SatoshiDICE.com - The World's Most Popular Bitcoin Game

[kokojie]

It's not different in principle, but it's very very different in fact: a 1.9% house edge is pretty much the lowest in the market.

Absolutely rubbish! Roulete has -2.7% EV, blackjack -0.28% EV, video poker (jacks and better) -0.46% EV. Even casino craps have about ~1.5 edge.

But otherwise, your asinine attitude likely motivated by your own personal failure is duly noted, well done with whatever peerbet thing. The bad news being that it's getting killed this month, btw.

It it just existing popularity of the S.Dice slows down entering on the market potentially better games. But nobody guarantees popularity forever!

huh? Casino roulette has higher than -2.7% i think

[1713557186]

1713557186

[fireduck]

At 2013-01-03 00:00 GMT (In about an hour) the logic for calculating the bet hash which was hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id) will be changed to hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id + ":" + bet_output_index)

This means that each bet inside a single transaction will get a different lucky number.  With this change, we will be relaxing some of our max check logic so that players will be able to make multiple bets to the same address in a single transaction.

Currrently, if a player sends a transaction of:
{
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
}

The first one will be processed normally, the second one will be considered above max.

At the switch over at 00:00 the same transaction will be processed as two separate bets with two separate lucky numbers and won't be considered above max.

I'll be updating the docs to reflect this as well.

[giantdragon]

But SatoshiDICE is the easiest to play. There is no commitment, there is no sign up, there is nothing to do except send a payment to an address and get a "win" or "lose" back. And that, in my opinion, is why SatoshiDICE is so popular.

I am sure, most of the users who play S.Dice today will stop playing immediately after will be aware of the maths and what does negative expected value means for them. Simplicity to play does not ensures willingness to lose own money!

huh? Casino roulette has higher than -2.7% i think

You are wrong, European roulette with single zero sector has exactly -2.7% expected value.
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

[dooglus]

You are wrong, European roulette with single zero sector has exactly -2.7% expected value.
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

This must be some new definition of the word "exactly".

Single zero roulette has a house edge which can't be exactly expressed as a decimal, since it's 2.7027% recurring - where the 027 keeps going forever.  As a fraction, it's 100/37 %.

Double zero roulette of course has a house edge of twice that.5.4054% (with a bunch more 054 on the end), or 200/37 %.

[maomao]

OH，FUCK.Rules changed? I sent to S 50 S48 and S36 by the same "tx_ID":"b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6",But there are three different LUCK

http://src.satoshidice.com/longpoll.php?tx=b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6&items=3

[Herbert]

OH，FUCK.Rules changed? I sent to S 50 S48 and S36 by the same "tx_ID":"b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6",But there are three different LUCK

http://src.satoshidice.com/longpoll.php?tx=b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6&items=3

Yep, just above your post :-)

At 2013-01-03 00:00 GMT (In about an hour) the logic for calculating the bet hash which was hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id) will be changed to hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id + ":" + bet_output_index)

This means that each bet inside a single transaction will get a different lucky number.  With this change, we will be relaxing some of our max check logic so that players will be able to make multiple bets to the same address in a single transaction.

Currrently, if a player sends a transaction of:
{
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
}

The first one will be processed normally, the second one will be considered above max.

At the switch over at 00:00 the same transaction will be processed as two separate bets with two separate lucky numbers and won't be considered above max.

I'll be updating the docs to reflect this as well.

[MPOE-PR]

I'm still amused at the theory that the only reason people gamble is because they've not yet heard of negative EV.

(Obviously comparing a simple dice game with craps or bj is pure bollocks, but w/e. Why not arbitrarily redefine the market you have no idea about to include zero-rake seven card stud played out in some old folk's home.).

[maomao]

OH，FUCK.Rules changed? I sent to S 50 S48 and S36 by the same "tx_ID":"b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6",But there are three different LUCK

http://src.satoshidice.com/longpoll.php?tx=b5e9b19cfa4794d054a6a0492b0d32da7d300d31b783994d809da02df6af8fc6&items=3

Yep, just above your post :-)

At 2013-01-03 00:00 GMT (In about an hour) the logic for calculating the bet hash which was hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id) will be changed to hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id + ":" + bet_output_index)

This means that each bet inside a single transaction will get a different lucky number.  With this change, we will be relaxing some of our max check logic so that players will be able to make multiple bets to the same address in a single transaction.

Currrently, if a player sends a transaction of:
{
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
}

The first one will be processed normally, the second one will be considered above max.

At the switch over at 00:00 the same transaction will be processed as two separate bets with two separate lucky numbers and won't be considered above max.

I'll be updating the docs to reflect this as well.

Not fun

[giantdragon]

I'm still amused at the theory that the only reason people gamble is because they've not yet heard of negative EV.

But I still very doubt if all these players would be aware about negative EV and understand what does in means, they would continue playing S.Dice.

[dooglus]

But I still very doubt if all these players would be aware about negative EV and understand what does in means, they would continue playing S.Dice.

I would be surprised if there are many gamblers who don't realise that the odds are tipped in favour of the house.  The house is running a business.  If the odds aren't in their favour, how does the house keep the business running, and why would they bother?

[giantdragon]

I would be surprised if there are many gamblers who don't realise that the odds are tipped in favour of the house.  The house is running a business.  If the odds aren't in their favour, how does the house keep the business running, and why would they bother?

State-regulated casinos have enormous expenditures (even online casinos have to pay drastic license fees and taxes), but anyway they have just 1-2% house edge in average. In the Bitcoin world with negligible expenditures, more than 99% of the revenue goes to the site owner as pure profit and I am sure that SatoshiDICE would be still profitable with 0.1%, or even 0.01%, house edge. As more and more people will know about other opportunities to play with higher odds for them, popularity of the S.Dice will drop IMHO.

[dooglus]

State-regulated casinos have enormous expenditures (even online casinos have to pay drastic license fees and taxes), but anyway they have just 1-2% house edge in average. In the Bitcoin world with negligible expenditures, more than 99% of the revenue goes to the site owner as pure profit and I am sure that SatoshiDICE would be still profitable with 0.1%, or even 0.01%, house edge.

Do some research into "risk of ruin" and variance.

The house edge isn't guaranteed income.  The actual profitability of a gambling site goes up and down dramatically.  The smaller the house edge, the bigger the chance of them being unable to pay out their winning players.  The bigger the house edge, the bigger the max bet they can safely offer.  You don't want to be playing on a site with a 0.01% house edge because they'll eventually go bust, and be unable to pay you out when you win.

If you look at my chart of the satoshidice profits for the first few days of this year, you'll see that they started the year about 33k BTC up, and have experienced swings of 25% of their entire bankroll, both up and down.  That's huge, and probably too dangerous to be sustainable.

That's probably why they changed how their lucky numbers are generated yesterday, effectively reducing their max bet without reducing the amount that people are allowed to bet.  It will reduce their variance and corresponding risk of ruin.

[giantdragon]

The house edge isn't guaranteed income.  The actual profitability of a gambling site goes up and down dramatically.  The smaller the house edge, the bigger the chance of them being unable to pay out their winning players.  The bigger the house edge, the bigger the max bet they can safely offer.  You don't want to be playing on a site with a 0.01% house edge because they'll eventually go bust, and be unable to pay you out when you win.

Oh, you are right. But this theory is true only for games against the house. And it is up to the player to choose to play with the negative EV and get results immediately or to play on the P2P betting exchange with zero EV, but get results later when there will be another player to match the bet.

[MPOE-PR]

The bigger the house edge, the bigger the max bet they can safely offer.  You don't want to be playing on a site with a 0.01% house edge because they'll eventually go bust, and be unable to pay you out when you win.

This is actually significantly alleviated by being listed.

The house edge isn't guaranteed income.  The actual profitability of a gambling site goes up and down dramatically.  The smaller the house edge, the bigger the chance of them being unable to pay out their winning players.  The bigger the house edge, the bigger the max bet they can safely offer.  You don't want to be playing on a site with a 0.01% house edge because they'll eventually go bust, and be unable to pay you out when you win.

Oh, you are right. But this theory is true only for games against the house. And it is up to the player to choose to play with the negative EV and get results immediately or to play on the P2P betting exchange with zero EV, but get results later when there will be another player to match the bet.

It's also up to the operator of a wanna-be venue to be bitter and silly or to be effective and effectual.

[deepceleron]

The house edge isn't guaranteed income.  The actual profitability of a gambling site goes up and down dramatically.  The smaller the house edge, the bigger the chance of them being unable to pay out their winning players.  The bigger the house edge, the bigger the max bet they can safely offer.  You don't want to be playing on a site with a 0.01% house edge because they'll eventually go bust, and be unable to pay you out when you win.

Oh, you are right. But this theory is true only for games against the house. And it is up to the player to choose to play with the negative EV and get results immediately or to play on the P2P betting exchange with zero EV, but get results later when there will be another player to match the bet.

Threadcrapping while advertising your own gambling site in your sig: welcome to my ignore list.

[giantdragon]

Threadcrapping while advertising your own gambling site in your sig: welcome to my ignore list.

I never advertised my own service in this thread. I wrote about an idea, not the concrete service.
By your false logic if I operate some service I am not allowed to write in the competitor's threads? Don't feel absurdity?!

[kano]

Threadcrapping while advertising your own gambling site in your sig: welcome to my ignore list.

I never advertised my own service in this thread. I wrote about an idea, not the concrete service.
By your false logic if I operate some service I am not allowed to write in the competitor's threads? Don't feel absurdity?!

You do get that everyone can read what you wrote in the post further up ... or is that beyond your understanding also?

[Gyrsur]

Threadcrapping while advertising your own gambling site in your sig: welcome to my ignore list.

I never advertised my own service in this thread. I wrote about an idea, not the concrete service.
By your false logic if I operate some service I am not allowed to write in the competitor's threads? Don't feel absurdity?!

You do get that everyone can read what you wrote in the post further up ... or is that beyond your understanding also?

haha nice war will start. kindergarten??

[RoyalBitcoin]

Congratulations to SD on a nice write-up in the Business Week technology section this morning.  You guys are moving bitcoin forward.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/bitcoin-making-online-gambling-legal-in-the-u-dot-s-dot#r=nav-r-story

[legitnick]

I have around 150 bets that have Payment TX Status: UNKNOWN