Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 95. (Read 435357 times)

+1

Yeah, it must be the blackmailer, and you are correct, the scenario he describes is not non-sensical. In fact it's entirely possible, and furthermore, from day one Dooglus himself mentioned this was a weakness and that he could not find a trustless way to implement the site. Just look at the first 25 or so pages from this thread. He addresses this.

This, btw, is why that ransom demand was so ridiculous-- he was merely threatening to make public  a theory which Dooglus made public as a possibility on day one (or day 20ish).

Thanks a lot for posting those results, tucenaber. I started doing some simple simulations myself yesterday, but I keep running into one conceptual problem, and was wondering if you maybe have an idea how to solve it:

You start from the premise of a single player playing until he goes bust.

First question: for a sufficiently large player bankroll (say, 10 times the casino bankroll) there should be the possibility as well that the casino does in fact go broke. Can you quantify that risk?

Second question: As your simulation shows, there's a 10% risk that we reach 57% of initial bankroll, assuming 1/2 kelly (it's a bit of a simplification I guess, since casino bankroll is dynamic, but it doesn't matter for our purposes). Say the whale/player stops at this point. That's a possibility, right? We could specify, ahead of time, "player keeps gambling until he brought the house down 40%". It was your choice to let the simulation run until the player is broke, but in reality, a player could pull out, leaving the site at 40% loss.

Now comes the tricky part, at least for me: (a) What if another whale comes along? (b) What if "the other whale" is the old whale, continuing to play. Is the correct way to think about this situation as independent probabilities, so in this case: there's a 10% chance the house lost 43% (assuming the whale "left"), and there's a 10% chance that this will happen again (from the current, reduced bankroll), either by the same whale, or another whale who plays maximum profit bets?

what about a script that text messages every time a whale starts playing?....

I've used auto hotkey, and can  text message or email with that, but I'm not sure how to detect when the whale. mp3 plays.

any suggestions?

yep it could be the one who send the ugly blackmail letter. but I dont agree with You that the article/theory doesnt make sense. it is a possible scenario imo.

Good point. But it's a bit of a trade-off: under my rules, you were *always* able to divest and withdraw, so noone could have ever complained "But I need my money for something else RIGHT NOW!".

In principle, I like your solution slightly better though, because it allows new investors to jump in right away.

Probably the author is the one of the email who did not receive the 400BTC :-D. Not much sense in that article however.

I would suggest a slight modification

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'divest' action.

The change in rule 2 makes less annoying to deposit and I would not expect that someone who just deposited is going to divest after investing.

True See my edit, please. Deposit age, instead of account age, should solve this (or at least greatly reduce the ability to daygamble)

FUD is growing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nidbv/statisticsjustdice_scam_investigation_conclusion/

This still has the same multiple-accounts weakness. If I already have 100 accounts, all more than 1 hour old. I can invest/divest 100 times with no restrictions.

Care to elaborate on that?

My proposal was as follows:

rule 1: for each account, if 'divest' action within last hour, block 'invest' action.

rule 2: for each account deposit, if account deposit age < 1 hour, block 'invest' action.


Say you want to invest amount X from an existing account deposit: you can do so immediately (assuming you didn't divest less than an hour ago).

Say you make a new account deposit: you'll have to wait one hour. If you plan to leave your money invested for a while (even if it's only a few days), then one hour won't matter much.

Turn it anyway you want: the only people hit by a 1 hour delay are the daygamblers. Even short-term investors (who want to stay invested for less than a day) can still do so! It only prevents "riding the waves" of a whale like nakowa, and adds a minimum of investment stability, which I would think is beneficial.


EDIT: account --> deposit, otherwise it won't work.

this won't completely eliminate daygambling, but it will greatly reduce it:

Say you have amount X available. Currently, you can use that full amount for daygambling. Under the rules I propose, you can only use a fraction of desired daygambling frequency per hour - 1 of that amount for daygambling, because you'll have to split up the amount over that many different accounts ahead of time.

I do not care much about daytrading, but I would not like the divest/invest feature to be slowed down.

I fully agree with your analysis on daygambling. I think the "daygambling" possibility adds a random gambling aspect on to of the volatility created by the small house edge. I love the fact JD is extremely liquid, but I strongly believe a stable bankroll will be better for the site in the long run. The fact is that investors who do not "daygamble" are getting hurt, and I have the impression this won't be good in the long run.

What would this be? I'm afraid any limitations would be foiled by the reality that I can have hundreds of accounts. If you mean introduce delays and other complications merely to make it difficult or annoying for daytraders, that seems like a bad deal for investors who would suffer the same encumbrances without actually putting much of a dent in daytrading.

Also, when talking about daytrading/daygambling, I, for one, talk about it being EV+ or EV- as compared to leaving the investment alone, which is EV+. So if by daytrading I can't do any better than just leaving the investment alone, the expected value of daytrading would be zero as compared to investing straight, which is EV+.

Finally, if daytrading (as compared to straight investing) is EV=0, then the fact that in the last few rounds of nakowa insanity they diluted the pot for everyone else should be irrelevant. If it truly is EV=0, then the chances of that happening balance out with the chances that they'll miss out on a big nakowa loss and investors that stayed invested will take home a greater share of the win.

I see your point, that's a good argument. What I would say is that your argument can be made even simpler looking at %-win instead of the question of edge: if Nakowa was spamming 98% bets, betting 40,000BTC per bet to win ~200btc per bet, you'd have to be invested all the time because you don't know when that 1 in 50 huge loss is coming. Same goes if he's betting 2btc over and over at 1%-- You never know when that big loss is coming. But my argument before holds for 50% bets with a small edge because his bankroll follows a sort of random walk and you have enough time to invest divest as he is reaching one end or another of his Goal <---> Last Deposit spectrum.

Again, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that the day traders under those conditions could make EV+ decisions. But only under those conditions. For example, if you don't know how much nakowa has deposited, you don't know where his lowerbound is, and by divesting you could lose out on a huge loss by the player.

A lot of the discussion about investment daytrading daygambling misses the point:

It doesn't matter if investment daytrading is long-term -EV or not (as I said before, if the site is compromised it could be +EV, because then the bets aren't random either anymor), but the real point is this:

What's the point of allowing investments in the site to be another form of gambling, when there already *is* a way to gamble if you want to do so?

Right now, a number of investors lost more than their share of the house loss because of this trading. It makes them unhappy.

So the only relevant question, in my opinion is:

Is a majority of investors in favor of daytrading (because they like to do so themselves)

or

Is a majority of investors against daytrading (because they suffered additional losses because of it)

(yes, there could be a third, indifferent group, but I'm simplifying here)

I propose we find out what the majority of investors think about this, and then bring the issue to dooglus for consideration.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting investment daytrading: introduce a one hour (or so) delay to re-investing after divesting (and add additional measure to reduce the risk of circumvention via multiple accounts). The goal is not to reduce daygambling to 0%, but to limit it.

I don't think my numbers can give exact answers like that. I think their value is in showing what the important risk factor is, and that seems to be maximum win.

I love this guy

Have you checked this: https://just-dice.com/#a12