Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 218. (Read 435362 times)

dooglus from an objective investor perspective here this site is growing too quick too fast. I understand we all wanna get rich quick, but there are risks with rewards. This site IMO is not ready to start accepting action over 50BTC. There iS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT either. But with the size and influx this site has grown it should'nt come off as a big suprise.

I think we should scale down the operation and grow A LOT MORE SLOWLY and then "mistakes" or "errors" are less like to be as exasterbated and as threatening to your bottom line. YES we all want whales, but the MGM didnt start taking whales over night. This is where profiling comes in, but that's damn hard with BTC being made the way it is.

Moving forward what are we going to change to prevent this mistake again?

So sorry for your loss.You really need to do something to prevent this from happening again for all the investors.

Pirate did too. Maybe he's afraid of someone finding him out or something. It's BS, and his fault regardless even if it wasn't.

this is a tough one. if there isn't some truth to the store or he didn't feel some remorse i assumed he just would never come back to JD?

Donated 1btc, it's not much but every bit helps!

Sorry for your loss too. But instead of a straight up donation, add the option for investors to increase your commission to 10-20% or whatever. It might take some time, but should get you the money back eventually if the site runs smoothly and no more bad things happen.

In the negative at the moment and don't feel like donating, but I would have no problem with an increased comission on profits.

Hi Doog,
   Sorry for your loss.  That is terrible.  Once I get back to positive myself, I will donate as well.  Most importantly, what safeguards are you going to add to prevent a similar catastrophic human error in the future. For one, I would say all BTC withdrawals over 50 BTC may take up to 24 hours to process.  Ths way you will not be doing these things half asleep and making mistakes.  Still, there must be some sort of additional safeguard you can add? 
Mechs

So last night the whale cashed out 1300 BTC, I processed it manually after checking the stats looked OK.  This morning I log in and see that the site has recovered 1300 BTC of its losses.  Yay!

But wait.  Sinking feeling in stomach...


Fuck.  I dun goofed.

I thought it was bad before this happened.  Now I just don't know what to think.

I made a donation address in case anyone wants to help me cover the loss.  It's my fault entirely, and I don't expect anyone to donate, but it sure would help!

17r66d9Sis99eZWtsZpEuK1rtpZCgr2sDU

tldr: I sent the whale his 1300 BTC balance, forgot to take it out of his account, and he played and lost it.  So I had to pay the site 1300 BTC out of my pocket to cover the shortfall.  Whale claims he "left laptop in cafe with $130k on it and screenshot of google-auth code, someone found it, mimicked his play style exactly, and lost the balance", and so won't pay me back.

So prime dice and coin roll.it with their max payouts below 20btc or below are just foolish? I am not saying we become more conservative than the competition, but we do not need our max bet to be 10 to 20 x the competition.  They will not find another site with as fair a game and as big a max bet regardless.  I think you are completely wrong and I do not see the harm in testing my theory and dropping the max bet. 

I think a large max bet can be fine with a big enough BR to support it, but we do not have that.

Of course it would stop whales coming.  They don't want their big bets split up into small ones.  If you do that right the way down then you may as well just ask them to send 1% of their BR to the site and not bother playing at all.

People who are willing to lose large sums of money want to be able to win large sums of money.  If the site wants to be able to take a few K BTC off a player then it has to be able to lose a few K BTC to them as well - or they won't come.  Whales aren't going to show up with 5K BTC if there's a max win of 25 BTC or if big bets are treated as a load of small ones.

As investors we have to be willing to lose if we want to win - it really IS that simple.  Any change that makes investing "safe" will scare off big gamblers as they want to gamble, not donate.

The volatility is too much for investors and a run of "bad luck" will scare off investors and ruin the site. The fact is the whales are going to go nowhere.  No place else offers 1% edge and a better max bet.  The Only place with a bigger max bet is satoshi dice, but between there 1.9% edge and much slower betting interface, they are not a viable option for whales versus J-D.

You should be able to bet whatever you want, even more than the investor's money.
But if you want to bet something huge (let's say 10k USD), it should split the bets into smaller ones, and ran them independantly.


That won't stop whales from coming, and will be safer for investors.

I don't understand why the max bet should go down. I see some are surprised of the amount of loss that can be made in a short time. Indeed the site lost in a few days roughly 4,000 btc on an invested capital of around 25,000 btc, that's a loss of -16%. But if it can go down so much so quick, it can also go up so much so quick, which indeed happened right before when the site was up 2000 btc or +6% in only a few days too. As long as you have the 1% house advantage all is well I would think as you have statistical certainty that you will make up the loss as long as people continue to play.

However is it not the case that lowering the maximum bet makes the site less attractive for whales? If yes, you risk indeed not making up the loss if the whales choose other destinations!

I am stunned that just-dice succeeded in having MORE turnover than Satoshi Dice already after 1 month. BTC turnover being the most important factor for the bottom line that is an amazing accomplishment. Obviously just-dice is offering value. Is it offering too much value and asking too little in return resulting in a loss? I think that is too early to judge as a monthly loss of say -5% can still be made up easily the next month with say +15%, resulting in an average of +5% per month, as was 'promised' in the brochure

Until then I agree with you that it would be a mistake to make the site less competitive.

That's against someone betting the ideal strategy.  I bet the house edge against their actual players is much better.

I don't know anything about the hash's and random number gen, but if it is truly random, losing bets at 0.1 should not increase the likely hood of a win on the next bet... And if you say its truly random, I believe you 
I would guess that is just what the whale thinks in his head (and is probably common). He thinks he has an edge doing this and that is why he keeps coming back.


I believe the house edge on blackjack is ~0.5%?

I do not get this logic.  If we keep the best edge (1%), best interface, trustworthy op (Doug paid out 500,000  usd worth of winnings to a single whale), and a max bet which is on par with the competition (just not as crazy high as now) where will the whales go?  This is still the best place for them to play and they will do so without ruining the site.  If investors leave the site there will be none.

We should make the max profit 0.1% per bet as opposed to 1% of the bankroll.  That would still be 25BTC each.  We could always raise it again later on.
Mechs

I think this warrants more consideration. It would go a long way if you could prove that the site is fair for investors too.

How about having 5 or so servers, but you don't get to decide whether to use their seed or not. By default, all of them would be used, which would be most of the time really. But in case one goes down, halt the game for a bit and have a status indicator on the site show that a server is down. Game could then continue, or someone could wait for all servers to be online again if they so wish. Stop the game completely if less than 3 servers are online or so. The servers should also have some independent way to verify whether they're running or not, such as a webpage. These additional servers would be run by big investors or some other relatively trustworthy party, and perhaps you could fund them from your profits, would probably not be a lot. Some of them could also be hosted on different providers, to prevent a VPS service employee or a hacker to gain access to all of them.

Would such a solution work? It would add some complexity and maintenance costs, but the added investor confidence would be well worth it in my opinion.

+1

especially for the bolded part: that's a very clear indicator of gambler's remorse.

you can track them here.

Will

There is no problem.
Variance + whale = gambling


You could be rich, or loose 20% of your investment, depending on their results.