Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 205. (Read 435362 times)

Competition matters.

If our competitors have the same edge but an incredibly lower max payout, we should just increase the edge for bets with a higher payout.

Say 1% edge until 8 BTC payout, 2% edge if you go above that.

Of course you can contact the investors, just code a simple voting system inside your site, so that people may directly vote.

Votes would be weighted by min(amount invested when vote started, amount invested when vote ends).

-2.5k btc nice...
We need more losing whales now

How come then my base became 0 after I divested (about a week ago)?
And "principal" became negative, btw.
uid 1228

I think that is fair - it is their "loss" to do with as they please.  However, it would not go for anywhere close to 5% of the base - since there is a decent chance whoever took over the account would never turn a profit.

Nice. So potentially someone could sell their empty account for something shy of 5% of the 'base' figure to recoup a fraction of their loss... right?

We kind of do already.  If you want 1% edge and 1% max bet, click "invest".  If you don't, click "divest".  Feel free to change your vote whenever you like.

In that way, you get what you want without imposing your will upon anyone else.

Your initial understanding is correct.  When you divested, your "base" was left at 12 BTC.  That is the amount up to which you can go without becoming due for commission.  If you re-invested the 88 BTC, your base will rise by 88 BTC to 100 BTC, and so you can make 12 BTC of commission-free net profit.  You'll only be charged commission once your investment rises above 100 BTC (assuming no further invest/divest operations from you).

Check your 'investment' history in the 'history' tab.  Your base will be positive even after withdrawing.  The amount your base is higher than your current investment tells you how much more profit you can make before becoming due to pay commission.

I publish the 'base' figure for each investment.  That is the amount on which commission has been charged.

When the profit was rising steadily, this made sense as a figure that would stay stable and allow investors to check that they were included on the list without identifying them.  Now it's not so useful, since it doesn't correspond to the amount their investment is currently worth.

The figure stayed the same from one week to the next because the investor made no net profit on that week, and so wasn't charged any commission, and also neither invested nor divested during the week.

Semantics. Let's say I take a survey of the forums and only sample 5 people. My conclusions wouldn't be valid. Do I not understand the maths, or do I not understand the inputs? It's not really important to the point to distinguish.

My point is simply that if the whale leaves and never comes back and new whales do not come in, then the profit of the site will be dubious. Let's hope it doesn't happen that way.

His exiting now for a temporary gain certain gets in the heads of investors, but its just a pitstop on the way to catastrophic coin loss for him.  I aim to capture as much of his coins as possible in the inevitable blow up.

We'll see about that. I predict they'll be back.

If they were really smart they wouldn't bet at all of course, but maybe the whale is actually Satoshi just having a bit of fun with us and win or lose he doesn't care.

No, the maths is always just the maths, and you can always trust it. What it tells you though is that returns are not guaranteed. J-D could just as easily be up several thousand coins over expectation at the moment. I don't know why you think anyone here has misunderstood what variance means.

I know the 1% is 1%, but at least this whale knows to exit at profiit instead of exit at loss

i agree that there will be less variance when JD has multiple whales betting all the time, but even until then, wouldnt 1 whale need like, a million btc in order to cause some serious damage?

The site has a fixed 1% edge. There is no such thing as a smart bet, big or small.

Assuming you mean S.DICE it's being sold to new management.

Dead or just under new manangement?

Some saying that may not understand it.  But some saying it (such as myself) DO understand variance.

You counter variance with volume.  One way is to have lots of whales.  Another is to have lots of different investments.  If someone has a bunch of different investments all with similar risk profiles to J-D then they don't need any individual investment to have low variance itself.  Similarly if someone manages risk across their portfolio so that J-D is part of their high-variance portion then they also aren't too concerned.

The high variance of J-D only really matters to investors who are trying to use it as something it isn't - or who have too large a portion of their investment capital in it.  For the rest of us the main concern is maximising EV - then we can manage our investments ourself to deal with variance.

There's only two scenarios in which it makes sense to reduce the max bet % of J-D :

1.  If dooglus believes that doing so would attract so much more investment that the actual max bet would increase, allowing even bigger whales and so more total expected house profit (and thus more expected commission).
2.  If dooglus needs J-D to be profitable for himself in the short-term - in which case he should probably drop max bet to 5 BTC, remove the investment option (as he could bank-roll that himself) and settle for being just another small-stakes dice site.

For investors who are interested in maximising EV any reduction of max bet % is bad news.  Not only is it sub-optimal from a kelly perspective (and so even more inefficient use of capital than the current inefficient system - which is a seperate topic) but reducing max bet has a double whammy impact on likely  bet volume:

1.  Reducing the attraction of the site to whales.
2.  Reducing the attraction of the site to smaller bettors who only come because they can watch the whales play - and because in theory they can keep doubling up to a large win.

It also has a double-whammy impact on EV for investors:

1.  Loss of volume,
2.  Likely increase in investment diluting the already reduced volume.

Anything which reduces EV is bad for all sensible investors.  Variance is something you manage across your investment portfolio - not something every investment needs to handle itself.  Precisely how you do that depends on what invesments are available to you and what profile you want your investments as a whole to match.  Now I appreciate that can be hard to do - as there's a lack of investments available for the low'risk of your portfolio.  But asking for high returns AND low variance is just unrealistic.

Anyone not invested who wants max bet reduced so they can feel safe investing is totally missing the point.  Your investment is NOT needed if the condition for it is that the site makes itself less attractive to players than it already is.  What is so important about YOU wanting to invest that players should get reduced options and existing investors have their EV destroyed just to make YOU feel happy?

If dooglus wanted to run a low max-bet site than he has the funds to back it himself without investors at all : be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it.  It's debatable whether the current investment model is sensible at all - for any significantly lower max bet it almost certainly isn't.

SDICE is dead. Long live JDICE!