Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 155. (Read 435358 times)

Well the problem is that we only have one real whale, and its this guy.

All these little bets that happen everyday, 1 Nakowa bet just overshadows an entire day of normal betting. Remember about half the amount of bitcoin wagered on this site is Nakowa.

Has a stop-loss feature been discussed before? Surely I'm not the only investor who has doubts about being exposed to this kind of variance, especially just after big losses. Why not have a user-settable investment threshold, and if a user's investment falls below that level they'd be auto-divested?

Not a welcome sight for investors.  This illustrates how one whale can dominate the action and skew the stats with just a handful of significant bets.

How large was the filesize for such a database-dump?

JD had a few days ago the 10,000 BTC profit

Lol, 10,000 not 10 million. Still, 10,000 is a lot of money and the site is negative now. I feel bad for dooglus.

@usagi

To answer elm, given that dooglus should have site profits of ten million btc by now but is struggling to hold 2000, I think what I have to say is worthwhile to him.

hmmm IMHO something looks wrong here. and I think that it is not only for dooglus but also for all investors important and worthwhile to know the error he implemented.

Not sure where the 10 million btc expected profit comes from.  That's got a few too many 0s in it.

ten thousand bitcoin. :p


Have you seen recently, site profit is negative right now.

No, if you look at the variance for a number of smaller bets totaling the same wagered amount the variance will go down. When you compare the error from this to the error we were looking for (0.9% to 1.1%) you have numbers x and y such that 0.9% < x < profit < y < 1.1%. The math isn't wrong, it's just less precise. However it restrains the profit just as well. The fact is that if we used many smaller sized bets we would actually be closer to 1% profit than if we used fewer larger bets.


You are off by four orders of magnitude. 3 million one satoshi bets is 0.03 bitcoins. What my example represents is fifty thousand million (50,000,000,000) one satoshi bets compared to one bet of 500:

0 < 4.95 < profit in btc < 5.05 < 500

(where 0 is the loss from 500, 4.95 is -1% from house odds, 5.05 is +1% from house odds, and 500 is the profit from a single lost bet @ 500).

Point being precisely correct math is a waste of time, it is easier to calculate looser bounds which restrain the profit in the desired fashion and are just as mathematically sound.


This isn't what I had in mind, I wouldn't make this kind of offer unless I felt I had something worthwhile to share tho. To answer elm, given that dooglus should have site profits of ten million btc by now but is struggling to hold 2000, I think what I have to say is worthwhile to him.

this is really bad math. kelly model has no distinction between house and player, and no distinction between calendar time and bet time. Kelly criterion is perfectly applicable to the house for JD to maximize profits.

The derivation isn't that hard to prove it, I think it's even on wikipedia...

Nakowa is now at least 10,000 bitcoin up. Incredible.

That is what I want but I was too lazy to write it out.

Max bet will sort itself out - as investors who can't take the variance withdraw.

If max bet is lowered then less bank-roll is needed.  There's a mechanism in place that already adjusts max bet down to whatever variance investors are willing to accept.  And remember that loweing the max bet (unless done massively) doesn't actually change the range of likely outcomes all that much - it just means its done with smaller numbers.  Most bets will still be tiny compared to the max and the outcome will still be determined by the few players betting near the new max.  Just expected profit will be lower and actual profit/loss will be smaller.

If you try to design something where there's low variance then you're explicitly trying to define parameters that make the site unattractive to gamblers.  High variance is what they want - the chance that the house can lose - as without that they're just donating money.

If dooglus can make a database-dump with all bets-by-size-and-chance again, we can compute what the expected standard deviation of the profits is and how (un)likely our current situation is. The previous time we had such a dump, the site was at -2 sigma, so the conclusion was that the house was very unlucky, but not unreasonably so. At that time, we had around half the amount wagered, so it's been a while.

That should be easy to check since Dooglus has a datafile with all  bets ever rolled.

What about Satoshi Dice? What is max bet there?

Ah duh, you're right, my reading comprehension sucks. I've removed that part of my post. The rest of the post is still valid though.

The results we've seen aren't statistically probable - in that they aren't a likely outcome.  But what valid math I've seen indicates that they aren't so unlikely as to suggest a problem.  If something has a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 chance of happening then is there a problem if it happens?  Is it (your phrase) "statistically probable"?

If there is a problem then, ignoring server compromise/dooglus cheating, then the obvious issue would be if the RNG had a (even small) flaw in it.  For example if the odds of a high number after 2 low rolls was different than the odds of a high number after 2 high rolls.  Any flaw such as that could potentially make an otherwise normal (i.e. losing) strategy into a winning one (one with a positive expectation) - either through blind luck or as the result of careful analysis.

Well seems like not many people have experience with grinding poker otherwise you would know this is not even close to extreme in variance world