You actually need a LOT more than that. Getting a provable source of entropy isn't actually the real difficult part. The hard part is means by which dooglus can use that source to process rolls AND can prove that the details of the bet weren't changed after he obtained the random number. What you seem to miss is that distinction - and it's massive.
Here's the rough flow of what should happen :
Player makes a bet
Dooglus obtains verifiable random number
Result of bet is calculated.
How do you ensure that the right random number is applied to an unchanged bet? Without massively slowing down the system it's very hard to do. But if you can't guarantee that the bet processed is the one intended before the result was calculated then suddenly NOTHING is secure any more. Dooglus could cheat players by getting 10 random numbers then working out which combination of applying them to 10 pending bets gave the house the most. Or he could cheat investors by betting himself, working out the result then changing the bet size (or even odds) dependent on what the result was. We'd be worse off than we already are.
Conceptually the solution is easy - bets are logged in public first then some combination of a hash of the bet details + a timestamp used to generate the seed for a random number. But putting that concept into practice is harder than it might sound - you have to deal with things like what if the external source becomes unavailable (do bets hang or are they cancelled? can he selectly choose not to receive results if he doesn't like them?). And you also then have to find a random source where it's verifiable which output is produced from which input - but where such results can't be obtained in advance (which means real-time sampling of entropy based on the time-stamp element).
It's using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The solution already exists - if you don't believe he'll act in good faith then don't invest. Every investment without a fixed rate of return has the potential for the issuer to act in bad faith and cheat investors subtly. There's no reason why this one should be any different.