Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 198. (Read 435362 times)

first off, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...

secondly, im not entirely clear on what you mean '100% of there investment in a single bet'.

are you saying that an investor could lose their entire investment in a single bet?

+1

Sure did, my investment fund I deposited yesterday just earned 3.14%

Took us positive - at least for now:

lightning round at JD's

Why would anyone want to have a risk level at 0,1%, that would probably mean they would have an expected monthly return of somewhere in the region of 0,2-0,5% when things stabalize if you allow people to have a risklevel from 0,1% to 1,0-2,0%


First if there is a single person sitting at 1 000 000+ BTC at the moment the chance that he/she want to invest that much in a single BTC business would be pretty small.

Second what good would a million BTC from a single investor be to JD, it will only reduce the profit for you and other big investors Dooglus, it's not very likely JD or any other BTC gambling site will be getting bets risking 10 000 BTC anytime soon, thats around a million USD bet at 50%

Third if you allow people to have risklevels of up to 100% with or without potentially "fake" coins that excists or do not excists in there local wallet then all people that don't risk the same high % will get a drastically decreased share of the expected profit(or losses) if one or several large investors risk extremely high levels, up to 100% per bet.

Lets for example then say 1 000 000 invested with or without fakecoins at 100% risk per bet and another 10 000 real coins at 1% risklevel per bet.
If someone in the future then wanting 0,1% risk exposure, they would then only be exposed to around just 1/1000 of what it is now at 1% and would probably be looking at 0,002-0,005% expected monthly interest on there investments

So for different levels of risked per bet it would probably look something like this then:

Risked   compared   expected
per bet  to how       monthly
             it's now      profit
0,1%     1/1000     0,002-0,005%
0,5%     1/200       0,01-0,025%
1%        1/100       0,02-0,05%     
2%        1/50         0,04-0,10%
5%        1/20         0,10-0,25%
10%      1/10         0,20-0,50%
20%      1/5           0,40-1,00%
50%      1/2           1,00-2,50%
100%    1/1           2,00-5,00%

Is this really how you like to have it, at the moment people are looking at an expected profit at around 15% a month on there investment in JD and they only risk 1% per bet.
Why would you possible want to force the investors to risk an extremely high part, maby even towards 100% of there investment in a single bet for them to have the same expected profit(if one or several large investors would risk extremely high percentages of there capital on a single bet) with hardly any possitive effect out of it ?

If then some gambler with a real bankroll of a few hundred thousend coins comes in, they could with very high likelyhood wipe out those that has risked 100% with there "fakecoins" and in reallity only have 10 000 BTC(that they invested) but is represented as 1 000 000 BTC for a 100% real risklevel.

Even if investors woun't go to such extreme levels, if just some big investors raise there risklevel significant, all other investors that want to keep there risklevel at 1% will suffer a lot from it unless those that risk to much will get busted.

They're in the top right.  I guess you saw them before.  Are you saying they've disappeared?

If you want a manual withdrawal, contact me using the email address on the FAQ - though I usually will ask you to make the withdrawal request using the button on the site because that way it checks that you're logged in, know the google-auth code if necessary, etc.

dooglus - I like your off-site coins idea.  You should implement it. People claiming 100x their on-site off-site, when it doesn't exist, will just find themselves rapidly wiped out with very high probability once a whale appears.

Is there something going on with withdrawals right now? I divested my money to buy some securities and I can't find the withdraw or deposit buttons anywhere.

Why is an egg is called an egg even if it is empty? But a water balloon is just called a balloon when it's empty; these are the question in life that cannot be answered, just like why is the site profit negative today.

Very impressive!  Just-Dice makes Satoshi Dice look like Sleep Dice

Congratulations on passing 500 000 BTC in bets in almost exactly 1 months time

This all seems very complicated.  It would be easier for people to conceptualize if you had them set the percentage or risk they want as opposed to the total coins (invested + local) split.  

Except that when different investors are risking different percentages of their bankroll, their share of the bankroll changes after every roll.  That makes the implementation necessarily more complex.  With "local" coins, each investor's share of the bankroll is constant (until invest, divest, or liquidate, each of which is relatively rare).

Doh yeah - bit of a brain-fart there from me.

He can't freeze them out but he CAN take the lion's share of the action.  If it were possible to write a bot to edit investments then tbh I'd do one to try to keep as near the Kelly limit as possible.  It does actually make sense to increase risk% (by increasing local amount) when no whales are around.  Reason is that the effective max-bet isn't what's displayed on the site but rather the lower of that and the largest bet any active bettor will make.  It's a bit of a gamble as a whale could show up from nowhere and kick off with a max-bet - but my instinct says that's a risk worth taking IF I could program a bot to reduce local amount as soon as anyone bet more than X (and then restore it once there'd been N minutes of no bets over X).  I'd basically be looking to keep my real exposure close to 1% per bet - even when there was only low action so I needed a much higher risk % to achieve it in practice.

I suspect that just having a selectable risk percentage is going to be a simpler, more efficient implementation. 

I don't think so.  Everyone still contributes 1% (or 0.1%, according to the recently proposed modification) of their total investment (invested + local) to the max bet.  The guy operating with 90% of his coins in local still gets 1% of (invested+local) matched from every max bet.  The large investor can say "I have a million coins locally", and add 10k to the max profit.  In that case he probably gets 99% of the action.  But he's 99% of the bankroll, so that's fair, right?


Transparency is already an issue.  When a whale wins 1k then loses it back and you end up a little down on the deal, can you see why?  Am I just taking a few coins off and thinking you'll never notice?

I could add an entry to your investment history every time someone invests or divests, showing your new percentage share of the bankroll, but that seems a little much.

You have to stay positive and believe math will win in the long run  . If I was you I'd chuck that investment back in and start manning the harpoons. If you sustain this volume I find it highly unlikely that you won't make profit over the next few months.

Think if youre going to liquidate it you have to do it based on max-bet not on actual wagers.  i.e. if 1% of their total bank-roll doesn't cover their portion of a max-bet then they're liquidated and don't get ANY action.  Reason's two-fold:

1.  It avoids letting people mess around with tiny amounts staked that can never accept action from a max-bet.
2.  Doing it otherwise leads to a scenario where either displayed max-bet isn't accurate OR calculation of max-bet is hard (as it's no longer 1% of all active deposits as some can't accept max-bet action).

Right.  I'm trying to help a hypothetical potential millionaire investor invest without (a) having to send me his entire bankroll just to risk 1% of it per roll and (b) having to micro-manage the amount he has with me to keep it at a fixed percentage of the total he wants to be invested.

So suppose he has a million coins.  He wants to risk 10k coins per roll, but doesn't trust me to hold a million coins.  Hell, I screwed up withdrawing 1300 to celeste - who knows what else I'm capable of, right?  So he sends me 100k coins and tells me he has 900k more available locally.  I then set about letting him risk 10k per spin, and keep track of his total balance (it goes up and down from 1 million).  The 900k is constant.  It's what he really has in his own cold wallet, presumably.


OK, so suppose he's lucky, and the 20k he sent me doubles to 40k.  Am I to remember he sent me 100k, but his total is 10 times that, and so his total has now doubled since the 10k doubled to 20k?  But the other 900k is presumably just stashed in a cold wallet, and hasn't doubled.  It's not a multiplier, it's an add-on.


Right, but I need to be careful that he doesn't go from "almost wiped out" to "over wiped out".  He mustn't ever lose more than he has physically sent me (because I've no guarantee that the 'local' coins even exist, let alone that he has any intention of parting with them).


It's half-baked, but I think there's an idea in there that'll work.  I don't need to track two balances - I just need to track his total percentage of the bankroll (which doesn't change per bet), his "local" amount (which also doesn't change per bet), and the total size of the bankroll (which I'm already tracking).  I also need to calculate, after each invest and divest, who is the nearest to a liquidation event, and at what point that happens.  Then each bet I just compare the bankroll with this "liquidation trigger point" so see if action is required.  I need to recalculate the trigger point after each invest and divest, but they're relatively infrequent.