All figures are updated again, we are just about back to break even after the Dice Ninja loss.
The Total Wagered figure displayed on the
Peerbet dice interface has gone down since the last update
On the 5th it was ฿476.437 now it's ฿359.488. That is one of the figures the table uses to calculate bank turnover and expected annual return and this is the 2nd it this has happened.
Peerbet show another figure for wagered in the my invest page of ฿5467.832, I have contacted them for clarification. That's the kind of thing I mean when I say its still armature hour out there.
i think you left out the most likely case which is site operators cheating by rolling and knowing the future seeds. any site operator that takes 0.2% wagered spread out over a large amount of time with several different accounts placing innocuously small bets is going to have one hell of a time ever being found/caught. the prevalence of the <1% house runs really points to this imo.
That's interesting, an operator could be making 1% on all users bets then make just enough winning bets (by knowing the seeds) themselves to take the overall site profit down to 0.5% which investors and users still accept as legit. I'm sure there is a way operators can make it provably impossible for them to do that I'm not sure if that is implemented anywhere. When you see operators report thousands of bitcoin turnover every other week with almost no change in site profit it makes you wonder.
In the Reviews section (on your website), for prcdice you said:
What we don’t like: [...]The operator taking a fixed % of turnover while investors only get a % of profits.
Why do you see it as a bad thing? I'd say it's a more sustainable model. It adds some sort of confidence that the dev will have sufficient income to cover operating/promotional expenses even if the site is in loss position for a longer time period.
I see it as a strong point of PRCdice.
Could you elaborate?
yea i got to agree with you pawel. same ev diff either way and if it takes some stress off the owner it works for me.
By the "it's the same expected value" logic the site could pay investors .9% of turnover regardless of actual results, it's the same expected value but it's a bad idea because, in terms of payouts, the actual results matter not the expected value. It adds another angle to the potential for the operator to overpay themselves (in this case by over reporting turnover). I like the operator to be in the same boat as the investors.
See the table here
http://www.bitcoin-dice-guide.com/dice-investment-comparison/