Topic: DiceBitco.in - New Thread to Discuss - page 7. (Read 20704 times)

OMG he stole the seed arguement goes out the door imo unless he changes the bets.

Wait - Starting here and looking at a lot of the 8 BTC bets he was straight betting high https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8721404
http://pastebin.com/LrCt47ve


OMG he stole the seed arguement goes out the door imo unless he changes the bets.


So he started hammering the site with 1600 invested then when it dropped to 400 BTC it was basically a 1 on 1 fight to the death with 1 BTC Bets.

When the player has as much BTC as the bank a 1% is absolute shit.  BlackJack is 2% and normal roulette which is what this game is 5.6% with 0 & 00

I edited my post above; Mateo was betting 1 BTC while max bet was 7.88 BTC and as far as I watched it go down he didn't go back to bigger bets other than an occasional 2 BTC bet. He went down to 0.75 BTC bets only when the max bet went below 1 BTC (and then to 0.5 BTC bets).

Most of the damage doen was with 1 BTC bets and I saw the profit go from 190 to 250 to 180 to 100 and further down.

post with a screenshot of 8 btc bets at 1680 BTC bankroll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8721491

Wake up dooglus; stop trying to defend an obvious scam with maths. nakowa's luck was unlikely; mateo's luck is orders of magnitudes less likely. No rational person with 100s of BTC flat bets for hours on end on dice sites and makes profit. You should know that better than anybody.

@Dooglus I'm working on an article detailing the downfall of DiceBitco.in, and am prefacing it with a brief history of the "invest" option growing big with Just-Dice, so I will probably be reaching out to you in PM later on confirming some JD numbers and the mathematical probability that "mateo" actually had his winning streak without having access to server seeds.

Given that there are still people here entertaining the idea Matteo could have been real, Manl would be smart to release the data. Especially if he has nothing to hide.

I thought I took a screenshot of his early 7 BTC bets, but can't find it.

I'm pretty sure the bulk of the damage was done with 7 BTC bets, so assuming 60k bets at 1 BTC isn't going to give you the right results. Many of his bets were much smaller than 1 BTC too.

it is certainly not 1 in 500.  the chart that you wanted was drawn using different assumptions (i believe more accurate ones).  60K bets at 1btc average.  those assumptions gave a 1 in 2.3M chance.

the only errors are most likely in your assumptions.  During the session, Mateo did the early damage with bets that were a lot lower than the max bet

#include 
#include 
#include 

int mateo_wins() {
  static long target = RAND_MAX * 0.495;

  float bank = 100;

  while (1) {
    if (random() < target) {
      bank *= 0.995;
      if (bank > 184)
        return 0;
    } else {
      bank *= 1.005;
      if (bank < 16)
        return 1;
    }
  }
}

void main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  time_t t;
  int wins = 0, trials = atoi(argv[1]), c;

  // seed random number generator with current time
  time(&t);
  srandom(t);

  for (c = 0; c < trials; c++)
    wins += mateo_wins();

  printf("%d out of %d\n", wins, trials);
}

So 1 in 500 - Thats not completely out of the realm

I remember seeing Wokehaha turn 0.6 to 3 BTC into 1000 BTC with some wild ass beating

The problem with accurately saying just how unlikely Mateo's run was is that we don't have much information on him. We don't know how many bets he made, what stake he was using, etc.

All we know for sure is that investors suffered roughly 84% losses around the time he was playing.

We could run a simulation where we bet at 49.5% to win 0.5% of the house bankroll, repeating until either the house bankroll grows or shrinks by 84%, and seeing how often the house ends up down instead of up. That way we get an upper bound on how likely Mateo's run was to have been legit (since betting to win 0.5% each time is the optimal strategy assuming you're restricted to play at 49.5% and also assuming you're not cheating!)

Here's code for such a simulation:


It's slow (sometimes it's an epic struggle between bank and Mateo, and so takes a long time to run), but here are some early results:

$ ./mateo.py 100
0 out of 100
$ ./mateo.py 1000
9 out of 1000
$ ./mateo.py 5000
12 out of 5000
$ ./mateo.py 10000
29 out of 10000
$

Winning 9 times out of 1000 and 12 out of 5000 shows that the variance is high.

9 out of 1000 is 0.9%.
12 out of 5000 is 0.25%.
29 out of 10000 is 0.29%.

So I guess the chance of Mateo doing what he did is around 1 in 500.

Note that I just threw the above code together - it may contain errors - and I made some assumptions which are plainly untrue (he wasn't max-betting every time).

Please feel free to point out any errors.