Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 132. (Read 435357 times)

A uniformly distributed random number is still a random number, Dabs. You're saying here that the results aren't random because they're random?

dooglus should put out a bounty to prove the RNG is flawed. allow people to benefit financially without losing their soul...

I'm wondering why Nakowa is only going after just-dice and not any other dice sites.
If it all was about math and 1% house edge, he should be able to win big at prime dice as well.

this can be done without tiers, the only change to the ui is a "max % loss per single bet" field. the example you presented fits this model:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3234742

- Investors are passive, gamblers active, it couldn't be otherwise.

To use a very simple example:
Investor A has 10 BTC, sets risk at 0.25%
Investor B has 10 BTC, sets risk at 1%
Investor C has 10 BTC, sets risk at 2%

House roll:
30 <= 0.25%
20 >0.25% and <= 1%
10 >1% <= 2%

House roll for all bets <0.25% is 30, making the max bet 0.075
For bets between 0.25% and 1%, the house roll is 30 for the first 0.075, and then 20 for the rest: so the max bet is 0.225.
For bets > 1%, the roll is 30 for the first 0.25%, 20 for the next 0.75%, and 10 for the final 1%: total of 0.325

So a better comes in and loses a 0.075 bet:
Investor A gets 0.025
Investor B gets 0.025
Investor C gets 0.025

On the other hand, a better comes in and loses a 0.325 bet:
Investor A gets 0.025
Investor B gets 0.1
Investor C gets 0.2

Edit - added 0.25% bet case.

Fair enough. I admire your clarity.  


Personally I find 35% annual return not worth the risk.

Counterparty risk and legal risks are relatively high when investing in a gambling website.

Owning bitcoins outright seems a much better risk/reward proposition to me.

I am not saying you win 20 btc and you have to wait 5 mins before you could bet again I am thinking is smaller waits.  I am saying maybe the max would be close to a minute or 2, but I am going with the max bet being a lot higher then the 75-80BTC that we are currently at now.  I am just thinking about giving  people some time to react to a big swing happening.  Its not fair to investors if the big whale is betting quicker than an investor can react to.  The length of time of the risk seems to me a bit longer for the investor than the better.

I am not saying you win 20 btc and you have to wait 5 mins before you could bet again I am thinking is smaller waits.  I am saying maybe the max would be close to a minute or 2, but I am going with the max bet being a lot higher then the 75-80BTC that we are currently at now.  I am just thinking about giving  people some time to react to a big swing happening.  Its not fair to investors if the big whale is betting quicker than an investor can react to.  The length of time of the risk seems to me a bit longer for the investor than the better.

To me - 5k a day which works out as around 35% annual return is fine for me.  I don't want more than that and a corresponding higher variance.

why does it have to be tiered? the proposal I laid out (and the one I thought we were discussing) works exactly the way the current site works with no change to UI (except a field for investors to input their maximum risk per bet) and is not tiered - you can choose whatever risk level you want and it just works.

I still think this is a good idea.....

And inversely, lowering the risk, like just happened by lowering max bet, also lowers the returns on your capital. Can you see that?

According to you casino == long term, stable investment ?
Long term and secure yes, but stable ?

Variance may be annoying as an investor, but everyone must realise that those btc you loose go into the gambler pocket, they don't vanish in the air.
Gamblers wouldn't gamble without variance, and no casino would work without gamblers.

What is bugging me with your position will is that while it makes much sense given your position as a top investor, it doesn't make sense from a Casino Business model pov.

From JD perspective, the ultimate goal is to gain wagered volume, whatever it comes from small or big bets.
You're right when you assume the # of bets > 80 btc is very low, but guess what : a big chunk of wagered come from them.

So if everyone chooses 0% risk and the house loses who covers the losses?

I think that if there was a dynamic delay should be put in place after winning bets.  The delay would be increased as it approaches the max profit, but have the standard delay after a losing bet.  This would keep the site from going into a negative state in a short amount of time like what happens.  The sites growth is designed to increase at a rather low rate so when a whale comes in and makes a large number of large bets in a short amount of time and then pulls out when they are ahead it takes the site a very long time to recoup from that.  If there was a delay put in place after large winning bets it would decrease the amount of those bets that would be placed.  

This was said before, but it'd actually be easy to build this max bet system mathematically, and only a little more difficult UI-wise, but not significantly more difficult than the current UI. The biggest UI challenge would be the expression of the size of the house bankroll, as it would have to be tiered, which would be ugly.

If we move to this model, I would eventually like to see a two basket approach like Betterment, where you can invest a proportion of your investment at a lower level and a smaller proportion of your investment at a (much) higher level. More coding, but still not much more work. The site already has two "baskets;" a gambling wallet and an investment. This would be just breaking the investment number up one more time.

Risk of loss of a certain percentage of my investment in JD.  Not risk of loss of my total amount of bitcoin asset including that not invested.  I suppose it's dependent on your definition of risk.

Will

I invested in just-dice for a long term stable investment - based on e.g. 5000 BTC wagered a day, 50 profit a day.  For me, I would rather have a load of smaller bets slowly meeting the 1% expected profit rather than a load of variance.

Another Option

On another option that hasn't been explored much, perhaps we should have an option where investors can choose to be based on amount wagered instead of amount won - at say a substantial reduced amount - example would be at 40% house 'risk cut'.

This is best explained with an example e.g. for an investor owning 1% of the house invested with current house edge of 1% - 5000 BTC gambled a day that's 50 profit or 0.5 BTC a day with pure winnings (as JD is now).  With pure-wagered the penalty would be, say, 40% cut so it would be 5000 BTC a day, 50 expected profit, 1% own of the house but 40% cut so 0.6 / 100 * 50 = only  0.3 but that value is guaranteed.

To make it more elaborate, make it so there is a sliding scale of 0 to 100 on how much risk you want to take.  If you chose to go 'winnings based' (this is how JD is now) then you take the risk of win and loss as people win and lose.  If you choose to go 'wagered based' then you take the risk of not profiting as much when people win, but a lower but more stable income.  To make the math work, the excess profit from those people who are on 'wagered based' when the house is up goes into a pot, and that pot is used to pay these people out when the house loses.  I will have to think about the math a bit more to make certain it all adds up.

Keen observers will notice that 'wagered based' is very much like the model for letsdice.com - but with a lower (1%) house edge.

Will