Author

Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 109. (Read 435353 times)

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
So say there are two investors.  Investor A has invested 100 BTC. Investor B has invested 100 BTC also.

Right now the max profit is set to 0.5%.

If someone bets 0.1btc at 49.5%
Then they both are able to gain 0.05 btc. (or lose)

Now you implement your method.  Investor B decides to risk 1% instead.

So now if someone bets 0.1 btc,
Investor A can win ±.33 and investor B can win ±.67.

This doesn't seem fair.  Investor A is still okay with betting at this risk level.  Why does investor B take some of his bet?

Here's another analogy:

--
A and B both invest 100 BTC.  Someone wants to bet 0.1 BTC.  Both investors stand to gain 0.05 BTC.

Now investor B decides to double his risk by investing another 100 BTC.

So now if someone bets 0.1 btc,
Investor A can win ±.33 and investor B can win ±.67.

This doesn't seem fair.  Investor A is still okay with betting at this risk level.  Why does investor B take some of his bet?
--

In both cases investor B has doubled his risk, and as a result 'takes' some of investor A's action.  In both cases he has diluted the other investor's share by risking more.  In your analogy he did it by doubling his Kelly factor, and in mine he did it by doubling his investment.  In both cases he's doubling his exposure, and so doubles his reward.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
How many repeat bets does it it take to push a gambler's +1 sigma line negative?

It takes 4 X longer for a gambler's +1 sigma line to go negative at 1% than at 2% house edge.

What does that mean, a sigma line going negative?

I mean the curve 1 standard deviation above his expected profits.  Until this curve goes negative, it is really not that surprising at all for the gambler to keep popping up into profits.

If I remember correctly he took around 15,000 bets according to dooglus in the chat. In such case that is above the 9,999 bets you state, so in the negative curve line as you say. How high is the chance for that to happen according to your estimations/calculations?
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
Why would I invest 500 BTC at 0.25% when I can just invest 125BTC at 1% then and not have the CP risk for the othet 375 BTC?

Because you would get less variance.

Suppose a whale bets max bet and wins 20 times.  If you invest 500 BTC at 0.25%, you'll still have 95% of your bankroll left:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a*100/500,),
99.75 99.50 99.25 99.00 98.76 98.51 98.26 98.02 97.77 97.53 97.28 97.04 96.80 96.56 96.31 96.07 95.83 95.59 95.36 95.12

But if you invest 125 BTC at 1%, you'll have only 82% of it left:

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0100); print "%.2f" % (a*100/125,),
99.00 98.01 97.03 96.06 95.10 94.15 93.21 92.27 91.35 90.44 89.53 88.64 87.75 86.87 86.01 85.15 84.29 83.45 82.62 81.79

Your risk of ruin is much greater if you invest at 1% than if you invest at 0.25%.

Not sure that's true in the second case - as their BR is what they have left of the 125 plus the untouched 375 they have in cold storage.

Fair enough.  Here it is again taking that into account:

>>> a=500
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a*100/500,),
99.75 99.50 99.25 99.00 98.76 98.51 98.26 98.02 97.77 97.53 97.28 97.04 96.80 96.56 96.31 96.07 95.83 95.59 95.36 95.12, ..., 0

>>> a=125
>>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0100); print "%.2f" % ((a+375)*100/500,),
99.75 99.50 99.26 99.01 98.77 98.54 98.30 98.07 97.84 97.61 97.38 97.16 96.94 96.72 96.50 96.29 96.07 95.86 95.65 95.45, ..., 75

If the whale keeps winning when they invest 500 at 0.25%, they end up losing everything.  If they invest 125 at 1%, they end up only losing the 25% they invested...
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
How many repeat bets does it it take to push a gambler's +1 sigma line negative?

It takes 4 X longer for a gambler's +1 sigma line to go negative at 1% than at 2% house edge.

What does that mean, a sigma line going negative?

I mean the curve 1 standard deviation above his expected profits.  Until this curve goes negative, it is really not that surprising at all for the gambler to keep popping up into profits.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
How many repeat bets does it it take to push a gambler's +1 sigma line negative?

It takes 4 X longer for a gambler's +1 sigma line to go negative at 1% than at 2% house edge.

What does that mean, a sigma line going negative?
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
How many repeat bets does it it take to push a gambler's +1 sigma line negative?

Equations:

     E = house edge, B = bet size, n = number of bets, p = chance of win

     total expected profit after n bets = -n E B

     accumulated variance = n B^2 (1-E)^2 (1-p) / p

So, the question is when does

     -n E B + sqrt(n B^2 (1-E)^2 (1-p) / p) = 0  ?

Solving for number of bets n gives

      n = (1-E)^2 (p-1) / (E^2 p)

So, with 1% house edge betting on p = 0.495, it takes 9999 bets.  With 2% house edge betting on p = 0.495, it only takes 2450 bets

It takes 4 X longer for a gambler's +1 sigma line to go negative at 1% than at 2% house edge.
sr. member
Activity: 375
Merit: 250
what about partnering with Coinflow.co to offer graphs to investors and gamblers. it would relieve doog of work, add value to the site, probably some other good stuff too.

thoughts.
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
The profit is negative again!!

Please change the max bet to 0.1% and change house edge to 1.5%.

Why SatoshiDice can always profit and Just-dice always loss all the profits and go to negative?

We need to change something.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 252

Question regarding just-dice house edge

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the results of different investment strategies in j-d. Being the lazy person that I am, I chose to simulate first, before I try to solve anything analytically. But first, let me know if I understood the house edge on j-d correctly:

It is not an edge on the probabilities of the "dice throw" itself (like, say, in Roulette), but it is a reduced payout in case the player wins, right?

Example:

Say there is exactly one investor, who put in 100 btc, at 1% maxbet. A player places a maximum size bet of 1 btc.

In case the players loses, the investor's new balance is:
old_balance * (1 + 0.01) = 101 btc

In case the player wins, the investors new balance is:
old_balance * (1 - (0.01 * 0.99)) = 99.01,
where the factor 0.99 represents the house edge of 1%.

Yes? No?

There's no max bet.  It's max profit.

Right. But let's say we take the usual 50% bet, then max bet = max profit (ignoring for a moment house edge)

In that case, did I get calculation of house edge right?

No. If an investors has 100 BTC in an account and we're at full kelly (1%), a single 2x payout bet would yield +/- 1 BTC. The reason why is that a 2x bet is the range > 50.5 or < 49.5. The odds are different in the roll (see the log I posted above for an example).
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 252

it is an edge on the probabilities of the dice throw.

Eg: gambler wins 2x if RNG picks a number > 50.5 or < 49.5 (roll hi or roll low). So if gamblers hits roll high, house wins from 0-50.5, player wins from 50.5-100

Where do you get this from?

The j-d FAQ seems to imply otherwise.

 user:
berathea (161188)
 date:
2013-09-29 18:39:30
 betid:
144345199
 lucky:
91.4117
 target:
>50.4999
 bet:
170.79869440
 payout:
2x
 profit:
+170.79869439


Two ways of looking at it:
1) 2x payout means you roll > 50.5
2) rolling > 50 means 1.98x payout

both are true, FAQ points out (2), but the bet log has lots of (1), as shown above.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007

it is an edge on the probabilities of the dice throw.

Eg: gambler wins 2x if RNG picks a number > 50.5 or < 49.5 (roll hi or roll low). So if gamblers hits roll high, house wins from 0-50.5, player wins from 50.5-100

Where do you get this from?

The j-d FAQ seems to imply otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007

Question regarding just-dice house edge

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the results of different investment strategies in j-d. Being the lazy person that I am, I chose to simulate first, before I try to solve anything analytically. But first, let me know if I understood the house edge on j-d correctly:

It is not an edge on the probabilities of the "dice throw" itself (like, say, in Roulette), but it is a reduced payout in case the player wins, right?

Example:

Say there is exactly one investor, who put in 100 btc, at 1% maxbet. A player places a maximum size bet of 1 btc.

In case the players loses, the investor's new balance is:
old_balance * (1 + 0.01) = 101 btc

In case the player wins, the investors new balance is:
old_balance * (1 - (0.01 * 0.99)) = 99.01,
where the factor 0.99 represents the house edge of 1%.

Yes? No?

There's no max bet.  It's max profit.

Right. But let's say we take the usual 50% bet, then max bet = max profit (ignoring for a moment house edge)

In that case, did I get calculation of house edge right?
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 252

Question regarding just-dice house edge

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the results of different investment strategies in j-d. Being the lazy person that I am, I chose to simulate first, before I try to solve anything analytically. But first, let me know if I understood the house edge on j-d correctly:

It is not an edge on the probabilities of the "dice throw" itself (like, say, in Roulette), but it is a reduced payout in case the player wins, right?

Example:

Say there is exactly one investor, who put in 100 btc, at 1% maxbet. A player places a maximum size bet of 1 btc.

In case the players loses, the investor's new balance is:
old_balance * (1 + 0.01) = 101 btc

In case the player wins, the investors new balance is:
old_balance * (1 - (0.01 * 0.99)) = 99.01,
where the factor 0.99 represents the house edge of 1%.

Yes? No?

it is an edge on the probabilities of the dice throw.

Eg: gambler wins 2x if RNG picks a number > 50.5 or < 49.5 (roll hi or roll low). So if gamblers hits roll high, house wins from 0-50.5, player wins from 50.5-100
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Is it true FF Ownz went from 4 BTC all the way to 2000 BTC??
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500

Question regarding just-dice house edge

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the results of different investment strategies in j-d. Being the lazy person that I am, I chose to simulate first, before I try to solve anything analytically. But first, let me know if I understood the house edge on j-d correctly:

It is not an edge on the probabilities of the "dice throw" itself (like, say, in Roulette), but it is a reduced payout in case the player wins, right?

Example:

Say there is exactly one investor, who put in 100 btc, at 1% maxbet. A player places a maximum size bet of 1 btc.

In case the players loses, the investor's new balance is:
old_balance * (1 + 0.01) = 101 btc

In case the player wins, the investors new balance is:
old_balance * (1 - (0.01 * 0.99)) = 99.01,
where the factor 0.99 represents the house edge of 1%.

Yes? No?

There's no max bet.  It's max profit.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007

Question regarding just-dice house edge

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the results of different investment strategies in j-d. Being the lazy person that I am, I chose to simulate first, before I try to solve anything analytically. But first, let me know if I understood the house edge on j-d correctly:

It is not an edge on the probabilities of the "dice throw" itself (like, say, in Roulette), but it is a reduced payout in case the player wins, right?

Example:

Say there is exactly one investor, who put in 100 btc, at 1% maxbet. A player places a maximum size bet of 1 btc.

In case the players loses, the investor's new balance is:
old_balance * (1 + 0.01) = 101 btc

In case the player wins, the investors new balance is:
old_balance * (1 - (0.01 * 0.99)) = 99.01,
where the factor 0.99 represents the house edge of 1%.

Yes? No?
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 252
So, I have this awesome idea.

Someone should turn just-dice into a stock.  So people can trade it on bitfunder or something.  Now you ask why wouldn't you just do a regular stock?  That's because now people can buy options on the stock.  That would be cool.
A stock would be based off revenue from commissions and ads - that is a much better deal than being an investor.

No it would be a third party who invested in just-dice.

Doog doesn't need capital, so he doesn't need to sell stocks. You're proposing a pass through. Go ahead and set one up, offer an IPO, invest it all in JD, and distribute dividends above some bankroll if it is available a given week. Seems kind of silly to me since you could just directly invest in JD - but you're right, you want to setup a JD derivative and that needs some underlying security.
With almost 3.5M wagered and the site at a loss, I think he looking for a way to short J-D

there's an easy way to do that, gamble instead of invest  Wink
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
So, I have this awesome idea.

Someone should turn just-dice into a stock.  So people can trade it on bitfunder or something.  Now you ask why wouldn't you just do a regular stock?  That's because now people can buy options on the stock.  That would be cool.
A stock would be based off revenue from commissions and ads - that is a much better deal than being an investor.

No it would be a third party who invested in just-dice.

Doog doesn't need capital, so he doesn't need to sell stocks. You're proposing a pass through. Go ahead and set one up, offer an IPO, invest it all in JD, and distribute dividends above some bankroll if it is available a given week. Seems kind of silly to me since you could just directly invest in JD - but you're right, you want to setup a JD derivative and that needs some underlying security.
With almost 3.5M wagered and the site at a loss, I think he looking for a way to short J-D
Jump to: