JD's game has an exploit, by which I could easily create large variation. I've talked about that before, but no body believes me. And then, I proved by actions, won again and again, reaped the whole profit, until I was beaten by Doog changing rules. Believe it or not, if I was not UNFAIRLY trapped, I might well win more.

However, most people here tend to believe they truly are masters of Mathematics, with biased wishful thinking. No one could have that LUCK, used 700 bankroll (the maximum down I had), up to at most 16000. That's not luck, that's only because JD has something wrong. I'm reluctant to elaborate what's the exploit. I have no obligation to do so.

(NOT as people imagined that I knew the seed. I don't know the seed. I'm even reluctant to change my client seed, only changed once in the last session, because my loss is too unusual. Doog once suspected I hacked into JD's server, but he understand no one can copy data from a harddrive and leave no trace.)

Are you saying that if max profit is restored to 1% you will be able to bankrupt the casino if you play long enough?