Is this the beginning of an amazing recovery?
Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 206. (Read 454769 times)
Ah, I see - though it does seem a little risky to keep all funds in a single cold wallet, no? Why put all BTC in one basket (so to speak)?
Well there's a 2-million USD bounty if you prove you can reverse elliptic curve multiplication. Is that risky?There's an address with 111,111 BTC in it. Try that first. Then there are a bunch of them with 50,000 BTC each. Then a handful with 10,000 BTC each.
Ah, I see - though it does seem a little risky to keep all funds in a single cold wallet, no? Why put all BTC in one basket (so to speak)?
Well there's a 2-million USD bounty if you prove you can reverse elliptic curve multiplication. Is that risky? 
Ah, I see - though it does seem a little risky to keep all funds in a single cold wallet, no? Why put all BTC in one basket (so to speak)?
Is any of the bank roll kept in cold storage? How big is the hot wallet? I am interested in investing, but would be very risky if the site was compromised if most funds kept in a hot wallet.
LOTS is kept in cold storage. Over a million dollars of the Bitcoins are.
...over $2M at current price.
Will
Is any of the bank roll kept in cold storage? How big is the hot wallet? I am interested in investing, but would be very risky if the site was compromised if most funds kept in a hot wallet.
LOTS is kept in cold storage. Over a million dollars of the Bitcoins are.
Mechs, if you read the FAQ and Invest tab on the site, it will explain about cold storage, etc. Then come see us on chat, if you have questions.
Deb
Deb
Is any of the bank roll kept in cold storage? How big is the hot wallet? I am interested in investing, but would be very risky if the site was compromised if most funds kept in a hot wallet.
Site profit as a percentage of total wagered (should converge to 1%, the house edge):
"2.07705%"
Expected site profit:
Code:
(parseFloat($('.sprofitraw')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) / parseFloat($('.swagered')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) * 100).toFixed(5)+'%'
current output:"2.07705%"
Expected site profit:
Code:
(parseFloat($('.swagered')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) * 0.01).toFixed(8)
https://just-dice.com/roll/14740956
Code:
19:56:14 (12) WHO KEEPS INVESTING MORE
19:56:15 (12) WTFFFFFFFFF
19:56:19 (2) heh
19:56:23 (136) how are you today deb?
19:56:47 (2) i'm ok thanks sqwert, have a bad tummy though for the past few days, i'd blame doogies cooking, but, well, that seems unlikely!
19:56:54 (12) what did he cook
19:57:02 (2) nothing, thats why i cant blame him
19:57:02 (9502) hey doogus check ur dice mail
19:57:03 (393) Why do some people on the forums have "link removed" in their sig
19:57:04 (393) new rule?
19:57:08 (2) doogie doesn't really cook
19:57:23 (2) thanks trisha
19:57:34 (393) lol Deb
19:57:36 (54) well you guys cooked up jusdice
19:57:54 (2) lol, yah, well, that's not something you can really sink your teeth into, in a literal sense
19:58:07 (2) but maybe that is whats giving me tummy troubles, not enough sleep and too much stress!
19:58:10 (393) Vinka investment clearly isn't worth it anymore
19:58:11 (1) DeC: you need a certain number of posts before sig links show up?
19:58:13 (9502) *Dooglus cheers
19:58:16 (393) The only way to double your money is to bet at this point
19:58:17 (1) DeC: is it a low-count poster?
19:58:25 (393) doog that must be it
19:58:26 (393) yes
19:58:42 (393) So he doesn't notice that he can't post links, but did it anywhere
19:58:45 (12) i am going to quadruple my money
19:58:47 (12) are yo uguys ready
19:58:49 (393) and walks around with "link removed" on all of the messages
19:58:53 (393) Jesus Vinka
19:59:01 (829) do it
19:59:02 (12) EVERYONE PULL OUT
19:59:04 (393) ok im invested
19:59:07 (2) i'm ready for ya vink
19:59:07 (393) DO IT FAGET
19:59:14 (1) trisha: 4th time lucky?
19:59:16 (12) thats what she said
19:59:16 (2) dec!!! language! ;)
19:59:21 (1) trisha: post it here
19:59:29 (393) But if he doesn't do it now, I will see him as a pussy
19:59:32 (136) aww sucks deb... mint tea ? smoke a bowl?
19:59:40 (136) hope you feel better soon
19:59:42 (2) yah, maybe smoking will help
19:59:47 (2) and thank you :)
20:00:11 (2) i'm not a fan of mint tea, but i do have some mint growing, maybe i'll put on my big girl panties and have a cup
20:00:29 (136) def. fresh mint. some basil and cane sugar...
20:00:42 (9502) yep ******
20:00:54 (1) heh
20:00:54 (12) wow am i the only one betting
20:01:02 (2) how about agave and more mint? ;)
20:01:04 (1) trisha: can you post your current code here?
20:01:14 (2) i have no fresh basil nor cane sugar
20:01:14 (393) He did it
20:01:21 (393) He is completely cool
20:01:27 (829) thats pathetic
20:01:36 (829) make profit like a real capitalist damn it
20:01:37 (2) i know vink, its all resting on you, you da man!
20:01:38 (136) yes agave ... thats what i use
20:01:50 (11000) there he goes
20:01:52 (11958) ROFL nice.
20:01:54 (2) i'll give it a shot
20:02:01 (136) great. :)
20:02:26 (2) yay vink!
20:02:30 (393) lol
20:02:32 (11958) Go vink bet more
20:02:35 (2) wtg man
20:02:53 (393) >.<
20:02:56 (11958) There we go.
20:02:59 (393) "wtg man"
20:03:01 (2) oops :(
20:03:06 (2) dont lose lots vink
20:03:08 (2) stop!!
20:03:12 (12) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
20:03:14 (829) wow
20:03:15 (11958) AAHAAHAHAH
20:03:20 (2) omg
20:03:20 (2) vink
20:03:24 (393) My investment went up $1
20:03:25 (11958) 06.4114 target: >09.9999 bet: 640.00000000 payout: 1.1x profit: -640.00000000 user: Vinka (12) date: 2013-07-07 18:02:48 betid: 14740950 lucky: 07.3696 target: >09.9999 bet: 100.00000000 payout: 1.1x profit: -100.00000000
20:03:27 (2359) omfg
20:03:34 (11000) ugh
20:03:37 (393) Apperantly your investment is worth for me $1
20:03:44 (11000) vink...
20:03:51 (11000) :/ :/
20:03:51 (136) holy shzzzz lizzle
20:03:53 (11958) Vink whats your wallet now
20:03:54 (393) That how different we are
20:03:58 (12) :(
20:04:02 (393) wat
20:04:04 (2) now i'm sad :(
20:04:05 (136) vinka!!!!!!!
20:04:07 (2) i'm sorry vink
20:04:08 (393) u wot m8?
20:04:15 (136) bad luck vink :(
20:04:21 (393) My condolences for your loss vink
20:04:21 (11958) Vink double that bet now
20:04:26 (393) We are here for you
20:04:30 (12) that was it
20:04:35 (393) Start a martingale with that
20:04:43 (2) :( :( :(
20:04:47 (1601) oh wow
20:04:48 (11958) 640 to 1280 to 24560
20:04:55 (393) That is unfair too, I thought it was at 50%, but it was at 90%
20:05:01 (11958) 2560
20:05:08 (8367) Goooooooood morning!
20:05:12 (393) GMorning
20:05:15 (2) sniff, banker, hi :(
20:05:15 (8367) profit up to 1450 :o
20:05:16 (1601) that's really unlucky
20:05:18 (2) vink lost lots
20:05:20 (8367) what happened
20:05:21 (1601) sorry vink.
20:05:24 (8367) oh damn eh
20:05:26 (393) Biggest bet in history
20:05:31 (11958) betid: 14740956 lucky: 06.4114 target: >09.9999 bet: 640.00000000 payout: 1.1x profit: -640.00000000 user: Vinka (12) date: 2013-07-07 18:02:48 betid: 14740950
20:05:35 (11958) Banker those two bets.
20:05:52 (1601) biggest single loss in bitcoin betting history?
20:05:55 (4705) o Made 0.26 profit from you bet vinka :(
20:06:01 (393) win or loss biggest bet
20:06:02 (393) ever
20:06:02 (8367) man that would suck
20:06:17 (393) Vinka already gone
20:06:17 (8367) on the other hand, I was investedfor it, so yay!
19:56:15 (12)
19:56:19 (2)
19:56:23 (136)
19:56:47 (2)
19:56:54 (12)
19:57:02 (2)
19:57:02 (9502)
19:57:03 (393)
19:57:04 (393)
19:57:08 (2)
19:57:23 (2)
19:57:34 (393)
19:57:36 (54)
19:57:54 (2)
19:58:07 (2)
19:58:10 (393)
19:58:11 (1)
19:58:13 (9502)
19:58:16 (393)
19:58:17 (1)
19:58:25 (393)
19:58:26 (393)
19:58:42 (393)
19:58:45 (12)
19:58:47 (12)
19:58:49 (393)
19:58:53 (393)
19:59:01 (829)
19:59:02 (12)
19:59:04 (393)
19:59:07 (2)
19:59:07 (393)
19:59:14 (1)
19:59:16 (12)
19:59:16 (2)
19:59:21 (1)
19:59:29 (393)
19:59:32 (136)
19:59:40 (136)
19:59:42 (2)
19:59:47 (2)
20:00:11 (2)
20:00:29 (136)
20:00:42 (9502)
20:00:54 (1)
20:00:54 (12)
20:01:02 (2)
20:01:04 (1)
20:01:14 (2)
20:01:14 (393)
20:01:21 (393)
20:01:27 (829)
20:01:36 (829)
20:01:37 (2)
20:01:38 (136)
20:01:50 (11000)
20:01:52 (11958)
20:01:54 (2)
20:02:01 (136)
20:02:26 (2)
20:02:30 (393)
20:02:32 (11958)
20:02:35 (2)
20:02:53 (393)
20:02:56 (11958)
20:02:59 (393)
20:03:01 (2)
20:03:06 (2)
20:03:08 (2)
20:03:12 (12)
20:03:14 (829)
20:03:15 (11958)
20:03:20 (2)
20:03:20 (2)
20:03:24 (393)
20:03:25 (11958)
20:03:27 (2359)
20:03:34 (11000)
20:03:37 (393)
20:03:44 (11000)
20:03:51 (11000)
20:03:51 (136)
20:03:53 (11958)
20:03:54 (393)
20:03:58 (12)
20:04:02 (393)
20:04:04 (2)
20:04:05 (136)
20:04:07 (2)
20:04:08 (393)
20:04:15 (136)
20:04:21 (393)
20:04:21 (11958)
20:04:26 (393)
20:04:30 (12)
20:04:35 (393)
20:04:43 (2)
20:04:47 (1601)
20:04:48 (11958)
20:04:55 (393)
20:05:01 (11958)
20:05:08 (8367)
20:05:12 (393)
20:05:15 (2)
20:05:15 (8367)
20:05:16 (1601)
20:05:18 (2)
20:05:20 (8367)
20:05:21 (1601)
20:05:24 (8367)
20:05:26 (393)
20:05:31 (11958)
20:05:35 (11958)
20:05:52 (1601)
20:05:55 (4705)
20:06:01 (393)
20:06:02 (393)
20:06:02 (8367)
20:06:17 (393)
20:06:17 (8367)
Will your site get an API soon ?
0.13^6 = 0.0000048
Ok, so the formula for consecutive losses is like this:
1 - chance to win% ^ number of consecutive losses = chance it will happen% ?
So using my favorite 87.7779% the result for 6 losses in a row is:
1-0.877779 ^ 6 = 0.0000033333045606140800
using that same formula, for 7 losses in a row the chance it will happen is 0.0000004073998167028140
Therefore, the chance of them not happening is:
99.9996666695439000% for 6 consecutive losses
99.9999592600183000% for 7 consecutive losses.
Is that correct?
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
For what Dabs is attempting to do, go on "forever" martingaling, it is detrimental and he is creating more volume than needed.
For what Dabs is attempting to do, go on "forever" martingaling, it is detrimental and he is creating more volume than needed.
I can't martingale "forever", the plan is to martingale before the failure (or before the target catastrophic loss streak).
When you say static odds, you mean, I don't change the "chance to win" ? I'm about the only JD player who does 87.7779%. I don't play 90% or 50% or any other "chance to win".
Hmm. It seems martingaling is better only if your aiming to less than double your initial balance.
I'm willing to bet you're wrong on that too if you like?
Can't quite reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements:
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor.
That's not what I'm arguing though? Of course that two bet martingale will work better, since on average you will wager ~2 BTC (Cba to figure out exact amount) to achieve that, yet on the 3 BTC 1.3333x you will always wager 3 Bitcoins. Your EV would be -.02 and -.03 respectively.
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Hmm. It seems martingaling is better only if your aiming to less than double your initial balance.
Zaih I gotta ask, why do I never see u playing Just-Dice or in chat? You've played a lot of the other dice games and seem like a talkative guy haha
I'm always in Just Dice chat whenever I'm on the computer. I just lurk a bit now. I've joined in on a fair share of the conversations recently though.
And I haven't gambled in a few weeks now. Trying to keep it that way. I sorta lost my urge to, which I'm more than happy with since I'm some how still up overall.
Can't quite reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements:
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor.
That's not what I'm arguing though? Of course that two bet martingale will work better, since on average you will wager ~2 BTC (Cba to figure out exact amount) to achieve that, yet on the 3 BTC 1.3333x you will always wager 3 Bitcoins. Your EV would be -.02 and -.03 respectively.
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Hmm. It seems martingaling is better only if your aiming to less than double your initial balance.
Zaih I gotta ask, why do I never see u playing Just-Dice or in chat? You've played a lot of the other dice games and seem like a talkative guy haha
Can't quite reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements:
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor.
That's not what I'm arguing though? Of course that two bet martingale will work better, since on average you will wager ~2 BTC (Cba to figure out exact amount) to achieve that, yet on the 3 BTC 1.3333x you will always wager 3 Bitcoins. Your EV would be -.02 and -.03 respectively.
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Hmm. It seems martingaling is better only if your aiming to less than double your initial balance.
Can't quite reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements:
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor.
That's not what I'm arguing though? Of course that two bet martingale will work better, since on average you will wager ~2 BTC (Cba to figure out exact amount) to achieve that, yet on the 3 BTC 1.3333x you will always wager 3 Bitcoins. Your EV would be -.02 and -.03 respectively.
Are you saying that betting more is better or worse?
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
Can you explain your term 'static odds' - you mean when you can't change the odds between each bet?
Will
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor. Martingaling is only useful for manipulating static odds.
I'd be willing to put a wager on this if you wish.
I'd be willing to put a wager on this if you wish.
OK. My proposition is the following:
Suppose you have 3 BTC on Just-Dice (or any other dice site that lets you pick your own odds and has a 1% house edge) and want to turn it into 4 BTC.
You could bet the 3 BTC all in one go at 1.33333x. If it wins, you have 4 BTC. If it loses you have 0.
Or you could bet 1 BTC at 2x, and if you lose, bet the other 2 BTC at 2x. If either bet wins, you have 4 BTC. If they both lose you have 0.
Both of these strategies turn your 3 BTC into 4 BTC or 0 BTC.
I'm claiming that the 2-bet martingale sequence (1, 2) works more often than the 1-bet all-in bet.
And I'm willing to wager on it too. How much?
That's not what I'm arguing though? Of course that two bet martingale will work better, since on average you will wager ~2 BTC (Cba to figure out exact amount) to achieve that, yet on the 3 BTC 1.3333x you will always wager 3 Bitcoins. Your EV would be -.02 and -.03 respectively.
That's what I mean, martingaling is only good for manipulating static odds.
For what Dabs is attempting to do, go on "forever" martingaling, it is detrimental and he is creating more volume than needed.
Martingaling creates more volume than doing a one off bet, thus causing a lower EV for the bettor. Martingaling is only useful for manipulating static odds.
I'd be willing to put a wager on this if you wish.
I'd be willing to put a wager on this if you wish.
OK. My proposition is the following:
Suppose you have 3 BTC on Just-Dice (or any other dice site that lets you pick your own odds and has a 1% house edge) and want to turn it into 4 BTC.
You could bet the 3 BTC all in one go at 1.33333x. If it wins, you have 4 BTC. If it loses you have 0.
Or you could bet 1 BTC at 2x, and if you lose, bet the other 2 BTC at 2x. If either bet wins, you have 4 BTC. If they both lose you have 0.
Both of these strategies turn your 3 BTC into 4 BTC or 0 BTC.
I'm claiming that the 2-bet martingale sequence (1, 2) works more often than the 1-bet all-in bet.
And I'm willing to wager on it too. How much?
Jump to: