Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 133. (Read 435457 times)

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.

Sadly whales usually know that splitting bets to circumvent a low max is dumb because the house edge stack.

On the other hand, your other option (wagered base) is interesting.

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

Does not compute. Please explain why your risk stays the same when reducing your investment.

FWIW I'm with dooglus and mechs on this.  As regards disclosure, I in the top ten investors at the moment.

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.  In my ideal investor world, the max bet would be tiny and thus the variance would be tiny and we would rely on bet volume, however the max bet is certainly a huge attraction to some gamblers, so we want it high enough to attract people to the site, but low enough to still maintain a constant stable profit over time.

High max bet means that investing is more like gambling - if I wanted to be watching nakowa bet 300 or 400 a pop, I would just be betting 10 BTC on 50/50 myself, but I don't want to do that - I recommend that those people that do prefer that 'investment strategy' go ahead and play instead of invest.

For those saying to simply 'reduce your investment if you don't like the risk' - that isn't the answer either - if I've invested a certain amount of BTC on just-dice then I am expecting to make a certain amount per day on average and that amount is directly proportional to the amount I've invested - reducing my investment reduces my profit but keeps my risk exactly the same.

So for me the question is, how many of the bets are actually > 80BTC - I would guess that the percentage is pretty small, it's probably a very small number of gamblers who exceed this limit, and without those people (pick a set of days over the past month or so when nakowa wasn't online), we're looking at maybe around 5000 BTC a day average bet - this still gives around a 35% annual return.  I'm personally very happy with this.  If I wanted to go high variance I would gamble!

So, the balance has to be struck here in making the max bet small enough that we don't scare gamblers away.  For me, 0.25% is pretty good given the amount of investment, so I back mechs and dooglus in the recent change.

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

as an investor, i really like the idea!

btw, you guys who complained so much, you should have just devested 75% of your money when whale was online. So you would effectively had 0,25% maxbet or atleast 75% less swings (and 75% less profit/loss obv)

Anyway, i like the site even if now everything is back to normal, because gamblers gonna gamble

yep agree. Didn't think it through Sounds like a decent idea.

No, no. Let's say investor A sets his risk to 100% and B sets his to 1%.

Now the whale comes along and bets maximum and wins. A will lose all his money and B will lose 1%. Just as it should be.

Sounds good to me.

Maxbet market is brilliant. I can absolutely get behind that.

(also, people should give mechs a rest... you guys are just pissed off because your word didn't have as much weight in doog's ears.)

Then someone with a huge bankroll could manipulate the maxbet in such a way that the risk of ruin for the site is huge i guess?

I think you're over thinking it:
every users sets their percentage on a scale from 0-100% (someone may want to go crazy and make it 100%, literally gambling).

Maximum bet is continuously calculated, like it currently is, but change the cacluation to:
sum of each user (user bankroll * user risk percentage)

each win/loss is attributed to each user, exactly like it is now, but with different calculation:
percentage of gain/loss = (user bankroll * user risk percentage) / site max bet

really easy to implement, fits right in to the existing calculations and infrastructure

I think this can be done on the investor side, with each investor specifying a max bet percentage between 0% to 1%.  That's not really so different from what we have now... investors are either at 0% (divested) or .25%. 

From the gambler's point of view, nothing has changed.  He sees a max bet (max profit) and bets accordingly.  The profit or loss is distributed over those investors who were willing to cover the bet.  For small bets, it's distributed over all the investors (non-0%), since they were all willing to cover small bets.  For a large bet, the profit or loss is distributed over those investors willing to cover large bets.

The details need to be worked out for a couple of things.  One is the calculation of the max bet, the other is exactly how the profit or loss is distributed.  For example, if someone bets 100 BTC, maybe 10 BTC of the profit or loss goes to all investors willing to cover 10 BTC bets, the next 10 BTC goes to those investors willing to cover 10 BTC but not 20 BTC, and so forth.  But I think if the distribution algorithm is set, the max bet follows.

It would be cool.  Big work for Doog however.

Only way for the house to limit min/max spreads is to put each user in a "time out" in whatever min/max bracket they're in.  But then they'd just open a 2nd account and both each bracket with a different bot.

min/max spreads is the reason physical casinos don't get hammered like this.  It's also because they can keep track of physical humans.  

Btw, I hope the all these negative reactions from investors aren't too disheartening for dooglus causing him to call it quits . The site is still awesome and a 0.25% max profit will definitely help keep the swings lower. Still, the timing and communication about this change could've been a lot better.

What happend today will reduce the site profitability. Large gamblers like Balotelli were in the middle of playing a martingale and got screwed because the max bet changed.  If i were Balotelli i'd be pissed. Large gamblers are now gone permanently. Nobody will trust playing on the site if the max bet can change at any time without warning.  Gamblers confidence in the site just got destroyed.   

Dooglus needs to answer to investors and gamblers who (66%+) disagree with this move.

Oh, and 2/3 people disagree with lowering the max bet in the (non-scientific) poll.  Do you realize you're in the minority yet?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=301428.40

The more I think about this, the more I like it.  This is doable.

All I know is last time OP was updated I was 5th largest - and I know 3 above me dropped out including Dooglus.  I have no idea where I am in the pecking order now.  Regardless, with a lot invested and a lot lost, I would have no motivation to do anything to reduce site profitability.  Also, I did not tell Doog to drop the max bet - I suggested increasing the house edge on a sliding scale for bets over 50 BTC.  However, it was difficult to implement quicker, so he took this action instead as a stopgap. 

There is way to much focus here on one player who is a attention whore, liar and drama queen - albeit with a huge bankroll, high risk appetite, extreme luck and disciplined gambling style.

Considering that you claim to be the largest investor, what you say to Dooglus unfortunately has an effect on his decisions.

You manipulated him because you know he's stressed out over the last few days and you fucked over the other investors while doing it. 

13,000BTC will never be recovered because of you. 

Just for that, I am going to raise the house edge to 10% with my mind-control power over Doog

agree, mechs, you are kind of an idiot.

mechs, you are being destroyed with logic and reason by almost everyone in this topic and the https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-just-dice-investors-do-you-agree-with-lowering-the-max-bet-301428 poll topic.

All the other investors were willing to risk 30,000BTC to try and recover nakowa's losses because they understood math and were willing to take the risk.   You are the one who should have divested if you didn't like the variance.  Instead you pleaded with dooglus to totally fuck those 30,000BTC investors.  You're a greedy and selfish.  Because of you, the casino has lost its best customer.  Because of you, other investors won't ever recover their losses.   Nice work.