Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 245. (Read 435362 times)

For posterity!

I am the rightful owner of my account.

EDIT: Also, in case you are wondering, no, when I decided to gamble I'm using my personal coins. I do not gamble with investor's money (in -EV ventures at least).

There's a good reason for that:


He bet everything he had invested!

Edit: of course, now he has an extra 32 BTC and so does have enough to set the record. 

In other news, I made a list of bet sizes.  People seemed interested in how the bet sizes break down.  Each line is a count and a bet size:

    http://just-dice.com/bet-sizes.txt

The real question is why didn't he go for 501 BTC? Thus outstripping SDice

A new biggest-ever bet on the site:



TradeFortress is the SDICE whale??

The house does lose, regularly.  It's down over the last few days even.  Currently it's up only ~150 BTC on 22k BTC wagered.  Which while not exactly losing is below expectation, and far below the "up 300 BTC" we saw a couple of days ago.


The downtime was while I moved the site to a new server.  The previous one was running an old apache server, a MySQL and a bunch of other crap I wasn't using, since I previously used the same box to host dooglus.com (which is temporarily down, since it is practically content-free anyway).  It had quite limited disk space, which was running out, and nowhere good to place a swap file.  I figured it was best to do a clean OS install and put just exactly what I need on it.  I got it mostly set up before taking the old server down, but of course couldn't copy the database over until the old server had finished writing to it.  Hence the 15 minutes (which actually took 30 minutes).

Now there's plenty of disk space, and less old cruft.


I can't see clearly which of (1) or (2) is the fairer way of divvying up the player bets.  On the surface it seems only fair that if MPEX-PR is willing to risk 900 BTC per roll, and the rest of us put together are only willing to risk 100 BTC per roll, that she should get to play against 90% of whatever sized bet comes in.  Else she's only getting to risk the majority of her investment against the biggest bets, and that way lies ruin.

I guess I prefer (1) because I'm not in the position to risk high percentages of my bankroll.  I'm already pretty much all-in.  So it is indeed self-interest (as an investor, not site owner) that makes me prefer (1).  (2) allows MPEX-PR to price me out of the market almost entirely.  As site owner I suspect I have to chose (2) though.

If the number is truly random, which I believe it is, then the house can't lose.

i am doing this
great way to gamble for free

That's not a safe conclusion to make.

Remember there's big-odds gambles available - the max being 990000:1.

So someone only has to bet .00101 BTC on that bet to hit the max winning cap.

At present there's about 15k BTC invested.  If everyone in there went with 100% risk exposure (so max winnings 15k BTC) a single very lucky .01515151 bet could clean the whole bank.

Don't confuse a 1000 winnings cap with somehow meaning gamblers have to risk 1000 BTC to put it at risk.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nsignificant number of investors regularly bet their small investment gains on high-odds bets.  If they lose their capital is still untouched and if they win they get some nice winnings.  If someone leaves 10 BTC there and gets 0.1 BTC interest are they going to take out 0.1 BTC or have 100 'free' spins at trying to win 1k BTC?  I reckon quite a few will do the latter.

He mentioned that the amount of betting far surpassed what he was expecting. I would assume the updates are merely to accommodate that.

I'm actually interested in knowing what kind of update is this. I mean, is there some kind of limitation regarding the way the system is coded, or the servers, or anything at all... ? This service is very new and I see people doing mistakes everywhere (security, bad code, bad decisions, etc), specially on web services so it worries me even though I've put only a tiny amount of bitcoins there.

Dooglus said there would be around a 15 minute downtime for updates.

Uhm.. site offline ? Are you ready to take a large (or, better, a not so small) volume of players or bets ?

For "all" as long as "all" = "trying to get the most out of my 0.5 to 5 BTC, at the expense of everyone else, the site first and foremost because fuck it, much like the US it's just something cool someone else made that I'm here to leech off and shit on". Nice, but this would be the reason listening to "all" the people is a bad idea.


You have to offer the same exact deal to all investors and to each and every Bitcoin of each investor's investment or else you're just working as a sort of reallocation engine. Something our born-and-brought-up-on-welfare friends are of course more than keen to see you implement, at your own expense. Since you're only expending your own future for their present day minor benefit it's not "really" a cost to you, is it?

Incidentally this is why I love Bitcoin: it exposes the nature of people in a mathematically clear, indisputable way.


This would be your being an idiot, that grates you. Get rid of it already.

1) removes the rationale of "being your own cold storage".
For example, I was thinking rather than having 100 BTC invested at 1 percent, having 10 invested at 10% and leave 90BTC in my wallet, ready
to adjust the investment whenever needed. Now this won't work with 1.
Also, this strategy means that one would risk more than 1% only on highest bets - a strategy that is strictly less profitable than 1% fixed.

2) may  push more "sane" investors to increase their stake to get any share at all.  Indeed, with many risky investors
 the max profit increases uncontrollably (think something like 1000 BTC) and hardly anyone will ever challenge that;
 so those invested at 1% will never be getting their 1%, and will have to increase their stake.
I think this kind of game of who invests more is highly undesirable, because it can eventually ruin everyone.

So actually I'm coming to the conclusion that 1% fixed rate may be better for all...

There are indeed.  Do we fill 1% of everyone's capital before allocating the remaining risk to those prepared to accept it (1), or do we allocate the risk in proportion to the amount people are willing to risk (2)?

It strikes me that (2) results in those sensible enough to use a sane bankroll management strategy getting very little action as the wild "risk it all" guys soak up nearly everything.

For the sake of stability in the max-profit offered to players, (1) seems like the way to go to me, only using the excess capacity offered by riskier investors as it is needed.

Thoughts?

And, to dooglus - I'm sorry MPOE had to come and shit in your thread, although I suppose it's to be expected by now. I'll try to leave well enough alone, but there's just something about him/her that grates me to the point that I can't help myself sometimes. Sorry for my part in feeding his/her trolling, at any rate.

Just got back from playing with my kids for a few hours (which is, I daresay, a much more valuable use of time than you would ever understand, since you don't know my kids.) I pity your flaccid mind if you think there's anything more valuable than that.

At any rate, since you still want to keep your little self-aggrandizing and attention-flagging song and dance going, let's look again at your continuation of your failure to apply simple logic. By repeatedly refusing to defend yourself against it, I'll take a bit of liberty and assume, to your credit, that you conceded to my claim that you put words into my mouth, upon which the rest of this discussion is based. If that's your intent, fine. Not exactly rational thought on your end, but I'll spot you a pity point just so you have something on the board. We're still stuck with the languishing agony of reading the repeated but still false claims that I said what I did not say. That, in and of itself, is a failure of logic as an informal fallacy often dubbed "staying on message" or "the big lie"... namely, the hope that repeating the same false statement over and over again will convince the audience that it's true. Works well in centrally-controlled places where the truth cannot be freely discussed, like China controlling news about the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, etc., but to the detriment of your whole position in this exchange, it is not useful on a public forum such as this. Then there's the instant false dilemma that "the only way out" is for me to disprove your already identified failed logic. Finally, there's the appeal to age where you suppose that somehow the age of an account grants validity to the contained arguments. If anything, this exchange suggests an inverse relationship. Perhaps you might do well to start a new account, then, if there does turn out to be an actual correlation.

Well, look at that... it's movie time. With the kids. Gotta go use up my comparatively "valueless time", I guess, while you're stuck spending your considerably "more valuable" time reading this post. I'm pretty sure I win, no matter what you do.

This actually looks pretty brilliant.