Topic: [CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx - page 47. (Read 316363 times)

Everyone keeps saying that the rise in BTC will hurt what people are willing to gamble.  Could this not be countered by just lowering the minimum bet and adding another decimal place. 

I mean if I am willing to spend $5 a spin this can be calculated quite easily.  They could even add a converter on the fly so the fiat a user wants to bet can be copied and pasted.

While in March, there's the fork, the Avalon order, etc. that may have taken money away from betting.  But in the long run, with the number of BTC in circulation being capped, plus a raising BTC prices, volume on betting will be limited.  In addition, from an operational standpoint, there can be improvements made-bets with the highest odds in casinos tend to have the highest house edge; in SD, the bet with the lowest edge is also the one paying the highest, which only help to promote variance in profits.  I highly doubt people will stop betting less than 1 even if you cut the odds to like 50000x.

Good time to sell was when the price was double almost triple what it is now. Now you start to wonder when a good time to pick some more back up or is the bubble still popping?

Dooglus usually does daily updates here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.1080

Even though the month is flat, we're still above the statistically expected profit overall, so we might be in for a few more flat months.

Look, there were huge wins this month against the house.

Huge rise in BTC price

Distractions in purchasing of shares do to other interests.  People buying Avalon and Asicminer diverted funds away from buying and betting on SD.

Volume is thin and people are worried about 1 week or 2 weeks worth of profit.. Don't be so short sighted

where can we follow current monthly profit/loss?

Because there will be no profits this month, which means no dividends. Price will probably fall below .003

Because S.DICE is in red numbers this month (there'll be no dividends probably). And maybe because big whales, who spent a lot on playing are not playing anymore and maybe because BTC has appreciated so much that players will play with less amounts of BTC -> therefore less BTC profit -> therefore price goes down.

Why is the price dropping so much? The dividend from the last two months decreased but not by that much

The slamming of sdice is not over. Value of shares has continued to drop to now around 0.0035. Based on the last 6 months, the average expected monthly profit is 9,000 btc (based on 1.9% house advantage and avg total bets of 480,000 btc per month). Sdice is valued at 350,000 btc today, and will give a yearly dividend of 108,000 btc, excluding growth, or 30% dividend. Not bad.

However, not taking growth into account is not reasonable since sdice has tripled it's monthly profit from 3,000 btc/month to 9000 btc/month in only 6 months. Let's say growth decelerates in half, that means the next year, it won't sixfold again, but it will triple. Meaning actual dividend over the coming year will not be 108,000 btc but somewhere around 200,000 btc or about 50% dividend. And if growth continues at decelerating pace, then it will take only another half year to get another 50% dividend based on what you pay today.

So, all the btc you put in today, you will get back in 1.5 year.  Even if the stock gets hammered more, even if bitcoins rise to $1000 value. And after that you still own the shares. If they go to zero in year 2, due to say violent government, you didn't lose anything as you earned back the btc you originally put into it (Ofcourse you then lose all btc profit you made on it, so in such case it would only be brake even).

The only serious risk I see is government intervention, so I would greatly appreciate a response from Erik about this. I also noticed nothing is mentioned about this in the prospectus. How high do you estimate the risk for this to happen the coming year? How high the coming 3 years? Are there any plans on what will be done if it happens?

You need to look at this in the context of what was being discussed - which was assessing whether or not a potential investment is a worthwhile one.

To take the example you raised of failed marriages, the difference between "2 good and one bad" or "33% chance of failure" is only useful when considered in the siutation of a prospective 4th marriage.  IF you are able to identify significant differences between the two which failed and the one that succeeded in advance of them failing or succeeding then you have a basis on which to usefully assess future situations.  If you can't differentiate between them, other than with hindsight, then yes - the best conclusion tou can make is that there's a 66% chance of failure for your next marriage.

Similarly with investments.  If you can't distinguish between a bunch of opportunites in advance even with information on the past results of a similar set of businesses then there's no useful basis in trying to seperate the old ones into 'good' and 'bad' ones.  Sure - the results are real and have to be accounted for as they landed - but you're no nearer reaching any basis on which to seperate simialr such future opportunities before parting with your cash.

Yes - there's a perfectly valid intellectual basis for your position being correct.  But it's not a useful one when trying to apply it to decision-making.

O wow, btct has two pts even.

So can Havelock - https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=SDICE

CoinBr.com can do help him as well.

Try these passthroughs on BTCT or BitFunder:

https://btct.co/security/GSDPT

https://bitfunder.com/asset/G.SDICE

https://btct.co/security/S.DICE-PT

Good luck!

Excuse my ignorance... but what's the easiest way to buy shares in s.dice ? even a small amount, say, 1000 ?

Our disagreement is purely semantic. You say "it failing to occur doesn't mean it never existed" and mean that one is not free to infer anything about the future from the demonstrated absence of risk in that one instance. Such as, just because a coin never came tails up in any past instance doesn't mean it won't the next time you try.

I say "turns out to have been 0% (in that case)" and mean that nothing in the future can change your past, you did in fact make it out of the investment with a profit, whatever the risk may have been it worked out to no loss in the end.

These aren't contradictory statements.


This argument boils down to saying that if you have three marriages of which two end in divorce this doesn't mean there were two bad and one good matches in your history, but simply that women are 33% rotten.

Any attempt to class real objects this way runs into the fundamental problem of classification (which is still open, btw).


I wasn't dealing nor intending to deal prospectively. I simply meant that there's a strict difference between the two cases: if you walked away with 1 satoshi profit then that is in fact profit. If you walk away with one cent profit then that is not in fact profit, but a slightly smaller inflation loss. I think this stands.

No - just because something there was a risk of didn't happen does NOT equate to the risk having been zero.

If you bet on a coin-flip being tails, I flip the coin and it comes up tails that does NOT mean that the risk of heads coming was 0%.  Same for any other risk - it failing to occur doesn't mean it never existed.

Similarly consider if you invest in 1000 absolutely identical (as far as all available information indicates) securities believing it likely there is a 10% risk of failure for each of them then 200 fail.  That does NOT mean there was a 0% risk on 800 of them and a 100% risk on 200.  It tends to suggest there was a 20% risk of failure on ALL of them.

Now it COULD be argued that everything is predetermined and so the ones that failed were always going to fail etc.  But whilst an interesting philosophical point it's entirely useless for practical purposes.  We have to deal with risk that we can quantify/measure/estimate in advance - and collapsing that to either 0 or 1 based on results is only useful if there's some measurable (in advance) factor that can be used in future such assessments.  If the real risk is only definable at all in hind-sight then we have to group together securities/whatever with a similar visible profile anyway.

Something like that. It's true that risk sets a minimum, but in fiat where risk + inflation together set the minimum. So logically we'll see lower minimums.

There's also an important difference between risk (which is discrete) and inflation (which is diffuse), in the following sense: if you buy GOOG today and sell next year for a 0.00000001% more you have certainly made a loss (because inflation). If you buy BTCGOOG today and sell next year for a 0.00000001% more you have certainly made a gain - the risk has ended with your divestment and turns out to have been 0% (in that case).

Obviously BTC inflation is still significant atm, but once block rewards halve a few more times that will change.

She probably wasn't being literal, just pointing out that any rate of gain is "a good thing". Not necessarily good enough in any situation.