Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 129. (Read 435357 times)

Nakowa copycats will want 1% max profit.

Nakowa just lost his 2,000BTC.

3k yesterday + 2k today: Nakowa is only UP 11k from 16k.

Yeah, but temporarily until he implements variable risk for each investor. Have a little patience! Just a few more days...

Good old Nakowa losing 1,750BTC today. 250BTC more to go before he wipes out the 2,000BTC deposit he did today.

Math never lies. Irrational fear is NOT your friend.



(take back the max profit 1% so he can TRY HARD to cover his losses, came on doog...)

Too bad. Especially as I think Dooglus is a very rational person himself.

"They" have convinced him already. Optimal Kelly criterion is gone, we are now at 1/4 Kelly (0,25% max bet instead of 1%).

I agree.

We should have left the limit alone. Let him bleed. If he loses today, he will justify it by saying we "screwed" his system by changing max-bet. Plus, as we said over and over, changing it when he is way UP is retarded. Not because maths (the probability of him winning or losing is still the same regardless of previous sessions), but because of psychology: if he start losing he will lose his temper and will start to make bad choices. His personality indicates that, and we are "protecting" him from himself by lowering the max profit - that's how I see it.

First off, all this attention brought this investment opportunity to my attention. I invested last night.

Everyone: You weigh the risk your willing to take by changing the amount of money you have invested. Want half the risk for half the gain? Easy, cut your investment in half.

I have invested a number of Bitcoins I can stand losing in a positive EV investment with a large volatility. If I weren't willing to lose this amount I would invest less. Thanks Dooglus and don't let these people influence your decision making in the amount of the bankroll that can be at risk in a single bet. Kelly's criterion is the only rational approach, don't let people convince you to take an irrational approach because they are emotional.

At least now there is a lower limit to what he can lose. 

Yep, gambling addicts always come back - and they come back more often when they lose. Basic gambler's psychology, we should know it well as casino investors.

That said: as you can see in blockchain.info Nakowa just sent 2,000BTC to J-D. This will be a fun evening. His losing big time ATM.

I couldn't summarize it better.

That's what I planned to do, over that long a period the variances would probably have equaled out, but not if the limits have been twiddled along the way (especially after eat massive losses).

streaky as usual...

anyway, looks like our best customer is back

Wouldn't increasing D lead to an increased share of the pie and thus larger values of P, V and C?

Going back to the first line, that's the one that gave me the most difficulty. But yeah, you're right. Sorry for the confusion.

As for your argument, I don't understand *exactly* what you're trying to say but I think I get the gist. I'll say this, for each individual person, yes, the KC requires you to think of your entire bankroll, not just what happens to be "transferred" into JD (just like if a casino is analyzing their business, they would take into account all their assets, or at least liquid assets, not just what happens to be in the cage on a given night).

However, I'll stress again what I mentioned in another one of my posts (I think on the poll thread). While (A) risking 1% of 1000 btc deposited at JD vs. (B) risking 2% of 500 btc deposited at JD and 500 btc held offsite result in the same max bet for the first bet (10 btc), that DOES NOT, hold at the investment starts to go up or down. For example, take A and B above and imagine a player comes in and loses 100 btc (site wins 100):

A) Invested goes from 1,000 to 1,100. Max profit goes from             1% *   1,000 = 10        to       1%  *  1,100 = 11
B) Invested goes from 500 to 600. Max profit goes from                   2% *      500 = 10        to        2% *     600 = 12

The same goes if a player wins 100 BTC (site loses 100):

A) Invested goes from 1,000 to 900. Max profit goes from             1% *   1000 = 10        to       1%  *  900 = 9
B) Invested goes from 500 to 400. Max profit goes from                 2% *    500 = 10        to      2%   *  400 = 8

So, while they start with the same max profit, as investment evolves, they deviate. In the 2% case, it doesn't maintain the KC with relation to your whole bankroll. As your investment grows it, it overshoots the KC, and as your investment decreases, it undershoots it.

That's why the second part of Doog's plan is so key. Allowing you to leave a fraction of your investment offsite, allows you to always keep your investment at the KC as your investment evolves.

Cheers.

Look, we agree on the math. We even agree that unilaterally, without announcement decreasing maxbet was a mistake.

My point is: stop arguing *purely* from a mathematical point of view when the domain in question is the physical world, which is governed by mathematical truths only under a pretty heavy load of simplifying assumptions.

In simple terms: everyone go ahead, criticise the decision. But do it with a modicum of humbleness, not pretending that it was somehow "provably" wrong to make the call to reduce maxbet.

What changed is that the low probability happened. If statistics would say one of 3 car accidents are deadly would you stop driving after your second accident?

Of course not, that changes nothing on the probability of your next accident being deadly.

Your chance is always 87.7779% if you play that (heck how should I know what you play). Even if you would have already lost a 1000 Times in a row.

But well, if you think there is a "ghost of Satoshi" rolling the dice, just keep believing it.

First, since you are not aware, I don't play 50%. I play 87.7779%. I was the only one, then a few people copied me.

In this particular case, the next roll is sure to be an 87.7779% chance of winning, however I contend that it would be more than 99% chance of winning.

Here's my "memory". 3 variables. 2 are exactly the same. 1 changes a bit. Literally. (okay, it changes a digit sometimes, so it's not just a bit, but a byte.)

Also, if looking at the future, I can see the odds of 6 times in a row before it happens, what changes as it is happening? Just pretend we're back 6 rolls ago. The same statistic. Why does it change when I've already lost 5?


Uh... Okay, I won't tell you that 6 people invested in it, and about 14 people "subscribed" to my updates while the martingale run was going on. I gave updates every 50,000 rolls out of the 1.3 million rolls, which was roughly about every other day. I only play when I am online and awake even though I use a bot to automate the bet. The bot is custom made and changes the bet based on instructions I give it, based on perceived patterns that it detects that I think means something, whether or not it actually means anything.

I took about 6 BTC from 6 people, and made it climb to 11 BTC in about 2 weeks. So we each lost 1 BTC when it busted. I'm not a whale, so no one paid any attention.

Secondly, I can not explain the patterns, but not because there are no patterns. Just because you can't spot it, doesn't mean it is not there.

As someone else explained, pi has a pattern. It looks like there is none. 3.1415926 ... I can tell you the next million digits.

e has a pattern. It looks like there is none. 2.7182818284 ... I can tell you the next million digits.

1.414213562373095048801 = square root of 2. I can tell you the next million digits.
1.732050807568877 = square root of 3. I can tell you the next million digits.
0.57721566490153286 = Euler–Mascheroni constant. I can tell you the next million digits.

My just-dice account. I can tell you the past 1.3 million rolls. It already happened. I will attempt to tell you the next million rolls, but I can't exactly do that. No one can see a pattern. Does not mean it is not there. Does not mean it is there.

Yes, I understand Gambler's Fallacy. It is the fallacy of the maturity of chances. It is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future. In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

The key here is that we are not looking at true random numbers. We are looking at the results of a deterministic process that takes as input random numbers, where the deterministic process is repeated exactly the same except for 1 bit.

That process has also been shown to output a uniform distribution of results.

It took awhile, but eventually someone figured out how to predict the next million numbers from a Mersenne Twister given a minimum set of numbers in the sequence.

The math works if you have a fixed house pool and the player will always keep playing until house is ruined.  however, no ether of those are true.  The more the whale wins, the more that was being divested leading to a run in the bankroll.  Also, Nakowa is not a computer simulation which will go on forever.  Once the house through a mixture of bad luck and fear divestments went down low enough, it would not be worth it for Nakowa to keep playing.