Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 159. (Read 435353 times)

Then why does he win every single time that he plays?

Except that there is no pattern. It's just luck.

His strategy, as I'm sure most of you already know, is to do some small bets until he finds a pattern, and then use that pattern to his advantage.

please remember that the house edge is only 1% and if he comes again and plays he for sure can win again. you need to have his total turnover to understand the %age of his own gambling chart. it depends how often he comes to JD to play. and what if he doesnt come back and there is no other high roller to replace him? You need to see a casino business with one table and 1% edge a la longue ( in the long run). 3 month of one table is nothing imho.

anyone has a screen shot of the last session of nakowa ?

I'm waiting for when nakowa loses 10k.
I think  this is inevitable (that is, he'll keep playing), and I'm also
pretty sure that after that he'll come here claiming the game is rigged. And he'll believe
it sincerely, which is a pity since otherwise he'd keep playing and lose all his coins.

Not ruling this out, but the other explanation is valid so I have no reason to believe he has the seed. The other explanation is this: He keeps playing until he's up a certain percentage, then stops. It seems to have worked well so far, but as we all know, this is playing with fire and he might come into a situation where he has to take even higher risk and maybe has to stop when he's down a lot because his funds are drained.

Has his "chart" been posted somehwere?

What's the possibility that someone gained access to the server seed?

This starts to look very strange now. How come "nakowa" can win every time? What is the probability of that? I think with the latest strike it's less than 1%.

Is there a possibility there is some security weakness?

Does anyone keep daily data on percentage returns for investors? It would be good to compare with other sites.

yes I agree that a traditional casino will never change the min/max bets. JD would only have the advantage in changing it constantly upwards if investors would not take out any money and in contrary add money to the bankroll.

ideal would be after a large loss to keep the min/max the same or even higher if investors jump in with more investments and bankroll gets higher. but the JD model let investors take out their investment whenever they want. and if bankroll gets smaller the min/max gets smaller if I understood the model right. every average casino who has mostly small and average gamblers are afraid of one high roller coming in and taking a load of money and will leave with the money for now. because if he comes back in a month or later he could win again and the casino needs to work hard to get the lost money back with 1% edge. it it will last some time. but they keep their min/max and dont lower it. because next time the high roller will come he will have the chance with same min/max to gamble. at JD if a high roller wins and investors jumping out and the bankroll is lower JD will adjust the min/max down and the high roller will have to play with lower min/max and thats an advantage for him and not JD. I hope you understand my point.

under the line I would say, keep the min/max constant. even You have a higher bankroll, just keep this higher bankroll as a reserve for those days when a lucky high roller visits the casino

Nakowa ticking the site again.  I was going to make a rape joke about it, but then I saw this:



Kyle, you should really study this flow chart!

the fee could be considered a 0% loan that could be used for store upgrades maybe?

Fee no, maybe a rake back for who keeps his bitcoins invested longer than x months. But then again it would make everything more complicated and it's the site's simplicity that makes it so nice.

It would be unrealistic for a traditional casino to change the max bet like JD does. JD actually has an advantage here as it constantly changes to the ideal amount.
In your example, why would the max bet need to be adjusted from 1%? What would be more ideal after a large loss to the bankroll?

IMO: No. One of the big advantages of investing in JD is that it's incredibly liquid. You can pull out your money at will (assuming you stay below the size of the hot wallet) and you'll never incur a cost for liquidating your investment. If you invest in a bond/loan on an exchange, you lose the spread and the exchange fee if you want to get your money out quickly. If you add a fee that is only returned after some time, you discourage using JD as a money-parking location.

should doog add a fee to encourage long term investing and maintain a consistent bankroll?
perhaps a fee when you invest that is returned after a certain time?

I understand Kelly's criterion is for gamblers and investors. but casino/house should handle it different. and they handle it different in real life. they dont go up and down with their maximum bets. the maximum bets are static as the are implemented from the start of the casino.

JD is a totally different business model, imho.

a good example would be if we take JD with lets say right now 8 million bankroll and gets a losing streak and some investors will jump out and JD will have overnight only 4 million bankroll. so JD will need to adjust the 1% maximum bets and will need a lot of time to recover and get back the loss.
I hope I could explain my point understandable enough.

According to the Kelly Criterion, with a 1% house edge, betting 1% of the bankroll gives the best expected result. For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion