Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 105. (Read 435457 times)

Thanks so much Peter.

Very helpful to see his luck streak continues to be within acceptable limits. 

Considering it's at the top of '13.6%' and bottom of '2.1%', does it mean that his luck is around 7%? Meaning there is a 7% chance that he did as good?

What does this graph say to you?

I sort of agree on a 1.5% edge but it looks like that now the investors desires are going towards "the whale", how to change the rules in such a way to protect them but to keep the whale in for getting back the lost money (btw, how many whales are there?). Without this desire of keeping the whale, also going to 0.25% maxbet works in a similar way (as was done and then changed).

Divesting/investing is, as said before, the investor' fallacy. In any case they are just (on average) losing money and "protecting" those who keep invested from breaking too much when things go bad and giving them more money when things go good.

This.

There is no regression to the mean. If we're at +5000, we can go to +10000 as likely as to 0. If someone wants to time the market, do it. You can win or you can lose, but math is not on your side.

For those whining around everytime the profit is down, that's simply because you can't stand the variance. Don't call out for further reglementations, just divest partly. I have done this yesterday myself, I divested about 60% before going to sleep, because I don't want to wake up with a 20% loss.

If you know that someone has 10k euros.
That the website bankroll is 10 euros, and every investors has like 1 cent.

When you see the big guy gambling you should divest and invest when he finish ...
Because you know that:
1) there is no way on earth the 10 euros bankroll will destroy his 10k bankroll.
2) your 1 cent investment will take 10 / 20 / 30 % lost in a few hours.
3) you can make money but investing/divesting at the coorect time

I agree on that, but now many people are getting pissed off because sometimes in these days that strategy worked. It would be the same if an investor divested, bet 30BTC on head or tail, wins and then invest again.

Agreed. But unless the site is working correctly there's also no reason to day trade.

if the rolls are truly random, then there is no such thing as 'timing your invest/divest', right? so day trading is merely limiting your exposure to shorter amounts of time.

an investors EV is still positive if they day trade, just based off of less wagered.

the whole point of day trading is either reduction in exposure to variance, gamblers fallacy, or the belief that a gambler is in fact cheating.

I see very little down side to day trading at JD.

We've heard from quite a few people who put money in the J-D bankroll, left it unattended, and lost large chunks of it. I have every sympathy for those losses.

Apart from the ongoing discussions about bet size and house edge, though, now it turns out that much of the "blame" for these losses is being placed squarely on the shoulders of those investors who choose to time their moves in and out of the bankroll, rather than putting it in once and leaving it unattended. Now there are even suggestions about how to "fix" the problem by enforcing capital controls, restricting investors from moving in and out of the bankroll according to their own preferences.

Focusing in on a specific imagined scenario -- namely, that everyone else is out there timing their investments in the bankroll perfectly, and that if only those darned "day traders" would go away, then a set-it-and-forget-it investment strategy could finally pay off again -- is, in my view, missing the forest for the trees.

It is trying to turn a model which has high variance baked in as an essential feature into something else entirely, something with "protections" for "investors", but only for a specific set of "investors" -- namely, those who are vocal about losing money from their unattended investments and expect dooglus to do something to help them get it back.

It's missing the fact that introducing asymmetric capital controls -- e.g., divest when you want, but invest only after a delay -- would, for a fixed investment size, be likely to increase the magnitude of changes in both directions by driving away capital that would otherwise have been lent to the bankroll. It's missing the fact that if those darned "day traders" are not standing by to add capital to the bankroll when the house is losing, then there's nothing to prevent the maximum profit from shrinking right along with the bankroll. It's missing the risk of actually breaking the house altogether, should a determined whale's winnings grow large enough relative to the size of a shrinking bankroll no longer being replenished by those silly "day traders".

My point is not to name every last problem with attempts to control how other investors lend to the bankroll, it's just to make a more general point related to that old saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch. I believe it's a mistake to imagine that making it harder to invest in the bankroll would make things better for the set of investors who want to be able to put their money into J-D, leave it, and come back after a day or a week or a month and see how nicely it's grown. Throughout history, we've seen over and over that fiddling with complex financial systems by enforcing capital controls designed to "protect" winds up having unintended consequences. Seemingly "protective" capital controls have a habit of increasing variance, not decreasing it.

You cannot, in general, trade profitably. Buying and holding will make a guaranteed if you're certain the underlying will go up in price.

What you don't understand is that it will always happen in the future, as long as he is playing here ...
You need basics



Website's profit will always go up and down. By investing when profit is down, and divesting when it is low/down, you will always make more profit than staying invested through the process....


That's like saying "bitcoin price will be higher in the future, so it is always a good time to buy"....
Stupid, by buying low and selling high you can make profits.

this is not nice to say  that you are extremely disappointed............but I am with You and also shocked.
Investors are gambling here.

Of course this has happened 7 times before and will certainly happen in the future. I'm glad I didn't go into teaching ...

This is what happened 7 times before (according to someone above), and will happen again in the future.
No matter what you like/think

IMHO You are a gambling Investor

It is funny to watch whales playing. I enjoyed yesterday
Too bad, I don't have popcorn.

This is outcome dependent thinking. You cannot generalize from a single case to the general case.

People this is not rocket science. I'm becoming extremely disappointed in people's overall intelligence

Lol. That must be why mechs is 25% down and stayed invested from July, while I made 10% profit yesterday
And the funniest part is that if I invest again today, I will make profit, again and again, while mechs will be waiting for weeks to break even :

No you cannot, you are trying to time the market: a losing proposition. Staying invested throughout is the most profitable strategy. If you want to avoid a lot of variance you can divest. This is why Dooglus divested!

As pointed out before, when nakowa is betting, there is a lot of moves, and profit get easily + 10 k or - 6k within hours.
At the end of the day, it always end up with a large negative profit.


Some people says that nakowa got 3 or 4 times the website bankroll and can take a lot of losses ...
So it makes sense to divest when he is loosing a lot, and invest at the end of the period, or when he got lucky.


As I said, you can make up to 30 % profit daily with that, with only investing and divesting once (at the correct time).

Given that the probabilities don't change, it wouldn't make sense to invest/divest on winning/losing streaks. That's investors fallacy.

Unless for example the hash distribution is not random, or the server seed is not safe.