Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 5. (Read 435457 times)

I'm betting at 1%, and setting the stake such that if we win, we get a balance of 2k.

When we win a 1% bet, the payout is 99x, so the profit is 98x, so if our balance is B, we need to calculate the stake S such that the profit, 98S is makes our balance go to 2000, ie. profit is 2000-B.

98S = 2000-B
S = (2000-B)/98

So when balance is 1000, stake is (2000-1000)/98 = 10.204081633
When balance is 989.79591836, stake is (2000 - 989.79591836) / 98 = 10.30820491
and so on.

I listed all the stake sizes in my previous post.

I'd love to give this a real-world try! I'm lost, though, on what the multiplier we bet on is (1%?) and how much to increase (is that 2%?) on each loss.

I implemented the ability to 2FA-lock your seeds a long time ago when someone asked for it because they were worried they would accidentally hit the keyboard shortcut for 'randomize' and lose their seed. I copied the functionality from the 2FA-lock on gambling - if the lock is on you can't gamble. If you want to gamble, remove the 2FA-lock. I think the people who are worried about accidentally changing their seed will be changing it rarely enough that editing their 2FA settings to do so isn't a big deal.


Your question could use some tightening up. Are you looking for a certain net profit when you say "certain amount to win"? So if I start with 1000 CLAMs and want to get it to 2000 CLAMs, say. If I bet all in at 49.5% I have a 49.5% chance of profiting by 1000 CLAMs. That case is clear.

But what if I make a bunch of bets at 1% chance, aiming to reach 2000 CLAMs. Is that what you're saying? My first bet would be around 10.204 CLAMs at 1% to make a profit of 1000 CLAMs. But if it lost, my 2nd bet would need to be a little bigger, since now I need to recover the 10.204 CLAMs I just lost, as well as win an extra 1000 CLAMs. So the 2nd bet would need to be around 10.308 CLAMs, then 10.413 CLAMs, and so on. The amount rises exponentially.

I believe you have a better expectation doing the 1% bets than the all-in 49.5% bet. Because your expected total stake is less than in the 49.5% case, and so your expected loss is correspondingly less.

It turns out you can afford to bet 68 times at 1% and get to 2000 CLAMs if any of them win. If none of them win, you have 5.56408786 left over, and give up trying.

Each of the 68 tries has a 0.99 probability of failure.
You lose all 68 bets with a probability of 0.99^68 = 0.504885888
You win, and reach your goal with probability 0.495114111

So amazingly, your probability of success is greater than with the single all-in bet (which is 0.495) AND even when you fail you have 5.5 CLAMs left over!

In the single-bet case, your expected profit is -1% of 1000, or -10 CLAMs. That's hopefully clear. We can calculate it by summing the product of probabilities and profits:

>>> 0.495 * 1000 + 0.505 * -1000
-10.0

In the 68 bets at 1% case, your expected profit is [p(loss) * profit_on_loss + p(win) * profit_on_win]:

>>> (0.99 ** 68) * (5.56408786 - 1000) + (1 - 0.99 ** 68) * 1000
-6.96254812965384

So it is considerably better. You expect to lose only 6.96 CLAM instead of 10.00 CLAM.

Here are the 68 bets we can afford to make:


I also wrote a simulation to sanity check the math:


I left it running for a while for the numbers to settle down:


That's pretty close to the -6.96 the math predicted.

Edit1: I left it running, but it doesn't appear to be converging on 6.96. So:

a) the math is wrong or
b) the simulation is wrong or
c) I didn't wait long enough yet

Edit2: Probably it's (c).

When randomizing it doesnt ask for the 2FA-Code. Did you do this intentionally as a simple block so that one has to disable and enable randomize 2FA when one wants to use it?

I have a probably stupid question. When you want to go for a certain amount to win, lets say 1000 clams, is it then a difference when you do one big bet with a high percent chance instead many small bets with the minimum chance? Is there a difference in propability to win the 1k clam? Might be too late today for me only.

We're back.

Unforunately I had to randomize all the server seeds as a precautionary measure. Your nonce will have been reset to 1, and your client seed will have been left unchanged. Please change your client seed by hitting 'randomize' to ensure the provable fairness of future rolls.

Sorry for the downtime and the inconvenience.

I've had to take Just-Dice down for a while.

I will have it back up ASAP.

Thanks for your patience.

The seller is required to specify an amount, current, and address so it is easy for me to check whether payment was made and release the escrow if it was. I'm hoping this won't come up too often.

Automating cancels or releases seems to me like it opens up new vectors for scamming.

Since /cancel only works for the buyer, a situation can arise if the buyer is sketchy and leaves or refuses to pay. The scammer could also hold the coins for ransom for a /tip to release the clams back to a seller via a /cancel for quick change, which I'll call a "jabba the hutt" routine. A possible solution might be for the transaction to timeout after a certain period of time or something else fancy.

We already do - we split the outputs in the JD wallets to be around 13.37 CLAMs each. I think that the rounding down doesn't happen any more - that was on old (the original?) version of the protocol I was describing.

I just replied to the posts you quoted in their own thread.

Dooglus can you, or do you already, optimize the transactions for staking? You wrote that a part of the calculation is the size of the clam amount per incoming transaction. Cant you create new transactions and send them automatically to another jd-address when enough coins were deposited? That way you could create clean integers and nothing is rounded down. Though maybe that wont have an effect with the other parameters.

Is there something optimizeable?

And what do you think about his observations?


And this?


Can it be that theres room for improvement?

Great! You even brought it further, adding further functionality.

Thank you dooglus! I wish security issuer would be more like you only a little bit.

Oh, I see. That's how I did it...

Reload the site now. Chat lines where people mention your name or userid are bolded. You can turn on an audible alert too using a setting in the account tab. And also edit the list of words that trigger the alerts.

Thanks for listening to my suggestions dooglus. The whois command works great. Thanks for implementing.

The last sentence with the bot output was meant for the sound playing when you name is mentioned in chat. It doesnt make sense when a sound appears when your name is mentioned only because you made a big bet. You know already that your name is in the chat. So the sound should only play when you need to be notified.

Do:

  /whois 1

It's a recently added command for looking up names from userids.


Yes, I'll be changing that 'soon'.


OK.


I don't understand. Can you give some examples please?

And another thing that came to mind when using just-dice... you already have the option to play a sound when big bets going on. More important for me would be to have a sound when my username or id is mentioned in the chat. It would make it much easier to be noticed when someone wants something from you.

Of course bot outputs should only count when you dont know about your name being written. It makes no sense for bets, but for many other things.

But where to get the betid? I check out biggest to see who won and who lost in the last time. Then i try to find who the one is. When the user didnt chat till then then !last ID doesnt help. In fact no reaction comes.

dooglus, can you maybe change last so that it at least reveals the username? I dont want to always write the user a private message when i dont know who it was.

Looking up the bet ID in chat works too as that gives the username at the top of the 'bet info' dialog.

I took the test site down after putting the changes live. You can reload Just-Dice.com now to see the things I was talking about.

The other domain doesnt work for me. But i believe that it will work. Guess i need to adjust the value to bid daily according to the chance.

Its hefty with the tip... i hate scammers with a passion. Hopefully they get all their well deserved end.

You can /msg him - that tells you his name.

Once the escrow commands are live, you can /cancel and that will tell you his name too:

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 04, 2015, 11:29:54 AM

I think it would be good when you would have a "Change" section in your biggest too. Instead losses and wins a change. Quicker to gasp. Maybe even with the amount of stakes? Though sure, that has nothing to do with bets, it would be more like a investors stat. Maybe a new document like that for investors would be nice... Checking with one view what hapenned in last timeframes. Staking and bankroll matters but should be divided.

Only my thought.

So merge "cumulative gains" and "cumulative losses", and sort by the absolute value of the profit. That's a good idea. People care about the biggest changes whether they're positive or negative.

I'll add it to my list. Today I hope to put some kind of confirmation dialog on the /tip command. Yesterday KingDice accidentally tipped 1400 CLAM to a scammer who instantly withdrew it. The same scammer who he tipper 360 CLAMs to a week or two ago. Sigh.