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

[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?

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

Actually it's marginally MORE likely to go the other way, the problem is that the opposite doesn't happen when it goes the other way in terms of investment. If it goes up you keep the same % of the investment unless people divest significantly, which I haven't seen happen.

I could post numbers as an example, but I can't be bothered since it's pretty pointless and is based off of anecdotal observation of how people invest. From experience though, when a whale wins big they often invest, and others invest since they think players are more likely to lose after someone wins big (obviously false if the site is truly fair, but gamblers gonna gamblers fallacy). This always was brutal on people who were already invested in terms of their % of bankroll, but the new way of taking commission will just compound their woes.

[1715016791]

1715016791

[1715016791]

1715016791

[1715016791]

1715016791

[1715016791]

1715016791

[1715016791]

1715016791

[1715016791]

1715016791

[dooglus]

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.

That depends on how fast the players are losing. If they're losing less than 1% of the amount they wager then the investors pay more now than they would have before, and if they're losing more than 1% of the amount they wager then the investors pay less now than they would have before.

Basically 1% profit-on-amount-wagered is the point at which the new system switches from better-for-PRc to better-for-investors.

[thompete]

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.

That depends on how fast the players are losing. If they're losing less than 1% of the amount they wager then the investors pay more now than they would have before, and if they're losing more than 1% of the amount they wager then the investors pay less now than they would have before.

Basically 1% profit-on-amount-wagered is the point at which the new system switches from better-for-PRc to better-for-investors.

I get a feeling dooglus is planning to relaunch JustDice and plans to implement the same system. Hooray!

[ZeroCloo]

Was PRC taking negative commissions on losing weeks under the old system? If not, the new system should be dramatically better almost regardless of the observed site edge.

[dooglus]

I get a feeling dooglus is planning to relaunch JustDice and plans to implement the same system. Hooray!

I don't have any immediate plans to relaunch, and if I did I would keep the old commission system where investors pay commission on new profits only. I don't like the idea of charging them for bankrolling winning bets.

[dooglus]

Was PRC taking negative commissions on losing weeks under the old system? If not, the new system should be dramatically better almost regardless of the observed site edge.

No, but it wasn't charging commission on the same profit twice. It was a "high tide mark" kind of a system, and so the expected cost to investors shouldn't have changed.

[Seketsuna]

So whats happening in here? 

[GeoRW]

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.

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

[suchmoon]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

[GeoRW]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly;
this however does not apply to the amount wagered; I'm not mathematician but I think the wagered amount distribution between winning and losing bets will shift more to the winning ones - so the house will not win 1% of the amount wagered but less
... and historical performance of all of the dice sites does not convince me otherwise

[robhimself]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly;
this however does not apply to the amount wagered; I'm not mathematician but I think the wagered amount distribution between winning and losing bets will shift more to the winning ones - so the house will not win 1% of the amount wagered but less
... and historical performance of all of the dice sites does not convince me otherwise

That makes no sense. There is a 1% house edge on every single bet, so the expected winnings for the house in the long-run is 1% of wagered.

[suchmoon]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly;
this however does not apply to the amount wagered; I'm not mathematician but I think the wagered amount distribution between winning and losing bets will shift more to the winning ones - so the house will not win 1% of the amount wagered but less
... and historical performance of all of the dice sites does not convince me otherwise

The house has a 1% edge on every bet no matter what the bet amount is. Why would winning bets have a larger wagered amount?

[GeoRW]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly;
this however does not apply to the amount wagered; I'm not mathematician but I think the wagered amount distribution between winning and losing bets will shift more to the winning ones - so the house will not win 1% of the amount wagered but less
... and historical performance of all of the dice sites does not convince me otherwise

That makes no sense. There is a 1% house edge on every single bet, so the expected winnings for the house in the long-run is 1% of wagered.

Let me rephrase that. To simplify it, take just 2x bet when the chance to win or lose is 49.5%, the rest (1%) is always win for the house. So, out of 1000 bets, the expectation is that the player will win 495 and lose 495 and 10 of these bets are always wins for the house.
But the amount of wagered will not be distributed evenly among all 1000 bets. Player will always try to minimize the amount wagered on losing bets and maximize it on winnings. It's not easy to beat 1% house edge, in the long run house will win 1% of all these bets but I don't think the house is able to win 1% of wagered.

[suchmoon]

Player will always try to minimize the amount wagered on losing bets and maximize it on winnings.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that. I'm sure a lot of gamblers and investors alike would want to know how this can be done (except perhaps mateo, who probably already knows).

[omahapoker]

watching AK play today and to see him almost bust 4-5 times and comes back and wins 200btc.  amazing

[finnile]

watching AK play today and to see him almost bust 4-5 times and comes back and wins 200btc.  amazing

Yeah, that was amazing. Rather he made double that amount on DB but didn't get paid .
My argument from day before still lies , 15K since 29th wagered and the site loses 200 BTC . Investors pay an extra 15 BTC. Enough short term damage, rather than waiting for long term, when you don't even know where the bitcoin prices will end.

EDIT: Some guy degen(probably Road), donked out lost around 500 coins just now .

[bodgybrothers]

there's 1% edge in regards to number of bets, not in regards to amount wagered

What is that supposed to mean?

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly;
this however does not apply to the amount wagered; I'm not mathematician but I think the wagered amount distribution between winning and losing bets will shift more to the winning ones - so the house will not win 1% of the amount wagered but less
... and historical performance of all of the dice sites does not convince me otherwise

That makes no sense. There is a 1% house edge on every single bet, so the expected winnings for the house in the long-run is 1% of wagered.

Let me rephrase that. To simplify it, take just 2x bet when the chance to win or lose is 49.5%, the rest (1%) is always win for the house. So, out of 1000 bets, the expectation is that the player will win 495 and lose 495 and 10 of these bets are always wins for the house.
But the amount of wagered will not be distributed evenly among all 1000 bets. Player will always try to minimize the amount wagered on losing bets and maximize it on winnings. It's not easy to beat 1% house edge, in the long run house will win 1% of all these bets but I don't think the house is able to win 1% of wagered.

Let me try to explain how this works and clear up the confusion. You must view every bet as being paid 1% less than it is meant to. For example. If you wanted 50% chance you only get 1.98x not 2x. this lower payout means the house already took the 1% from you regardless the outcome. Most players will increase their risk to 49.5% chance to get the nice even 2x payout. At these odds, the player should get 2.020202020202x payout, but the house is taking the 1% and making it 2x. Using this visualization method, you can see that every bet being placed is getting 1% less payout. Regardless how many bets are made, the player gets 1% less payout on all bets. Just because a player gets lucky and has more wins, or wins on larger bets, doesn't change the fact the player received 1% less than he/she otherwise would of.

Hope that makes sense.

[a1choi]

Was PRC taking negative commissions on losing weeks under the old system? If not, the new system should be dramatically better almost regardless of the observed site edge.

No, but it wasn't charging commission on the same profit twice. It was a "high tide mark" kind of a system, and so the expected cost to investors shouldn't have changed.

I've always loved this type of system of not charging commission on the same profit twice, but always thought it could introduce new types of unexpected mechanics.  Something like buying/selling accounts with "negative profits", etc.

The fact that the site had to keep some data in memory, that some money was "worth different" than other money (money in one account was not the same as money in another account, because of past investment history which would skew the profits taken from them, ie. same amount of money in a new account would make a different amount in ROI, than money in another account that could have negative profits) always confused me, as it seemed like you as the operator were making less money to provide users with this benefit.

[NLNico]

Damnnn crazy.

[dooglus]

house always wins 1% of the bets, the rest 99% is random and in the long run it should split evenly

I'm not sure if you're trolling, stupid, or just don't speak English very well. I don't mean to be rude, but what you said is clearly wrong.

The house doesn't win 1% of bets. The house wins around 100-49.5% of the 49.5% bets, 100-66% of the 66% bets, etc. The player wins X% of all the X% bets. The house profits because the payout for the X% bet is only 99/X, not 100/X like it 'should' be if there was no edge.

It makes no sense to think that 1% of the bets are the 'edge' bets. Every bet the player wins pays out 1% less than it would if there was no edge.