🔶 YOLOdice's 1 Billionth Bet Celebration - LTC Competition! 🔶

[Kiritsugu]

Welcome to our 1 Billion Bets celebration!

In just over a year, YOLOdice has achieved over 1 Billion bets placed!  This is a huge milestone for dice sites, and its all thanks to you guys; our loyal players!  YOLOdice has certainly come a long way since the beginning, and many of you were part of making that happen.  To celebrate, we're launching a Litecoin wagering competition!

If you haven't heard of YOLOdice before or tried us out, now is the time to test your luck and win some coins!  We have blazing-fast Bitcoin and Litecoin betting, with Ethereum coming soon, a super lucrative affiliate program, Progressive Jackpots, Night Mode / Day Mode, enhanced privacy and security settings, and you can even earn rakeback on your wagered, all under a small 1% House Edge!

Here are some links to get you started:

YOLOdice Website: https://YOLOdice.com
Our BitcoinTalk Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674772.0
Our Twitter (We do loads of giveaways here too!): https://twitter.com/yolodicegame

How does this wagering competition work?

This competition will start at exactly 10:00am CT / 4:00pm UTC (right now!), and the competition will conclude in exactly 7 days; next Monday (March 12th) at 10:00am CT / 4:00pm UTC.  During this time, any and all LTC wagers made by players will count towards the contest (Please note: Bitcoin bets do not count towards the wagered amounts for the competition - this time is LTC only!). We have a public competition leaderboard that will track the competitors until the last day.  We'll be posting daily leaderboard updates here in this thread as well, so stay tuned!

The competition leaderboard can be found here: https://yolodice.com/#bonus

And it will look similar to this:

After exactly 7 days have passed, we will screenshot the YOLOdice Wagering Contest leaderboard and announce the winners.

Competition Prizes:

1 Billion Bets Bonus!

These competition prizes function a little differently this time, so pay close attention!  Our base prize pool is a total of 20 LTC distributed between the different prize ranks. However, if the site makes more than 20 LTC profit since the start of the competition, the prize pool will increase!  In other words, we're giving away 100% of our LTC profits during this competition, with a minimum of 20 LTC!

1st Place: 8.0 LTC
2nd Place: 4.0 LTC
3rd Place: 2.0 LTC

4th Place: 1.0 LTC
5th Place: 1.0 LTC

6th Place: 0.40 LTC
7th Place: 0.40 LTC
8th Place: 0.40 LTC
9th Place: 0.40 LTC
10th Place: 0.40 LTC

11th Place: 0.20 LTC
12th Place: 0.20 LTC
13th Place: 0.20 LTC
14th Place: 0.20 LTC
15th Place: 0.20 LTC
16th Place: 0.20 LTC
17th Place: 0.20 LTC
18th Place: 0.20 LTC
19th Place: 0.20 LTC
20th Place: 0.20 LTC

Please Note:  At the end of the contest, if you're one of the top 20, you must claim your prize by PMing ethan_nx on YOLOdice  by typing /pm 1 and then just let him know you're a winner.

[ethan_nx]

Good luck everyone! And cheers,
Ethan

[Krypton]

Congratulations Ethan ... May U achieve 100 times more next year  ... Keep it up guys ... !

[dooglus]

if the site makes more than 20 LTC profit since the start of the competition, the prize pool will increase!  In other words, we're giving away 100% of our LTC profits during this competition, with a minimum of 20 LTC!

What was the site's LTC profit at the start of the contest?

Edit: around 506.5 LTC I think:

[Kiritsugu]

if the site makes more than 20 LTC profit since the start of the competition, the prize pool will increase!  In other words, we're giving away 100% of our LTC profits during this competition, with a minimum of 20 LTC!

What was the site's LTC profit at the start of the contest?

Edit: around 506.5 LTC I think:

Yes, you are correct.

[Kiritsugu]

We're less than 24 hours into the competition, and already over 1,000 LTC has been wagered!  Doog has taken first place with over 583 LTC wagered just by himself - will he hold the lead?

[Kiritsugu]

We're now 2 days into the competition, and so far JohnLocke has taken the lead for first place with over 2,067 LTC wagered!  Incredible! 

[dooglus]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

Also, note:

So 1st place is currently 27.5 LTC.

[dooglus]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

[Kiritsugu]

We're now 3 days into the competition, and so far the prize pool is over 100 LTC!




Also here's the next update!  There's LOTS of action going on in the leaderboard, especially at the top, but there are still 4 days left for people to compete and place their wagers!

[ethan_nx]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

Hi,

we need to quickly find a solution to this: if more than one person has the same amount wagered, their prizes will be added up and then split equally between them. So if 1st and 2nd place has the same amount wagered, each of the prizes would be e.g. (8 LTC + 4 LTC) / 2. Plus the prize pool bonus.

Anyway, it does not seem to be justifiable to try to have exactly the same amount wagered as someone else, because you are just a single satoshi away from getting the higher prize. However, your opponent could react too and outbid you. Maybe it could be a nice problem for  game theory - it's not a prisoner dilemma, but still :-)

[hopenotlate]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

lol Cold War Strategies going on here 


Congrats both for your volume : impressive.

[dooglus]

Anyway, it does not seem to be justifiable to try to have exactly the same amount wagered as someone else, because you are just a single satoshi away from getting the higher prize. However, your opponent could react too and outbid you. Maybe it could be a nice problem for  game theory - it's not a prisoner dilemma, but still :-)

If there are two clear leaders, and they both realize that there is nothing to be gained by betting any more, they could come to a gentleman's agreement to tie and split the top two prizes. Otherwise if they fight it out one or both of them will likely bust, and a large percentage of their losses will go to the other 19 winners. It's kind of a prisoner's dilemma in that our combined EV is best if we cooperate, but our individual EVs are best if we are the only one to defect. There's also the possibility that there will be future rounds of the same kind of game, and so there is value in maintaining reputation in this round.

It's an interesting situation, because even if we agree to split, as you say, either one could make a last minute bet to 'steal' 1st place from the other. But John Locke gave me his word, and that's good enough for me:

The situation is currently complicated by the hidden psonowal83 (3959) player who took 1st place last night while I slept:

[yolocomp]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

Edit:
(https://i.imgur.com/9h4T1cS.png)

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.  Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.  Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

Third Edit:
I can't think of any scenario where this is fair.  If the closest player (currently the third person) joins the faction, then the fourth player gets screwed, and so on.  

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.  The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

[dooglus]

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

It appears to be a competition. And I've seen no rule against talking to your opponents to attempt to find mutually beneficial strategies.

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

Poker has rules against collusion and soft play. This wagering contest apparently doesn't.

Did you ever see the last 3 players in a poker tournament decide to split the top 3 prizes rather than playing until there was only one player left? Do you see at Pokerstars the "discuss a deal" button that is built into the software? I think you may not have picked the best example here.

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition

Do you know what "stealing" means? I'm not stealing anything. I am reducing the amount that I expect to contribute to the prize pool. The money that I am attempting to avoid donating to the prize pool is already mine. In attempting to retain money that is already mine I am clearly not stealing anything.

and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.

Yolodice loses money with every LTC bet that is made during this contest. 100% of the profits go into the prize pool, and Yolodice still has to pay out rakeback and referral payments on every bet. By betting less I am actually increasing Yolodice's equity.

Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Ethan doesn't seem too concerned, and I'm sure he will speak up if he has a problem with this.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.

The guy who comes 3rd gets the same whether 1st and 2nd tie or don't tie. If 1st and 2nd have agreed to stop betting then the guy in 3rd will find it easier to overtake them and come in 1st place.

Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

We're clearly not sharing an account. We are 2 people with 2 accounts. If we were going to combine our money in an attempt to win, we should have done that from the start rather than splitting out effort into two equal parts.

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.

Beating two players who have bet 2k each is exactly as hard as beating one player who has bet 2k. You have to bet more than 2k to beat them in both cases.

The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

First play currently pays 48 LTC, and you need to wager 2700 LTC to get into 1st place. The 1% house edge means that you expect to lose 27 LTC wagering that much. Doesn't that mean it's +EV to join the game right now, especially if the top players have stopped playing?

[yolocomp]

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

It appears to be a competition. And I've seen no rule against talking to your opponents to attempt to find mutually beneficial strategies.

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

Poker has rules against collusion and soft play. This wagering contest apparently doesn't.

Did you ever see the last 3 players in a poker tournament decide to split the top 3 prizes rather than playing until there was only one player left? Do you see at Pokerstars the "discuss a deal" button that is built into the software? I think you may not have picked the best example here.

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition

Do you know what "stealing" means? I'm not stealing anything. I am reducing the amount that I expect to contribute to the prize pool. The money that I am attempting to avoid donating to the prize pool is already mine. In attempting to retain money that is already mine I am clearly not stealing anything.

and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.

Yolodice loses money with every LTC bet that is made during this contest. 100% of the profits go into the prize pool, and Yolodice still has to pay out rakeback and referral payments on every bet. By betting less I am actually increasing Yolodice's equity.

Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Ethan doesn't seem too concerned, and I'm sure he will speak up if he has a problem with this.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.

The guy who comes 3rd gets the same whether 1st and 2nd tie or don't tie. If 1st and 2nd have agreed to stop betting then the guy in 3rd will find it easier to overtake them and come in 1st place.

Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

We're clearly not sharing an account. We are 2 people with 2 accounts. If we were going to combine our money in an attempt to win, we should have done that from the start rather than splitting out effort into two equal parts.

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.

Beating two players who have bet 2k each is exactly as hard as beating one player who has bet 2k. You have to bet more than 2k to beat them in both cases.

The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

First play currently pays 48 LTC, and you need to wager 2700 LTC to get into 1st place. The 1% house edge means that you expect to lose 27 LTC wagering that much. Doesn't that mean it's +EV to join the game right now, especially if the top players have stopped playing?

Are you saying that you're going to stop playing?  Or will you guys try to reclaim the first place if someone takes back over?

[Kiritsugu]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

Edit:
(https://i.imgur.com/9h4T1cS.png)

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.  Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.  Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

Third Edit:
I can't think of any scenario where this is fair.  If the closest player (currently the third person) joins the faction, then the fourth player gets screwed, and so on.  

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.  The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

Poker is not a fair comparison, because poker doesn't have anything to do with wagering money, it has to do with winning.  What matters in our competition is players wagering their own coins to compete, which is exactly what they have to do, regardless of ties or colluding with another player.  Nobody is getting "screwed" because the prizes are based on your wagered; you wager less, you get less of a prize.

I've run basically every competition ay YOLOdice since its launch for Ethan, and even if someone did use more than one account, we allowed it.  Obviously, if someone was determined enough (and had the bankroll) to make 20 accounts and take each and every prize, we'd have to look at the situation and make some changes, but that has yet to happen.

In this situation however, it is not the same person.  "doog" on the leaderboard is the one here in the forum, Dooglus, the owner of Just-Dice.  JohnLocke is actually a close friend of mine that I've known for years; they are definitely not the same people.

If they wager the same amount as each other and there's some kind of tie, then the prizes would be added together and split between them, it's the same total amount of prizes regardless.  The third place person would still get the same prize, and anyone above them (if applicable) would still get their appropriate prize.  There's no stealing, no lost equity, no lost anything.  The competition is 100% fair, or we wouldn't host it.

[yolocomp]

I wonder if John is willing to share...

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

Edit:
(https://i.imgur.com/9h4T1cS.png)

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.  Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.  Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

Third Edit:
I can't think of any scenario where this is fair.  If the closest player (currently the third person) joins the faction, then the fourth player gets screwed, and so on.  

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.  The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

Poker is not a fair comparison, because poker doesn't have anything to do with wagering money, it has to do with winning.  What matters in our competition is players wagering their own coins to compete, which is exactly what they have to do, regardless of ties or colluding with another player.  Nobody is getting "screwed" because the prizes are based on your wagered; you wager less, you get less of a prize.

I've run basically every competition ay YOLOdice since its launch for Ethan, and even if someone did use more than one account, we allowed it.  Obviously, if someone was determined enough (and had the bankroll) to make 20 accounts and take each and every prize, we'd have to look at the situation and make some changes, but that has yet to happen.

In this situation however, it is not the same person.  "doog" on the leaderboard is the one here in the forum, Dooglus, the owner of Just-Dice.  JohnLocke is actually a close friend of mine that I've known for years; they are definitely not the same people.

If they wager the same amount as each other and there's some kind of tie, then the prizes would be added together and split between them, it's the same total amount of prizes regardless.  The third place person would still get the same prize, and anyone above them (if applicable) would still get their appropriate prize.  There's no stealing, no lost equity, no lost anything.  The competition is 100% fair, or we wouldn't host it.

Thanks for your stance on it.

If anyone near the top has already wagered and wishes to have some help to get to first, please private message me and we can work out a deal.

[Kiritsugu]

Roughly 72 hours remain to place your bets in the competition, and so far over 10,000 LTC (~1,754,000 USD) has been wagered by our players, and the prize pool currently sits at over 135 LTC!

[dooglus]

Are you saying that you're going to stop playing?

No. I am saying a whole lot of things which you failed to address, but that wasn't one of them.

Or will you guys try to reclaim the first place if someone takes back over?

I can't speak for "us guys". I have promised not to play any more while I stay in 1st place, and while there's a big enough gap to the next place. That's all.

We are not a team. We are individuals who have reached a mutually beneficial arrangement.