Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 115. (Read 435457 times)

- 2 k profit.

It seems that I ALWAYS invest in the wrong moment

Hi guys.  dooglus and I are out of town for a couple of days, so we'll be online less than usual.  In addition dooglus forgot the power cord for his laptop at home, and his laptop is out of battery power.  We'll try to find a new one, but with it being Sunday and with us being in an unpopulated area it may take a while.

Posting this in an attempt to avoid any "omg he ran with the cold wallet" scares...

doog (on deb's teeny little netbook)

(sorry for cutting up your post, by the way)

The problem is that you and dooglus calculated different things. He showed the relative change in your *invested* bankroll:


while you calculated the total of invested bankroll *plus* uninvested portion:



The problem in this unequal comparison arises when you start calculating, as you did in the end, what happens when several big losses are followed by wins (for the investor).

Take an extreme example: Several big losses drive the *invested* bankroll of the 1% investor to 0, while the <1% investor still has a non-zero amount invested. That's a possible scenario, and that's what dooglus' percentage calculation describes.

In that case, any further profits are going entirely to the <1% investor, unless the 1% investor "refilled" his investment. But in that case, your calculation isn't applicable anymore, because you assumed fixed initial investments.

So I don't think your example calculations already sufficiently show what you want them to show, but I admit they did make me think about the relevance of the new system as well.

I'll have to think about it some more, but I'm not sure anymore either if it makes a difference whether you invest, say 400 btc @ 0.25% or 100 btc @ 1%, assuming the 1% investor "refills" his investment up to the total of 400 btc.

thanks, but those samples and facts are clear to most the users here IMHO, but as you mentioned before that only a cheat can overcome the house edge in the long run. why shouldnt we count this in?

No need.

Took classes in college. Know people in the industry. Gambling comes down to two thing: The odds and the payouts. That's it. As long as the payout is less than the odds you are taking, in the long term you are loser.

A simple example. Rolling dice. If you pick one number, the odds are 1 in 6. To be even and fair, a casino should pay out 6x your bet. But casinos are a business and instead may only pay out 4x. That payout is what gives the casino the edge. This dice game is no different, but they are giving nearly 1:1 for your money and most professional gamblers would go crazy for a 1% edge. Craps, Baccarat, Blackjacks (you can have a +1% edge if you know how to count cards and the casino owners can ask you leave) having the lowest edge are some of the popular games people play.

While Nakowa can potentially make a fortune and bankrupt JD, it's far more probable with the 1% edge the house he won't the longer he plays. But it's clear he's a compulsive gambler and as one, I know he is going to fall victim to one of the basic elements of human nature: greed.

He can't win forever, but he will continue to play. Ultimately he will lose.

No link, apparently nakowa at one point told dooglus that. I heard it in chat.

This puts his lower bound at 10,000 and his potential higher bound at 100,000.

Also he was into bitcoin 2011 or 2010 so he is an early adopter and could have acquired that many.

Please link or its just BS. From what we know Nakowa has max 24k BTC.

Holy bitcoin. 12+ million bucks. I'll bet he has a ton more in fiat, too, unless he was just an early adopter who managed to mine a load of Bitcoin. But damn, that's a lot...

The only "system" is a cheating one.
Agree 100% and please let me add that one should never neglect the possibility of a cheat!

could You please explain what it means to be a student of gambling? You are welcome to explain it with a PM

thanks

First, fees/rakes do not apply in many poker games. Secondly, poker IS NOT a -EV game by default, it depends on the skills of your opponents. A dice game with x% house edge is ALWAYS -EV for the player and +EV for the house, full stop.

I agree - if this is all Dooglus's change will do, I don't really see the point.  I thought that it would allow me to set a bet limit I'm going to take part in e.g. I set a limit of 50 BTC max bet and any bets below, I get action and any bets higher I don't.  But if it's just the same as only investing some of my BTC then doesn't it just add unnecessary complexity?

Will

Then please enlighten me...

As a student of gambling, and one who personally know people to have made and lose millions of dollars I heard it all already...Please share. What exactly is this "system" he has. Martingale? That's a losing one. Did he "create" it? It's a loser as well. As long as the house has an edge in the long term he losing.

The only "system" is a cheating one.

That's still "only" twice as much as j-d's current bankroll. I'll leave it up to better mathematicians to calculate exactly how low the chance is that he'll break the bank before he is bankrupt.


EDIT: +3000 profit now

So nearly 1/2 percent of all Bitcoins. I can only imagine gambling as a poor man.

I heard in chat that Nakowa once claimed his bankroll was six figures.

100,000 bitcoin.

At least.

He can sustain himself for a long long time.

Yes and no. The strategy is essentially unimportant, every martingale or similar sequence can be analysed as an equivalent single bet. The relevant factors are size of player bankroll, size of casino bankroll, and desired profit of player. Not completely true. Forgot that maxbet size factors in as well.

In that sense, if a player's bankroll is orders of magnitude larger than the casinos bankroll, he could, with a very high likelihood, bankrupt the casino.

But that requires an utopically large bankroll of the player. While nakowa has, perhaps a bankroll the same size as the casino. Since we have maxbet size, his chance to drive j-d bankrup is exceedingly low.

Irrespective of that, he already *is* at a profit. The rational choice now, (as before), is simply to stop playing. The end.

Poker is an EV- game (cause of fees/rakes), but still some players are playing every day and winning more money each month than any engineer in the world.

sorry but You are one of many dreamers here in this thread IMHO (no offense), with no clue what is possible in 2013

The expected value is negative. If he plays long enough, its 100% guaranteed he will lose unless he is cheating or the site flawed.

The only way for him to succeed is to get lucky and stop while ahead. "stop" means not playing again, EVER. Casinos are wildly profitable because those willing to gamble their hard earned money cannot stop most of the times.

If he got a high bankroll, increase bets when loosing and reduce bets when winning, he sould end up by winning money.