Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 146. (Read 435358 times)
It doesn't make sense to me either. I think I either made a mistake, or there are errors in the file I downloaded from dooglus.
If you look at Nakowa's actual bet data, he makes a bunch of small bets mixed in with his large bets. If you take his actual data, but just shift one colum so that he wages what he actually wagered 2 rolls earlier, then most the losses line up with the small bets and most of the profits line up with the large bets. This should be statistically impossible. So either I made a mistake, there is an error in the file, or the seed was known by Nakowa and he left a clue for us to find.
Feel free to comment on the new blog post at
http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/2013/09/comments-welcome.html
Deb
http://just-dice.blogspot.ca/2013/09/comments-welcome.html
Deb
... the simplest explanation for this is that he knows how/what nakowa is doing and why...again, just sayin' here...why is it so hard to be somewhat conservative and pull your money from the site? Why are people so driven to ignore red flags? yes, it could be legit, or a shadow business operating with a giant conflict of interest and security hole, is indeed untrustworthy. Why risk it? for what gains?
Expected potential returns since inception have been on average 200% per year (avg turnover vs avg house bankroll), meaning you will triple your amount of btc in 1 year if dooglus is legit. If not you will lose it all.
What is the chance that dooglus is a fraud? I think chances are low, I would say 10%. Let's take 20% to be certain not to underestimate.
Ofcourse there are other risks too, he might get robbed, there might be a flaw, there might be gov attack etc. Let's say there is 50% chance it fails for whatever reason.
So 50% to triple your money, 50% to lose it all.
That's a good bet to take. Not with all your capital as chances are considerable it will fail, but some capital as chances are higher you will make a profit. For such odds Kelly advises to invest 25% of the capital you are willing to risk.
You don't need him to just not be a fraud. You need him to not have any flaws or holes that cannot be exploited. You need everyone who has access to the site to not be a fraud. There is a lot to gamble about here.
I don't see the problem, Nakowa lost over 4000 bitcoin over 2 sessions yesterday and kept going until he was back. Think about it many gamblers have these long sessions where they are constantly fighting the house, yet we don't see them because their bets are so small.
Because every time Nakowa loses he deposits another large sum of bitcoins, it will take awhile for this guy to ruin.
Because every time Nakowa loses he deposits another large sum of bitcoins, it will take awhile for this guy to ruin.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
... the simplest explanation for this is that he knows how/what nakowa is doing and why...again, just sayin' here...why is it so hard to be somewhat conservative and pull your money from the site? Why are people so driven to ignore red flags? yes, it could be legit, or a shadow business operating with a giant conflict of interest and security hole, is indeed untrustworthy. Why risk it? for what gains?
Expected potential returns since inception have been on average 200% per year (avg turnover vs avg house bankroll), meaning you will triple your amount of btc in 1 year if dooglus is legit. If not you will lose it all.
What is the chance that dooglus is a fraud? I think chances are low, I would say 10%. Let's take 20% to be certain not to underestimate.
Ofcourse there are other risks too, he might get robbed, there might be a flaw, there might be gov attack etc. Let's say there is 50% chance it fails for whatever reason.
So 50% to triple your money, 50% to lose it all.
That's a good bet to take. Not with all your capital as chances are considerable it will fail, but some capital as chances are higher you will make a profit. For such odds Kelly advises to invest 25% of the capital you are willing to risk.
It's explained by math. All the bets are public. You can do statistical analysis on it if you'd like.
You can do statistical analysis all you want, and it still cannot protect anyone "investing" in the house against an inside player or someone who has cracked the server seed from ripping you off. Chances are, this player was just pretty lucky. And that's what makes it such an easy thing to pull off, done properly, you can rob the investors blind without even being suspected of any wrongdoing, and certainly not provable.
It's explained by math. All the bets are public. You can do statistical analysis on it if you'd like.
Meanwhile, 30,000 BTC still saying 'I trust dooglus'.
I suspect those who understand math and only have as much invested as they can afford to lose, will stay invested.
I suspect those who understand math and only have as much invested as they can afford to lose, will stay invested.
I suspect that those who understand how easy it would be to have an unexplained lucky streak given the server seed will keep their BTC off of the site as well.
Meanwhile, 30,000 BTC still saying 'I trust dooglus'.
I suspect those who understand math and only have as much invested as they can afford to lose, will stay invested.
I suspect those who understand math and only have as much invested as they can afford to lose, will stay invested.
As for the calls to "change something", if he's cheating then limiting the maximum bet won't stop him winning, and if he isn't cheating and is just lucky then limiting the maximum bet will only slow his inevitable losses. I don't see how it helps in either case.
I disagree with dooglus on this point. Now the investors are in the situation they cannot understand if nakowa is cheating or not, because with large bets what happened in these days is still somehow plausible. Indeed, if you run some simulations as elm did 242962.msg3222672#msg3222672date=1379981987 you can see that few times nakowa is winning. However if you run the same simulations with a much smaller max bet, like 0.01% or so, but the same amount of wagered money, you may check that the same behavior is ridiculously improbable. If he is cheating he would surely reveal the cheat on a lower max bet (less than 1 euro) and the website must surely be stopped.
Note that even if he is not cheating (which is what I think) the kelly criterion is known to be quite aggressive (in the world of poker online for example), and again if you run some max betting simulations you may see that some of them are quite scary from the point of view of an investor.
Of course I cannot make other important considerations on lowering the max bet, maybe we are to the point that investors could vote for it, for example.
And yet the simplest explanation for this is that he knows how/what nakowa is doing and why...again, just sayin' here...why is it so hard to be somewhat conservative and pull your money from the site? Why are people so driven to ignore red flags? yes, it could be legit, or a shadow business operating with a giant conflict of interest and security hole, is indeed untrustworthy. Why risk it? for what gains?
GREED!
Jeez. It's just variance, nakowas bankroll is orders of magnitude bigger than the average player's, the max bet is high and the house edge very low.
Plus, if you'd taken the time to read the many contributions of dooglus to this forum and to study his project JD you would realize there is no "shadow business" here.
He seems very articulate, smart, and reasonable, yes. And again, I am not outright accusing him or them of anything, but those are all perceptions, and reality (the facts) is telling us there's something wrong here. Not even the PnL of this 'whale' but the fact that there's this gaping security hole/conflict of interest. A good con(fidence) man gains your (take a guess) CONFIDENCE!
W/E though, do what you will, tis your money.
PS Have I mentioned, I really, really like the site (seriously, except for that pesky problem mentioned above)
As for the calls to "change something", if he's cheating then limiting the maximum bet won't stop him winning, and if he isn't cheating and is just lucky then limiting the maximum bet will only slow his inevitable losses. I don't see how it helps in either case.
I disagree with dooglus on this point. Now the investors are in the situation they cannot understand if nakowa is cheating or not, because with large bets what happened in these days is still somehow plausible. Indeed, if you run some simulations as elm did 242962.msg3222672#msg3222672date=1379981987 you can see that few times nakowa is winning. However if you run the same simulations with a much smaller max bet, like 0.01% or so, but the same amount of wagered money, you may check that the same behavior is ridiculously improbable. If he is cheating he would surely reveal the cheat on a lower max bet (less than 1 euro) and the website must surely be stopped.
Note that even if he is not cheating (which is what I think) the kelly criterion is known to be quite aggressive (in the world of poker online for example), and again if you run some max betting simulations you may see that some of them are quite scary from the point of view of an investor.
Of course I cannot make other important considerations on lowering the max bet, maybe we are to the point that investors could vote for it, for example.
And yet the simplest explanation for this is that he knows how/what nakowa is doing and why...again, just sayin' here...why is it so hard to be somewhat conservative and pull your money from the site? Why are people so driven to ignore red flags? yes, it could be legit, or a shadow business operating with a giant conflict of interest and security hole, is indeed untrustworthy. Why risk it? for what gains?
GREED!
Jeez. It's just variance, nakowas bankroll is orders of magnitude bigger than the average player's, the max bet is high and the house edge very low.
Plus, if you'd taken the time to read the many contributions of dooglus to this forum and to study his project JD you would realize there is no "shadow business" here.
As for the calls to "change something", if he's cheating then limiting the maximum bet won't stop him winning, and if he isn't cheating and is just lucky then limiting the maximum bet will only slow his inevitable losses. I don't see how it helps in either case.
I disagree with dooglus on this point. Now the investors are in the situation they cannot understand if nakowa is cheating or not, because with large bets what happened in these days is still somehow plausible. Indeed, if you run some simulations as elm did 242962.msg3222672#msg3222672date=1379981987 you can see that few times nakowa is winning. However if you run the same simulations with a much smaller max bet, like 0.01% or so, but the same amount of wagered money, you may check that the same behavior is ridiculously improbable. If he is cheating he would surely reveal the cheat on a lower max bet (less than 1 euro) and the website must surely be stopped.
Note that even if he is not cheating (which is what I think) the kelly criterion is known to be quite aggressive (in the world of poker online for example), and again if you run some max betting simulations you may see that some of them are quite scary from the point of view of an investor.
Of course I cannot make other important considerations on lowering the max bet, maybe we are to the point that investors could vote for it, for example.
And yet the simplest explanation for this is that he knows how/what nakowa is doing and why...again, just sayin' here...why is it so hard to be somewhat conservative and pull your money from the site? Why are people so driven to ignore red flags? yes, it could be legit, or a shadow business operating with a giant conflict of interest and security hole, is indeed untrustworthy. Why risk it? for what gains?
GREED!
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.
If it all was about math and 1% house edge, he should be able to win big at prime dice as well.
Why would he necessarily want to use other casinos if JD has what he wants?
Also, JD max bet is much higher, which he relies on.
What would help me as an investor is some kind of ability to put in a stop loss order, e.g. if my investment balance is < X then divest X % of my investment balance. However, I imagine that would be hard to program and result in a lot of variability in your investment total which you probably don't want. But right now I have to "lucky" enough to be on when he's on and manually monitor my balance and try and get out before I lose what are for me very hard to replace coins.
What you're asking for shouldn't be difficult or costly to do, but there are so many things to be done that it may be long time before things like this are implemented.
However PLEASE understand that with 1% edge and current max bet implementation, massive variance WILL occur.
Don't invest in JD more than you're confortable loosing, or being "frozen" until loss recover.
If you choose to invest nevertheless, I would advise you to do the opposite (i.e : divest profits when they reach a determined +% of your initial investment).
If you're not day trading, divesting at a loss makes it impossible for you to let the mechanics of gambling work.
Please do not give up! Your site is one of the best things about BTC and you are a great member of this community.
+1.
I hope you (Doog) aren't too focused on trolls and lamers. I foresee a possible bright future for JD, & I'm not alone.
I wish you the best, and I'm worried about how much time you will be able to handle this "mess" on your own until burn-out...
I'm quite tempted to just give up on this whole thing. It looks like the site is simply at nakowa's mercy. He's promised me in the past that he won't play any more, but never sticks to his word. So what do I do? Continue to let the investors take these horrific losses?
I think you never tried some simulations with a player who is always playing at 1% with 49.5% probability. You will see many cases even worse than this one.
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.
If it all was about math and 1% house edge, he should be able to win big at prime dice as well.
As for the calls to "change something", if he's cheating then limiting the maximum bet won't stop him winning, and if he isn't cheating and is just lucky then limiting the maximum bet will only slow his inevitable losses. I don't see how it helps in either case.
I disagree with dooglus on this point. Now the investors are in the situation they cannot understand if nakowa is cheating or not, because with large bets what happened in these days is still somehow plausible. Indeed, if you run some simulations as elm did 242962.msg3222672#msg3222672date=1379981987 you can see that few times nakowa is winning. However if you run the same simulations with a much smaller max bet, like 0.01% or so, but the same amount of wagered money, you may check that the same behavior is ridiculously improbable. If he is cheating he would surely reveal the cheat on a lower max bet (less than 1 euro) and the website must surely be stopped.
Note that even if he is not cheating (which is what I think) the kelly criterion is known to be quite aggressive (in the world of poker online for example), and again if you run some max betting simulations you may see that some of them are quite scary from the point of view of an investor.
Of course I cannot make other important considerations on lowering the max bet, maybe we are to the point that investors could vote for it, for example.
Is the server seed really on some amazon server so amazon employees could steal it?
Jump to: