DiceBitco.in - New Thread to Discuss

[suchmoon]

That was quick:

BANKROLL: 1,080.77122079
PROFIT: -160.00981427
WAGERED: 98,371.75631956
TOTAL BETS: 51,412,672

[suchmoon]

Accelerating...

BANKROLL: 1,189.71757136
PROFIT: -49.00996647
WAGERED: 99,079.75742955
TOTAL BETS: 51,415,557

[wayshegoes]

Almost + profit now. Investors are looking at roughly 20% returns. I know I sure as shit would divest this moment. 20% investment returns on a dice site is more than you can even really dream for. Why be greedy? Take the profits and run.

[jaysabi]

Almost + profit now. Investors are looking at roughly 20% returns. I know I sure as shit would divest this moment. 20% investment returns on a dice site is more than you can even really dream for. Why be greedy? Take the profits and run.

Isn't being greedy exactly what would lead otherwise intelligent people to invest in an internet dice site run by anonymous untraceable screen names?

[Daanie]

Almost + profit now. Investors are looking at roughly 20% returns. I know I sure as shit would divest this moment. 20% investment returns on a dice site is more than you can even really dream for. Why be greedy? Take the profits and run.

well atleast I made 200k satoshi lol, I just withdrew the 0.022 btc

[jh7phone]

Mateo is back.

[st4nl3y]

Mateo is back.

Here we go again, he came back to finish the job lol

[wayshegoes]

I went offline for a few hours and he's still flat betting. How is it mathematically possible that he hasn't gone bust yet?

[Gws24]

lol, bad seed this time? It's basically the reverse of last time.



Anyone one want to do the math on how likely this run is?


Earlier in the thread there was some discussion on how many bets Mateo made and the number per second. Today when he was betting 0.5 BTC it seemed to be something like 5 per second from what I saw briefly but now you can see it can at least go as high as 9 per second.

[dooglus]

Anyone one want to do the math on how likely this run is?

All runs of any significant length are incredibly unlikely.

We can look at last week's lottery numbers and work out how unlikely they were to be drawn, yet they were drawn.

Every week yet another exceptionally unlikely set of numbers get drawn, and someone (probably cheating, right?) gets to win millions of times their stake.

[Gws24]

Didn't mean to imply there is cheating is involved. Just find it an interesting exercise to calculate the odds with incomplete data but I don't have the relevant skills to do it. Maybe my wording was a bit 'harsh'.

[finnile]

Can the investors still withdraw their bitcoins?
Anyone who tried, can you please confirm?

[Gws24]

As far as I know that has never been a problem. Most of the 7000 btc in the cold wallet was paid out to people de-investing and cashing out. The only people getting burned were the ones with skipped nonces as well as the people still invested when mateo made his run two weeks ago.

[Stars]

If anyone looks at mateo betting and thinks oh shit, maybe he is legit and you invest your coins you deserve to lose them. It's obvious what manl is doing, he's trying to make mateo look like a legit whale so people will invest and then when enough people have invested, mateo will go on another spree and take the bankroll back down and you will LOSE your coins.

[suchmoon]

I wonder if this is going to be our weekly entertainment routine to watch those 600 BTC swings, or is this supposed to make the site "whole" and continue as if nothing happened.

[Gws24]

If I compare the screenshots then there was roughly (very) a 350 BTC profit for the site with 13,000 BTC wagered. That is a house edge of 2.7% in about 150.000 bets. What I would like to know is how many bets would be enough to be statiscally significant? What I mean is, do these kind of swings in the house edge happen over those number of bets or do we need millions to converge to 1% or even more? Dooglus, any idea?

[Cyrax89721]

There's no winning with you people.  Mateo wins, and suddenly the site is rigged in his favor.  Mateo loses, and suddenly it's "all a part of a master plan."  If any of you are so convinced that the site is a massive scam, why do you still pay attention to it?

[Cluster2k]

Well, this is very curious.  Mateo goes on an improbable winning streak and almost crashes the bankroll.  Now it returns and hands those profits back, with interest.  First time mateo was rather exceptional in its luck, second time around it played exactly as expected: the house won.

I don't know what to think right now.  Maybe, maybe mateo was an all in, balls and all YOLO type gambler who couldn't resist having another crack.  Without the ability to verify bets I still have my doubts.

[dooglus]

If I compare the screenshots then there was roughly (very) a 350 BTC profit for the site with 13,000 BTC wagered. That is a house edge of 2.7% in about 150.000 bets. What I would like to know is how many bets would be enough to be statiscally significant? What I mean is, do these kind of swings in the house edge happen over those number of bets or do we need millions to converge to 1% or even more? Dooglus, any idea?

Here are the last 2 data points I have:

Wed Sep 17 07:42:31 PDT 2014   profit:       -297.32139723   invested:       1,531.01564543  wagered:        92,186.6599     bets:   51,133,608 BANK:   944.47462087
Wed Sep 17 16:43:29 PDT 2014   profit:        326.75800395   invested:       1,658.95634765  wagered:       121,997.1963     bets:   51,810,085 BANK: 1,696.31436053

I don't know how to answer your questions, but I can tell you that Just-Dice had over a billion bets and ended up with a profit of less than 0.4% of the total amount wagered even though the house edge was 1% throughout.

So even a billion bets isn't enough to get the actual profit close to the theoretical profit.

Part of that is because a huge percentage of that billion bets are tiny in comparison to the big bets. Another part seems to be that the "large" in the "law of large numbers" is bigger than you might naively expect it to be.

[wasserman99]

If I compare the screenshots then there was roughly (very) a 350 BTC profit for the site with 13,000 BTC wagered. That is a house edge of 2.7% in about 150.000 bets. What I would like to know is how many bets would be enough to be statiscally significant? What I mean is, do these kind of swings in the house edge happen over those number of bets or do we need millions to converge to 1% or even more? Dooglus, any idea?

Here are the last 2 data points I have:

Wed Sep 17 07:42:31 PDT 2014   profit:       -297.32139723   invested:       1,531.01564543  wagered:        92,186.6599     bets:   51,133,608 BANK:   944.47462087
Wed Sep 17 16:43:29 PDT 2014   profit:        326.75800395   invested:       1,658.95634765  wagered:       121,997.1963     bets:   51,810,085 BANK: 1,696.31436053

I don't know how to answer your questions, but I can tell you that Just-Dice had over a billion bets and ended up with a profit of less than 0.4% of the total amount wagered even though the house edge was 1% throughout.

So even a billion bets isn't enough to get the actual profit close to the theoretical profit.

Part of that is because a huge percentage of that billion bets are tiny in comparison to the big bets. Another part seems to be that the "large" in the "law of large numbers" is bigger than you might naively expect it to be.

Okay I don't see how it would be possible how they could have made ~600 BTC in less then a day.

The chances of them even having 600 BTC in bets in one day when they were averaging 100 BTC in bets per day are in itself slim.

This is speculation, however I think their stats on their site are not accurate, and are trying to lure people to invest in their site and gamble on their site.