How was the seed generated, then? 
Your avatar fits well in this situation. 
Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 102. (Read 435457 times)
So, what the rest of investors would think about trying with a 1.5% edge? It's going to be difficult to have doog agree on that as all the marketing of JD is based on the extremely low 1% edge, but I would love to hear your reasoned opinions.
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt
thanks but what RNG is it? is this a PRNG?
ofc it is prng. jd uses a sha512 hmac of a seed to generate the lucky numbers. for all intents and purposes this is absolutely random. if you find a pattern, it would imply a serious breakthrough in the field of cryptography (effectively breaking sha).
thanks for clarifying. why is he not using a TRNG?
trng? i assume you mean a 'truly' random generator.
simply because obtaining random data is very hard (not 100% sure, but i have doubts that something like a TRNG exists). On the level JD is operating on (software on a server), you do not have random input with which your software can work with. OS random generators usually work by taking as inputs various pieces of information (such as time, etc.) and then applying algorithms to them. This results in seemingly random data, however, technically speaking, it is not truly random.
If you want to come closer to pure/true randomness, you would need a special hardware-based generator (for example, one that measures micro turbulances in the air) and base your data off it.
Randomness is a tricky topic
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt
thanks but what RNG is it? is this a PRNG?
ofc it is prng. jd uses a sha512 hmac of a seed to generate the lucky numbers. for all intents and purposes this is absolutely random. if you find a pattern, it would imply a serious breakthrough in the field of cryptography (effectively breaking sha).
thanks for clarifying. why is he not using a TRNG?
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt
thanks but what RNG is it? is this a PRNG?
ofc it is prng. jd uses a sha512 hmac of a seed to generate the lucky numbers. for all intents and purposes this is absolutely random. if you find a pattern, it would imply a serious breakthrough in the field of cryptography (effectively breaking sha).
How silly are the investors complaining about invest/divesting??? This is obvious when you sign up for the site. It explains that as other investors invest/divest, your bankroll % can change. Its written directly on the invest tab.
Those investing/divesting could also be wrong and magnify your gains. It works both ways.
mechs has shows to complain over and over again about his investment. first convincing doog to drop to 0.25% when he was stressed out over losses, then trying to convince doog that he should cap investment at 50,000 so he can keep his bankroll %.... now trying to convince doog to add a delay to invest/divest tab?
mechs, Your investment on just-dice is *not risk free*. if you can't afford to lose, do not invest
Those investing/divesting could also be wrong and magnify your gains. It works both ways.
mechs has shows to complain over and over again about his investment. first convincing doog to drop to 0.25% when he was stressed out over losses, then trying to convince doog that he should cap investment at 50,000 so he can keep his bankroll %.... now trying to convince doog to add a delay to invest/divest tab?
mechs, Your investment on just-dice is *not risk free*. if you can't afford to lose, do not invest
My english is pretty bad. What I mean is that even if your math are right (didn't check), a less than 1% possibility doesn't make an event unlikely. Like getting a royal flush on a single hand is almost impossible since it's less than 1% chance but it should still happens often on the long run. I don't say nothing is wrong with JD but what is happening is far from impossible so we can't be sure something is wrong.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
exactly, you wrote "whale being lucky" - which isn't accurate. Whether the whale is lucky doesn't effect you calculations, just the existence of the whale does. When you wrote "lucky," both I and naphto thought you meant that if a whale is winning (lucky) you have a greater chance of return (which isn't true). Just the fact that the whale is playing means you have a greater chance of return, whether he's lucky or not while playing doesn't matter.
You are right, I stand corrected.
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns?
Huh
maybe a typo: I think he means the existence of whales raises the chances of high return (since they increase volume), but their existence may imply that they know something that gives them an edge.
No typo. I said nothing about future.
Expected profit = 1% house edge from amount gambled
Expected return = Expected profit / amount invested
Indeed due to whale a lot more is gambled and expected profit goes up. If amount invested does not increase equally, the expected return on your capital invested goes up.
exactly, you wrote "whale being lucky" - which isn't accurate. Whether the whale is lucky doesn't effect you calculations, just the existence of the whale does. When you wrote "lucky," both I and naphto thought you meant that if a whale is winning (lucky) you have a greater chance of return (which isn't true). Just the fact that the whale is playing means you have a greater chance of return, whether he's lucky or not while playing doesn't matter.
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt
thanks but what RNG is it? is this a PRNG?
Can't believe you smart math guys keep arguing against idiots about this invest/divest stuff instead of using your smarts to do something like this. (The irony is that those idiots are actually correct at the moment, because right now being invested is -EV by itself).
Some quick back of the envelope calculations to show why you should probably all just divest:
Wagered on site: 3.6M
Expected profit: 36 000
Actual profit: -3 000
Site is 39 000BTC under expectations. Now let us simplify and assume all bets made were 200BTC bets. (The actual situation will have less variance than this because most of nakowas volume has actually been on bets less than this.)
Total bets made 3.6M/200 = 18 000
Variance of 18 000 bets of 200BTC at 49.5%: 200 * sqrt(0.495*0.515*18000) = 13 500
Site currently running 39 000 / 13 500 = 2.88 st devations under expected.
Conclusion chance of the site running this poorly by chance: Way less than 1%.
You guys keep saying trust the math, but your conclusion is all messed up. The math is telling you to GTFO, chances of something being wrong here is so high that staying invested currently is -EV!
Some quick back of the envelope calculations to show why you should probably all just divest:
Wagered on site: 3.6M
Expected profit: 36 000
Actual profit: -3 000
Site is 39 000BTC under expectations. Now let us simplify and assume all bets made were 200BTC bets. (The actual situation will have less variance than this because most of nakowas volume has actually been on bets less than this.)
Total bets made 3.6M/200 = 18 000
Variance of 18 000 bets of 200BTC at 49.5%: 200 * sqrt(0.495*0.515*18000) = 13 500
Site currently running 39 000 / 13 500 = 2.88 st devations under expected.
Conclusion chance of the site running this poorly by chance: Way less than 1%.
You guys keep saying trust the math, but your conclusion is all messed up. The math is telling you to GTFO, chances of something being wrong here is so high that staying invested currently is -EV!
The calculation is incorrect I believe, the probability of the profit being worse than it is is around 7% according to my calculations.
Assume each bet is 200BTC, the probability of casino winning is 0.505.
Let X be the random variable representing the casino profit on such a bet.
E[X] is 2, and Var[X] is 39996.
From the central limit theorem, the difference between the observed profit over the 18 000 bets and the expected profit, divided by the square root of the number of bets (18000) is close to normally distributed with mean 0 and variance the variance of X, 39996.
-39 000 / sqrt(18 000) ~= -291.
And the probability of a normally distributed variable with mean 0 and variance 39996 being less than or equal to -291, is (according to wolframalpha) around 0.073, i.e 7.3%.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns?
Huh
maybe a typo: I think he means the existence of whales raises the chances of high return (since they increase volume), but their existence may imply that they know something that gives them an edge.
No typo. I said nothing about future.
Expected profit = 1% house edge from amount gambled
Expected return = Expected profit / amount invested
Indeed due to whale a lot more is gambled and expected profit goes up. If amount invested does not increase equally, the expected return on your capital invested goes up.
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG?
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns?
Huh
maybe a typo: I think he means the existence of whales raises the chances of high return (since they increase volume), but their existence may imply that they know something that gives them an edge.
to people calculating variance ITT: try to first see the variance
of what you are calculating, and how it is related to the quantity of interest.
If you have to make some simplifying assumptions, try to estimate how the
simplification affects the result.
Specifically, one point that is missing in all calculations I've seen here is that
bet *sizes* are not independent (the outcomes are independent, the amounts are not independent and are not
independent of the outcomes).
Ignoring this does affect the results, a lot.
I didn't check the rest of the details
of what you are calculating, and how it is related to the quantity of interest.
If you have to make some simplifying assumptions, try to estimate how the
simplification affects the result.
Specifically, one point that is missing in all calculations I've seen here is that
bet *sizes* are not independent (the outcomes are independent, the amounts are not independent and are not
independent of the outcomes).
Ignoring this does affect the results, a lot.
I didn't check the rest of the details
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns?
Huh
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
In a totally perfect world I agree that the Kelly criterion should be followed. However, there are two things that need to be taken into consideration in this situation.
-The possibility of some flaw in the RNG.
-The possibility of Nakowa cheating.
If there was a way for us to 100% know neither of those were happening, the Kelly criterion should obviously be followed. FreeMoney explains this very well in his last post.
Unfortunately there is no way for us to be sure that there is no flaw or no cheating going on. Having a max bet lower than the Kelly criterion gains the investors equity because nakowa will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is doing it.
If you think the chance of cheating/flaw are >0% the optimal max bet will be somewhat lower than what the Kelly criterion dictates. The chance of something bad going on would need to be pretty high for the max bet to be adjusted as low as 0.25%, but I think a good case could be made for it to be somewhere around 0.6-0.7%.
-The possibility of some flaw in the RNG.
-The possibility of Nakowa cheating.
If there was a way for us to 100% know neither of those were happening, the Kelly criterion should obviously be followed. FreeMoney explains this very well in his last post.
Unfortunately there is no way for us to be sure that there is no flaw or no cheating going on. Having a max bet lower than the Kelly criterion gains the investors equity because nakowa will not be able to win as much by cheating before it statistically becomes obvious that he is doing it.
If you think the chance of cheating/flaw are >0% the optimal max bet will be somewhat lower than what the Kelly criterion dictates. The chance of something bad going on would need to be pretty high for the max bet to be adjusted as low as 0.25%, but I think a good case could be made for it to be somewhere around 0.6-0.7%.
Makes sense, thanks
Jump to: