Topic: DiceBitco.in - New Thread to Discuss - page 5. (Read 20679 times)

And you're stupid enough to believe that's the case. Either those numbers are fake or the siteowner himself invested to deceive you again.

Well if it's provably rigged so players lose then investors should get a lot of profit 

And now people is coming back and invest in it 

So is the site provably rigged?

Since the bat shit about signatures campaign is at least as useless as the shitstorm of math in thread, I allow myself to reply to dooglus' post here. Again, pure technicalities.

I made an obvious mistake. I had another piece of code in mind (if nicolaennio allows me, I'll publish it).
Indeed there's no stopping condition on the number of bet in this model. If the random number generator was biased (evenly distributed around 0.495) or if the criterion was "< 0.5", the betting maybe could go forever (Nerds: with what probability?). It would be indeed be interesting do modify the code to capture the number of bets until bust either side (a.k.a. survival time). With max bet size, I expect it to be very short. (Nerds: what is the distribution of that number?   )

That's right ! And all the rest of the discussion rely on the definition of event and all the IF's rely on the available information or the information we decide to include to our model(s). In mathematical terms, it translates to conditions.

P( Event ¦ Information )       (conditional probability)

In my previous analysis, I mentioned three(+doog's) of such expressions. For me (I seem to be alone), the probability I) is the first that came into my mind, seemed the most natural to me. Others might have different opinion. Nobody's right or wrong, we just have different views on how to approach a problem with an open question, a non mathematical question.

If this is true, that would make sense. But I didn't see starting and stopping, or that there wasn't a ramp up and ramp down time between starting and stopping, so I can't speak to it. Just offering what I thought was the most likely explanation for the fast betting.

On a fast connection, the robot is very fast. With four windows open, I can get about 8-10 bets per second. Doesn't work with tabs though. If a robot is running in a tab that isn't on top of the screen, it runs much slower than normal. But with four robots running in different windows, no problem at all.

I do not think, it was multi window betting, but 8 Bet per seconds also very fast even very fast internet connection
I saw 4-5 Bets per seconds in many site with autobet, but not more then that.

I think the betting started and stopped pretty suddenly. If you were using multiple windows, wouldn't it take a while to get up to full speed and also to stop betting as you switched between windows and clicked the stop/start button on each?

I'm on a very laggy connection so have no idea how fast the auto-bet feature worked on a fast connection.

It's most likely he was using multiple windows, each with a robot running. I too can replicate bets at that speed using this process. I doubt there was a super secret computer he had access to that lets him bet faster than anyone else, or whatever is being hinted at. Most logical explanation is multiple windows.

On that, if you're using multiple windows, you must be more sure than normal that you're going to win, as responding to an adverse gambling incident would take much longer on multiple windows than just one. This suggests something was going on to me, since if you're just straight gambling, one robot suffices. The fact that there was likely multiple windows operating a robot means you're not worried about house edge, as the more bets that are placed, the more the edge will dent profits. Multiple windows means trying to bet as quickly as possible before people withdraw, where house edge isn't a factor, which suggests to me the betting was rigged.

As long as these gambling sites keep operating in a grey area I agree with you. Casino's owners shouldn't be anonymous. But I can understand why they want to be, getting a real gambling license is pretty expensive and hard process.

So basically we've learned that if you create a decent site and run it for couple months then put another 10k into a new site, you can run with up to 8000 BTC shortly after? Personally, I'm glad people here lost money cause if you're stupid enough to invest more then a coin to this new guy's site you deserved it. Dooglus is only and will be only dice site past or present owner trustworthy around here, let's be real.

I've joked with obvious Ponzi scammers before about having 40k BTC to invest with them.

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm just messing with them.

That is a very good point,and one that struck me at the time too.

I took some screenshots to capture the speed of betting:

14-09-08 - 08:49:43 AM PDT


14-09-08 - 08:50:17 AM PDT


14-09-08 - 08:50:31 AM PDT (waited to capture a lot of wins)


In all three it seems to be about 8 bets per second.

I don't think so. I didn't include the 60k bets limit at all. First, I don't know where it came from, or whether it's really how many bets he made, and second I don't know that it matters. If it would have taken twice as many bets as it did, wouldn't he have still taken 84% of the bank? I doubt *he* had a 60k bet count limit in mind. Much more likely his goal was to win as much as possible without caring how many bets it took.

When asking "how likely is it that what happened was for real?", we need to decide what aspects of "what happened" are significant. The fact that he rolled a 70.2 (made up number) on his first bet isn't significant. If we include all his rolled numbers in our analysis we will find it truly remarkable that he rolled exactly that sequence of numbers. His "feat" is that he won 84% of the bank, and so that's what we have to look at. If he did it by betting substantially less than the max bet, that too is part of the "feat" and needs to be taken into account, since that makes it less likely to happen without cheating.


I think that's not a good way of looking at it.

If I make a single bet of 1 BTC at "< 49.5", roll 33.3231 and win, and you look at it to decide if I was cheating, do you:

a) see that there was a 49.5% chance of me winning, and so it's quite possible that I didn't cheat
b) see that there was a 0.0001% chance of me rolling exactly 33.3231, and so it's very likely that I cheated

My point is that "winning exactly what he won" is a random detail, like me happening to roll 33.3231. Looking it the probability of *exactly* that happening is to miss the point. We need to look at the probability of being at least as lucky as him - which is low enough already.

First of all, it doesn't matter if your signature was visible or not. You weren't allowed to have any other signatures so you should have been kicked from the campaign. We both know that BitMixer.io checks your signature using a script and that it doesn't where you have it.
I was wrong about that and I apologize. I confused you with someone else (you weren't the only one doing this).

TF came active with all this around that time yes. I was entitled to al earnings before the scam was apartent (you could've decided to not count everyone's post from a certain time, by the way).

I had 1 signature, the other was added for a few hours but not displayed publicly (so no second signature was being advertised publicly). The reason I added it was to complete the week BEFORE I joined dicebitcoin (a few hourse were required). Advertising for dicebitcoin was not hindered by the invisible signature.. And what do you mean by twice?

Finally I am not saying I am better than them, hope you understand that.

he should return the money or you ( bitcoininformation) have to leave a negative feedback to him (@marcotheminer). This is not a correct behavior

You had a signature for 11 days, TF started sending messages 1 or 2 days after DiceBitco.in gave the campaign to use and it was quite clear that it was extremely scammy after 2 days, yet you continued to wear the signature. You even had two signatures, twice (!) (which Dooglus and I noticed after you got paid and yes, we can proof it). Stop acting like you are better then someone else.

The site became a scam just before I was paid for my posts. I continued to post when there was a lot of uncertainty as to what was happening. It is now clear what has happened (proven to be untrustworthy) yet those users consciously continue to advertise them. I dropped as soon as I got an early payment.

And you didnt? You sticked with the campaign until you got paid and now you are bashing others. Such morals.