PRCDice.eu - Largest Dice invest site - Open since 2013! Chat, Play, Invest!

[Phrenico]

Under the old system if the site had an unlucky week where the players made a profit overall, the investors would take the loss and not have to pay any commission to the house.

Under the new system the investors have to pay commission to the house whether they win or lose.

The new system is much fairer because the site owner is guaranteed to get coins from the investors whether they win or lose.

You're smart enough to know how misleading that is. Expected return is the same; the investors are just giving PRC free insurance to dampen the volatility in the site's commissions.

If Dean needs consistent income to operate the site, then so be it. People can divest if they don't want to take on the (slight) extra risk.

[hermanhs09]

why no bonus now

[ZeroCloo]

I think people are not aware of how awful the previous commission system was. I haven't looked at the new but if it's as represented investors should pay significantly less rake.

[a1choi]

Under the old system if the site had an unlucky week where the players made a profit overall, the investors would take the loss and not have to pay any commission to the house.

Under the new system the investors have to pay commission to the house whether they win or lose.

The new system is much fairer because the site owner is guaranteed to get coins from the investors whether they win or lose.

You're smart enough to know how misleading that is. Expected return is the same; the investors are just giving PRC free insurance to dampen the volatility in the site's commissions.

If Dean needs consistent income to operate the site, then so be it. People can divest if they don't want to take on the (slight) extra risk.

I don't know how this could be 100% the same as the old model (in the long run) as the old model didn't give dean any profits on losses, and only on wins?  or maybe i have my math wrong on that and it doesnt matter..

[suchmoon]

I don't know how this could be 100% the same as the old model (in the long run) as the old model didn't give dean any profits on losses, and only on wins?  or maybe i have my math wrong on that and it doesnt matter..

It won't be 100% the same unless the site profit is EXACTLY 1%, which I think is even less likely than mateo's super play. But in the very very long run - 0.1% of wagered (new model) should be close to 10% of profit (old model).

[dooglus]

I don't know how this could be 100% the same as the old model (in the long run) as the old model didn't give dean any profits on losses, and only on wins?  or maybe i have my math wrong on that and it doesnt matter..

Sometimes players will lose more than 1% of the amount they wager.

Under the old system investors would pay 10% of the profit, but under the new system they only pay 10% of the expected profit, which is less than they would have paid under the old system if the site does better than expected.

[theskillzdatklls]

meh, doesn't really bother me at all if dean needs it to help run the site.

[dooglus]

meh, doesn't really bother me at all if dean needs it to help run the site.

It's something we talked about doing at just dice a few times but there was always a lot of resistance from the investors. Most seemed worried that if my bottom line didn't depend on the site being profitable that I wouldn't take care to make sure players weren't cheating. Maybe. I forget.

[a1choi]

meh, doesn't really bother me at all if dean needs it to help run the site.

It's something we talked about doing at just dice a few times but there was always a lot of resistance from the investors. Most seemed worried that if my bottom line didn't depend on the site being profitable that I wouldn't take care to make sure players weren't cheating. Maybe. I forget.

I think this is one of those things where there is no right or wrong choice.  its just a business decision.  people will vote their support with their wallets, as players and investors.  Only time will tell if this change is significant in changing things (business wise), or if it doesnt change anything at all.

i'm not too sure either way.

[dooglus]

I think this is one of those things where there is no right or wrong choice.  its just a business decision.  people will vote their support with their wallets, as players and investors.  Only time will tell if this change is significant in changing things (business wise), or if it doesnt change anything at all.

i'm not too sure either way.

The main difference is that the new way increases variance for investors, and reduces it (to zero) for the house.

When the site loses, investors lose to the site and to the winning players.
When the site wins more than expected, the players win from the losing players and pay less than 10% commission on their profits.

So the effect of the change (for investors) is that losses are worse and wins are better than before.

The expected result is the same (assuming the different edges for the various games have been taken into account correctly; someone mentioned that blackjack's edge isn't 1%, and so taking 0.1% of turnover isn't right for blackjack bets).

[finnile]

I think this is one of those things where there is no right or wrong choice.  its just a business decision.  people will vote their support with their wallets, as players and investors.  Only time will tell if this change is significant in changing things (business wise), or if it doesnt change anything at all.

i'm not too sure either way.

The main difference is that the new way increases variance for investors, and reduces it (to zero) for the house.

When the site loses, investors lose to the site and to the winning players.
When the site wins more than expected, the players win from the losing players and pay less than 10% commission on their profits.

So the effect of the change (for investors) is that losses are worse and wins are better than before.

The expected result is the same (assuming the different edges for the various games have been taken into account correctly; someone mentioned that blackjack's edge isn't 1%, and so taking 0.1% of turnover isn't right for blackjack bets).

My argument was the fact that 90% of the sites are much below the profit of 1% wagered and not every investor plans to stay invested in the long run. So people who have to invest are actually risking more that the site remains in profit of 1%, after they invest.
For example if people invested in dice.ninja, and this investment system was implemented then the investors would have paid around 20-25% extra of their losses.
And same is the case with dice now , the total amount wagered is around 22.8K , and expected is around 228 BTC, but they are currently at 30 BTC profit, out of which commission to the site would have been 22.8 BTC so basically profits would just be around 7 BTC, and they will be losing much more.

[wayshegoes]

That's not an argument finnile, that's just cherry-picking information to support hypotheticals. There's no way of knowing how much any dice site will earn. That should really go without saying. All you can do is understand house edge and invest what you can afford to lose accordingly.

Since the new system Dean has basically done himself out of maybe 15 BTC commission, and instead he is getting his 1/1000th of the wagered amount. Investors have benefited greatly from this already. But hey, let's keep pulling random numbers out of our asses until the cows come home.

Doge-Dice was above 1% profits anyway; I guess that's your argument gone out the window?

[Phrenico]

You're smart enough to know how misleading that is. Expected return is the same; the investors are just giving PRC free insurance to dampen the volatility in the site's commissions.

If Dean needs consistent income to operate the site, then so be it. People can divest if they don't want to take on the (slight) extra risk.

I don't know how this could be 100% the same as the old model (in the long run) as the old model didn't give dean any profits on losses, and only on wins?  or maybe i have my math wrong on that and it doesnt matter..

The old model gave Dean more profits on wins and no profits on losses. By contrast, this system gives Dean profits that only depend on the amount wagered. Ignoring the variability in the amount wagered, this new system just gives Dean steady but small profits, versus variable profits in the old system.

You're right to say that the model is not 100% the same. Expected profit isn't everything. In traditional investing, if expected profit is known to be positive, you can always hedge against volatility with financial instruments. We don't really have that option yet in the world of crowdsourced bitcoin casino investing.

[GeoRW]

Well I divested and withdrew. For me as an investor, this is just too much of a risk. 1% house edge is very risky by itself as you can see from historical performance of all the dice sites. I don't even think it is possible to achieve as players are not playing randomly as the probability theory expects. Adding some other risks like trust in the website owner, in the security of the code/technical side ... well it's too much.
Also this should have been announced earlier on bitcointalk as most of the investors don't have their e-mails on the website. This I think was really unfair, so I better stay away.

[dooglus]

I don't even think it is possible to achieve as players are not playing randomly as the probability theory expects.

It doesn't matter how players play. A 1% edge is a 1% edge, and so you expect to win 1% in the long run.

[robhimself]

So if players are winning, investors lose their normal losses plus the house takes a cut of what's left of their investment? Seems brutal...

[superbit]

So if players are winning, investors lose their normal losses plus the house takes a cut of what's left of their investment? Seems brutal...

And if players are losing, investors are winning plus paying less in commission.  Seems amazing.

Seriously can people not do math.

[MilkyLep]

So if players are winning, investors lose their normal losses plus the house takes a cut of what's left of their investment? Seems brutal...

Seriously can people not do math.

Thats what calculators are for! 

[robhimself]

So if players are winning, investors lose their normal losses plus the house takes a cut of what's left of their investment? Seems brutal...

And if players are losing, investors are winning plus paying less in commission.  Seems amazing.

Seriously can people not do math.

I guarantee I can do math better than you, and my post didn't say "ZOMG NOW THE HOUSE EDGE ON INVESTING IS DIFFERENT". The issue is that if you are having commission taken out while players are winning, your investment will go way down and you will have less of a % of the BR if new people jump in to invest (which they often do after a player wins big, sometimes even the player themselves invests).

Seriously, can people not do logic?

[superbit]

So if players are winning, investors lose their normal losses plus the house takes a cut of what's left of their investment? Seems brutal...

And if players are losing, investors are winning plus paying less in commission.  Seems amazing.

Seriously can people not do math.

I guarantee I can do math better than you, and my post didn't say "ZOMG NOW THE HOUSE EDGE ON INVESTING IS DIFFERENT". The issue is that if you are having commission taken out while players are winning, your investment will go way down and you will have less of a % of the BR if new people jump in to invest (which they often do after a player wins big, sometimes even the player themselves invests).

Seriously, can people not do logic?

That's not logic when it's just as likely for it to go the other way