Site is currently having problems with deposits..
I advise not depositing coins until dooglus has looked into this matter.
KLYE (unoffical Just-dice.com Moderator)
Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 167. (Read 454769 times)
Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)
She also bid on the weekly ad spot.
I'm not sure what she does is porn - I stopped in today for a bit and she was attempting (and failing) to make an origami cat...
Now that is a service I might try. In all my years I have never been able to get my wife to do origami. I could ask, but I'm afraid of what she would ask in return.
Send your coins to me, I'll bet them for you. I'm a professional dice gambler. 
Dooglus how dare you watch a camstripper when your in a committed relationship!How dare you bet on dice when you're the king of sports?
Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)
She also bid on the weekly ad spot.
I'm not sure what she does is porn - I stopped in today for a bit and she was attempting (and failing) to make an origami cat...
Dooglus how dare you watch a camstripper when your in a committed relationship! Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:)
She also bid on the weekly ad spot.
I'm not sure what she does is porn - I stopped in today for a bit and she was attempting (and failing) to make an origami cat...
A few of my regulars have been talking about this site and I think I am going to give it a shot coming soon!
RavinTavin
Cool, now we have porn stars at Just-Dice too:) RavinTavin
A few of my regulars have been talking about this site and I think I am going to give it a shot coming soon!
RavinTavin
RavinTavin
Site seems to be down. doog will be home in about 10 minutes and will take a look at it.
Deb
Deb
I've added a column for the reverse martingale strategy: If you win you double your bet, if you lose you go back to your initial small bet. The average win for the reverse Martingale is a lot higher than the 10% goal because the last winning bet is very big and will overshoot the 10% stopping criteria.
With the reverse Martingale most wins happen quickly, within 200 bets, most loses are tightly bunched around 1830 bets.
The reverse Martingale decreases your odds quite a bit. It is like giving the house a 3% edge. The equivalent odds for a single 1000 btc bet to win 1211.589806 is p = 0.817108
single bet single bet, edge = 0 bet size progression win ratio progression reverse Martingale
mean number of bets 1 1 428 734 969
mean number of bet to win 1 1 443 667 384
mean win 1100 1100 1100.740049 1100.02207 1211.589806
probability of win 0.9 0.909090909 0.897828 0.903173 0.800097
equivalent house edge (%) 1.0 0.0 1.173 0.6489 3.0611
[/quote]
With the reverse Martingale most wins happen quickly, within 200 bets, most loses are tightly bunched around 1830 bets.
The reverse Martingale decreases your odds quite a bit. It is like giving the house a 3% edge. The equivalent odds for a single 1000 btc bet to win 1211.589806 is p = 0.817108
single bet single bet, edge = 0 bet size progression win ratio progression reverse Martingale
mean number of bets 1 1 428 734 969
mean number of bet to win 1 1 443 667 384
mean win 1100 1100 1100.740049 1100.02207 1211.589806
probability of win 0.9 0.909090909 0.897828 0.903173 0.800097
equivalent house edge (%) 1.0 0.0 1.173 0.6489 3.0611
[/quote]
I simulated the win ratio progression, where you try to win back your loses by leaving the bet constant and increasing the amount you win, verses a regular martingale versus a single bet.
....
mean number of bet to win
....
....
mean number of bet to win
....
when calculating various characterstics of the betting strategies, you have to be careful
to check whether they are well-defined.
Specifically, expectations of some of the random variables do not exist (= are infinite),
and of course the same holds of the variance.
For example, expected number of bets to win, with 0 house edge is
\sum_{i=1}^\infty i*P(lost i-1 times)*P(won on i'th time) =
\sum_{i=1}^\infty i*1/i*1/(i+1) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty 1/(i+1) = infinity
which does not mean that on average you have to wait infinitely long to win.
It just means that the concept of mathematical expectation is not useful for
this analysis, and so emprical expectation (mean time to win) may be very misleading.
Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.
Understatement of the year!
I beat the house all the time because I'm a sooper h4x0r.
Both the martingale and win ratio progression effectively overcome the house edge. The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win.
I've not tried repeating your experiment, but I can't help but notice the minus sign in the 'effective house edge' row.
If that's true, you have found a way to beat the house.
I suspect in reality you just didn't run your simulation for long enough.
Which is it? Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.r
I would not worry. I went to run the simulation again and noticed a typo. I had run it with a house edge of 0.1% instead of 1.0%. I have rerun the simulation and fixed the post.
Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.
Understatement of the year!
Both the martingale and win ratio progression effectively overcome the house edge. The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win.
I've not tried repeating your experiment, but I can't help but notice the minus sign in the 'effective house edge' row.
If that's true, you have found a way to beat the house.
I suspect in reality you just didn't run your simulation for long enough.
Which is it? Finding a way to beat the house would be relevant to my interests.
I found my username again. I didn't know it was case sensitive, thanks for your help.
question: is it to stop people guessing names, or are TEST and test 2 different accounts?
question: is it to stop people guessing names, or are TEST and test 2 different accounts?
Both are true.
Usernames are never shown. It's harder for an attacker to guess my username if it uses mixed case and usernames are case sensitive than if they're not. It never occurred to me to allow people to type their username differently and consider it the same. That would be more work for me, and would result in less security for the users. And "test" and "TEST" would be two different accounts, yes. Hopefully with two different passwords.
I simulated the win ratio progression, where you try to win back your loses by leaving the bet constant and increasing the amount you win, verses a regular martingale versus a single bet.
The bank started at 1000, the risk was 0.1% of the bank with each bet or 1 for the win ratio progression. The exit was going bust or winning 10%. 300000 runs were done for each of the progressions.
The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win. The Martingale is slightly more expensive than a single bet, the win ratio progression is slightly less expensive. The differences in profitability are insignificant.
-Edit- The previous version of this post in which I said the edge was overcome was wrong. I ran the simulation with a 0.1% edge by mistake. This simulation is run with a house edge = 1%.
single bet single bet, edge = 0 bet size progression win ratio progression
mean number of bets 1 1 428 734
mean number of bet to win 1 1 443 667
mean win 1100 1100 1100.740049 1100.02207
probability of win 0.9 0.909090909 0.897828 0.903173
equivalent house edge (%) 1.0 0.0 1.173 0.6489
The bank started at 1000, the risk was 0.1% of the bank with each bet or 1 for the win ratio progression. The exit was going bust or winning 10%. 300000 runs were done for each of the progressions.
The win ratio progression lets you last about twice as long and takes twice as long to win. The Martingale is slightly more expensive than a single bet, the win ratio progression is slightly less expensive. The differences in profitability are insignificant.
-Edit- The previous version of this post in which I said the edge was overcome was wrong. I ran the simulation with a 0.1% edge by mistake. This simulation is run with a house edge = 1%.
single bet single bet, edge = 0 bet size progression win ratio progression
mean number of bets 1 1 428 734
mean number of bet to win 1 1 443 667
mean win 1100 1100 1100.740049 1100.02207
probability of win 0.9 0.909090909 0.897828 0.903173
equivalent house edge (%) 1.0 0.0 1.173 0.6489
Thanks! I figured it out. I had my username capitalized wrong.
It's important to note that account number and associated email address are not enough to login. I had forgotten that I even had a username, actually.
It's important to note that account number and associated email address are not enough to login. I had forgotten that I even had a username, actually.
Oh, good. Usernames are case sensitive. The email address isn't used for anything other than for contacting you in case of emergency.
I found my username again. I didn't know it was case sensitive, thanks for your help.
question: is it to stop people guessing names, or are TEST and test 2 different accounts?
for me the longest run so far was up to 119x. I also won 198x once but not in a single
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.
hex wrote a bot that implemented the strategy. It worked for a while, winning one run at something like 4806x. But it looks like it busted after I stopped watching, with a run that didn't win after getting up over 5000x and spending all available funds.
heh. I guess the bot must have been running for a while.
for me the longest run so far was up to 119x. I also won 198x once but not in a single
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.
streak, I had to make a break to win back some.
hex wrote a bot that implemented the strategy. It worked for a while, winning one run at something like 4806x. But it looks like it busted after I stopped watching, with a run that didn't win after getting up over 5000x and spending all available funds.
Jump to: