DiceBitco.in - New Thread to Discuss

[daxhollow]

I watched the rigged betting go down on monday morning and the bankroll was small enough that the site operators were definitely over half the bankroll.  ruru was probably around 100 then maybe another 25-50 btc from other users. Even if the tiny chance the bets were legit they were betting against themself. If they lost bets they would recieve the coins in their investment account, withdraw and try again. When you bet against yourself you can't lose.

[dooglus]

I watched the rigged betting go down on monday morning and the bankroll was small enough that the site operators were definitely over half the bankroll.  ruru was probably around 100 then maybe another 25-50 btc from other users. Even if the tiny chance the bets were legit they were betting against themself. If they lost bets they would recieve the coins in their investment account, withdraw and try again. When you bet against yourself you can't lose.

This doesn't really make any sense. Why wouldn't you just divest your own coins first? When you bet against yourself you can't lose but you also can't win.

[dooglus]

Ok Guys After going after DB now I have something on PRC. The site is run by a good guy Dean, however it has had bugs from day one.
First the sjess case and now I figured this.
Just Like DB I had an instance of Bets skipped at PRC.
 Too Bad it happens with me only.

I tried negotiating with Dean but he didn't agree or care, So Here it is :
 THe video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ewu84DChS0

Dean might give excuses for this happening, but point is, it might have happened in the past and might have caused people to lose, and there is no way to check . Sorry but had to post this. Good Luck Happy Gambling.



EDIT: I also tried negotiating with Dean for 1 BTC but never happened. Smiley

Confirmed there are a bunch of nonces missing when comparing your "my bets" with the roll verifier output:



Dean claims these rolls were missed out of "my bets" due to a caching issue - so maybe it's incompetence rather than malice, as in the previous PRC incident.

[snarlpill]

@Dooglus I'm working on an article detailing the downfall of DiceBitco.in, and am prefacing it with a brief history of the "invest" option growing big with Just-Dice, so I will probably be reaching out to you in PM later on confirming some JD numbers and the mathematical probability that "mateo" actually had his winning streak without having access to server seeds. Might get a quote from you and a couple other people as well. Cool?

I'm going to try and finish the story today, though will still have to design some HTML/CSS for the "News" section I'm going to create, so it might be a day or two still before it is published. I usually stay pretty busy with work/random side projects.

[icey]

Haven't been active for a few weeks, you sure do miss alot in bitcoin land by not being here constantly...

19 pages to go through, this should be fun, better make some coffee

[snarlpill]

Haven't been active for a few weeks, you sure do miss alot in bitcoin land by not being here constantly...

19 pages to go through, this should be fun, better make some coffee

Start here to follow along as the shit hits the fan.

Our own little reporter how sweet

Sure. Yes, I am going to write a story exposing this scam operation, and hopefully it saves future investors/gamblers from getting robbed by the same people. It is going to be a mostly unbiased article, but the facts speak for themselves.

[a1choi]

so maybe it's incompetence rather than malice, as in the previous PRC incident.

If i had to choose between incompetence vs malice, i'd choose incompetence.  Of course none of these are desirable outcomes. but lesser of 2 evils? 

And seems like Dean will have it sorted out shortly or has done so already.

[dooglus]

@Dooglus I'm working on an article detailing the downfall of DiceBitco.in, and am prefacing it with a brief history of the "invest" option growing big with Just-Dice, so I will probably be reaching out to you in PM later on confirming some JD numbers and the mathematical probability that "mateo" actually had his winning streak without having access to server seeds. Might get a quote from you and a couple other people as well. Cool?

I'm going to try and finish the story today, though will still have to design some HTML/CSS for the "News" section I'm going to create, so it might be a day or two still before it is published. I usually stay pretty busy with work/random side projects.

The problem with accurately saying just how unlikely Mateo's run was is that we don't have much information on him. We don't know how many bets he made, what stake he was using, etc.

All we know for sure is that investors suffered roughly 84% losses around the time he was playing.

We could run a simulation where we bet at 49.5% to win 0.5% of the house bankroll, repeating until either the house bankroll grows or shrinks by 84%, and seeing how often the house ends up down instead of up. That way we get an upper bound on how likely Mateo's run was to have been legit (since betting to win 0.5% each time is the optimal strategy assuming you're restricted to play at 49.5% and also assuming you're not cheating!)

Here's code for such a simulation:

Code:

#!/usr/bin/env python

import random, string, sys

trials = string.atoi(sys.argv[1])

def mateo_wins():
    bank = 100.0

    while True:
        if random.random() < 0.495:
            bank *= 0.995
            if bank > 184:
                return 0
        else:
            bank *= 1.005
            if bank < 16:
                return 1

wins = 0
c = trials
while c:
    wins += mateo_wins()
    c -= 1

print wins, "out of", trials

It's slow (sometimes it's an epic struggle between bank and Mateo, and so takes a long time to run), but here are some early results:

$ ./mateo.py 100
0 out of 100
$ ./mateo.py 1000
9 out of 1000
$ ./mateo.py 5000
12 out of 5000
$ ./mateo.py 10000
29 out of 10000
$

Winning 9 times out of 1000 and 12 out of 5000 shows that the variance is high.

9 out of 1000 is 0.9%.
12 out of 5000 is 0.25%.
29 out of 10000 is 0.29%.

So I guess the chance of Mateo doing what he did is around 1 in 500.

Note that I just threw the above code together - it may contain errors - and I made some assumptions which are plainly untrue (he wasn't max-betting every time).

Please feel free to point out any errors.

[a1choi]

@Dooglus I'm working on an article detailing the downfall of DiceBitco.in, and am prefacing it with a brief history of the "invest" option growing big with Just-Dice, so I will probably be reaching out to you in PM later on confirming some JD numbers and the mathematical probability that "mateo" actually had his winning streak without having access to server seeds. Might get a quote from you and a couple other people as well. Cool?

I'm going to try and finish the story today, though will still have to design some HTML/CSS for the "News" section I'm going to create, so it might be a day or two still before it is published. I usually stay pretty busy with work/random side projects.

The problem with accurately saying just how unlikely Mateo's run was is that we don't have much information on him. We don't know how many bets he made, what stake he was using, etc.

All we know for sure is that investors suffered roughly 84% losses around the time he was playing.

We could run a simulation where we bet at 49.5% to win 0.5% of the house bankroll, repeating until either the house bankroll grows or shrinks by 84%, and seeing how often the house ends up down instead of up. That way we get an upper bound on how likely Mateo's run was to have been legit (since betting to win 0.5% each time is the optimal strategy assuming you're restricted to play at 49.5% and also assuming you're not cheating!)

Here's code for such a simulation:

Code:

#!/usr/bin/env python

import random, string, sys

trials = string.atoi(sys.argv[1])

def mateo_wins():
    bank = 100.0

    while True:
        if random.random() < 0.495:
            bank *= 0.995
            if bank > 184:
                return 0
        else:
            bank *= 1.005
            if bank < 16:
                return 1

wins = 0
c = trials
while c:
    wins += mateo_wins()
    c -= 1

print wins, "out of", trials

It's slow (sometimes it's an epic struggle between bank and Mateo, and so takes a long time to run), but here are some early results:

$ ./mateo.py 100
0 out of 100
$ ./mateo.py 1000
9 out of 1000
$ ./mateo.py 5000
12 out of 5000
$ ./mateo.py 10000
29 out of 10000
$

Winning 9 times out of 1000 and 12 out of 5000 shows that the variance is high.

9 out of 1000 is 0.9%.
12 out of 5000 is 0.25%.
29 out of 10000 is 0.29%.

So I guess the chance of Mateo doing what he did is around 1 in 500.

Note that I just threw the above code together - it may contain errors - and I made some assumptions which are plainly untrue (he wasn't max-betting every time).

Please feel free to point out any errors.

the only errors are most likely in your assumptions.  During the session, Mateo did the early damage with bets that were a lot lower than the max bet.  So altho you're computing the most conservative numbers for Mateo, the actual numbers are probably a LOT further away.. as in a lot smaller chance than 1 out of 500.

Edit: it would be extremely nice of Manl if he could provide the data for mateo's run.

[a1choi]

So 1 in 500 - Thats not completely out of the realm

I remember seeing Wokehaha turn 0.6 to 3 BTC into 1000 BTC with some wild ass beating

it is certainly not 1 in 500.  the chart that you wanted was drawn using different assumptions (i believe more accurate ones).  60K bets at 1btc average.  those assumptions gave a 1 in 2.3M chance.

having the right data here will do wonders to providing the right details. right now its all speculation since what i believe to be accurate might not match with what you believe to be accurate.

[RoooooR]

If "mateo" is even real, the main problem is how can a site make 50K wagered in a night although there was a "problem" on the site, and although daily wagered about was 1K.


Also I found manl and gerry's real photo.

[dooglus]

the only errors are most likely in your assumptions.  During the session, Mateo did the early damage with bets that were a lot lower than the max bet

I don't think that's true. Early on he was making 7 or 8 BTC bets, which I think were pretty close to max bets given the ~350 BTC bankroll.

I rewrite the simulation in C to make it faster:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

int mateo_wins() {
  static long target = RAND_MAX * 0.495;

  float bank = 100;

  while (1) {
    if (random() < target) {
      bank *= 0.995;
      if (bank > 184)
        return 0;
    } else {
      bank *= 1.005;
      if (bank < 16)
        return 1;
    }
  }
}

void main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  time_t t;
  int wins = 0, trials = atoi(argv[1]), c;

  // seed random number generator with current time
  time(&t);
  srandom(t);

  for (c = 0; c < trials; c++)
    wins += mateo_wins();

  printf("%d out of %d\n", wins, trials);
}

Then:

$ ./a.out 100000
339 out of 100000

That's 0.339%.

[dooglus]

it is certainly not 1 in 500.  the chart that you wanted was drawn using different assumptions (i believe more accurate ones).  60K bets at 1btc average.  those assumptions gave a 1 in 2.3M chance.

I thought I took a screenshot of his early 7 BTC bets, but can't find it.

I'm pretty sure the bulk of the damage was done with 7 BTC bets, so assuming 60k bets at 1 BTC isn't going to give you the right results. Many of his bets were much smaller than 1 BTC too.

[a1choi]

it is certainly not 1 in 500.  the chart that you wanted was drawn using different assumptions (i believe more accurate ones).  60K bets at 1btc average.  those assumptions gave a 1 in 2.3M chance.

I thought I took a screenshot of his early 7 BTC bets, but can't find it.

I'm pretty sure the bulk of the damage was done with 7 BTC bets, so assuming 60k bets at 1 BTC isn't going to give you the right results. Many of his bets were much smaller than 1 BTC too.

i remember seeing the eight 8btc bets won in a row.  dont remember how many he did at 7.  again, it would be great if manl could provide the data.  those bets did do a lot of damage quickly but even at betting 0.5 to 1 btc, he was winning a large portion of the bankroll away (when the max bet was around 2.5 i believe).

[wayshegoes]

I watched the ENTIRE thing. The bulk of the damage was done with bets under 1 BTC (mostly 0.5, then 1, then alternated between 0.1 and 0.2 for no reason). He was staying well under the max profit at the time but it's not really clear why. 12 hours before I watched he was making 8 BTC bets.

He was betting about 30 times a second for hours on end. He would take 10 second breaks every one in a while. This leads me to believe it was someone with access to the seed (seed sorting for guaranteed profits), and not the "rogue employee" flat betting skipping losing nonces.

I think all this maths only obfuscates the reality of what happened, especially given the ridiculously conservative numbers. He was betting 20-30 times a second for well over 3 hours, with only seconds between pauses.

Wake up dooglus; stop trying to defend an obvious scam with maths. nakowa's luck was unlikely; mateo's luck is orders of magnitudes less likely. No rational person with 100s of BTC flat bets for hours on end on dice sites and makes profit. You should know that better than anybody.

[jaysabi]

The problem is without the data, we have a lot of "I remember this, I remember that" statements, which isn't reliable for determining the probability of something, especially when people's memories are colored by their emotions.

Given that there are still people here entertaining the idea Matteo could have been real, Manl would be smart to release the data. Especially if he has nothing to hide.

[Gws24]

post with a screenshot of 8 btc bets at 1680 BTC bankroll: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8721491#msg8721491

and a few posts down:

mateo   7.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   5.4922   -7.00000000   17:38:02
mateo   7.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   90.8348   +7.00000000   17:38:01
mateo   7.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   79.9928   +7.00000000   17:38:01
mateo   7.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   77.2493   +7.00000000   17:38:00
mateo   7.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   51.7757   +7.00000000   17:38:00
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   94.4891   +8.00000000   17:37:48
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   62.8750   +8.00000000   17:37:48
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   76.9733   +8.00000000   17:37:47
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   80.7974   +8.00000000   17:37:46
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   57.2030   +8.00000000   17:37:46
mateo   8.00000000   2.0000   ↑50.4999   84.0098   +8.00000000   17:37:45

EDIT:

And he went down to 1 BTC bets shortly after the bets made in the screenshot while the max bet was still 7.88 BTC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8721583#msg8721583

[wayshegoes]

I have no vested interest in this website and remember clearly how mateo was betting (as described above)

Whoever came up with 60,000 bets is trying to warp the maths to make this look possible. What happened is only possible if you're a complete retard trying to lose all your BTC and you get luckier than any gambler known.

The fact that people are entertaining the idea that this isn't a scam is more worrying.

[a1choi]

Given that there are still people here entertaining the idea Matteo could have been real, Manl would be smart to release the data. Especially if he has nothing to hide.

Exactly.  could not have phrased that any better.  give the man a bone.

[dooglus]

Wake up dooglus; stop trying to defend an obvious scam with maths. nakowa's luck was unlikely; mateo's luck is orders of magnitudes less likely. No rational person with 100s of BTC flat bets for hours on end on dice sites and makes profit. You should know that better than anybody.

I'm not defending anyone.

I was asked for a probability, so tried to get one with very little data:

@Dooglus I'm working on an article detailing the downfall of DiceBitco.in, and am prefacing it with a brief history of the "invest" option growing big with Just-Dice, so I will probably be reaching out to you in PM later on confirming some JD numbers and the mathematical probability that "mateo" actually had his winning streak without having access to server seeds.

Until then I hadn't even attempted to come up with a number. I did see one guy posting some complex math and arriving at the result that the probability was 0. I think he's fixed it a bit since to give a non-zero number, which makes it infinitely more believable, but I'm not able to verify his work since I don't understand it. I'm not even entirely sure whether it's intended to be taken seriously or if it's a joke for mathematicians.