Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 226. (Read 454769 times)

Noted.

Until then, here's the deal:

In the 'history' tab, click 'investments' to make sure the report is up to date.  Note the value of 'base' in the last row.  That's the amount you can divest without paying any commission.  Anything over that amount is charged commission (currently 1%).

You'll notice that the 'base' went up to match your investment yesterday when I ran the weekly commission run.  That indicates that your whole investment amount at that point was then free of further commission liability.  Any profit since then will have brought your investment up above the new 'base', and so made just that profit subject to commission upon withdrawal.

Is that clear enough?

The luck is high because a couple of players competed to see who could win the 0.0001% chance bet first.

It's a one-in-a-million chance to win, and they both won it in less than a million attempts.

Suppose they made a million attempts, and won twice.  That's a luck of 200% percent (winning twice as many times as expected).  The rest of the bets bring the average luck down to 140%.  But that's why it's so high.  A couple of lucky 0.0001% rolls make a big difference.

They were both playing single-satoshi bets when they won, so the site's bottom line was barely affected by their wins.  They both won a little less than 0.01 BTC when they hit the 0.0001% win.

These were the two winning spins, btw:

https://just-dice.com/roll/708311
https://just-dice.com/roll/1565360

It would be very nice to have a preview of the fee calculation before divesting.
Something that updates dynamically when you change the content of the "amount to divest" field would be terrific.

That's where you're going wrong I think.  You can bet up to 7500 BTC on a single bet at 98%.  If that single large bet lost, the site would be up 7500 BTC.  It doesn't take a large number of high bets to be 200 BTC up - it just takes one.

There have been a small number of very large bets and millions of dust bets.

Great, now someone just got to make it look like it's somehow some sort of forbidden cheat xD

there's already a martingale script wrote in javascript:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2536674

I think the best that could happed to JD is someone coming up with a martingale script/bot.

I get that.

I cannot calculate the likelihood of this because I don't know the bet size distribution.  It would take a large number of high bets (0.5-1% of the betting pool) for this to be at all probable.

It seems weird given the fact that there have been so many bets that you would not be closer to a normal distribution.  However, maybe there is a large number of big bets and the rest of the bets are very tiny.

The luck variable published reflects just the bets, discounting the sum wagered. So if you win 5 rolls of 1 BTC and lose 1 roll of 10 BTC your bottom line is -5 but your luck 166%.

How about actually calculating the likelihood ? Doesn't sound like it would be something extremely hard to do.

Also thank you Dooglus for your comments!

Let me just insist on the GPG thing and develop it a little. The point is not to add some artificial trust by the means of some technical artifact (a GPG-signed commitment is still worthless to you if made by someone you do not trust). The point is simply to very clearly separate what is part of the contract, and what is not.

How is the website making a 3% margin on the bets (199 BTC out of 6200 BTC), have a 1% (long-run) cut, and the luck percent (presumably for the users in general) is 140%?

This seems extremely unlikely if the most you can win is 1% of the betting pool.  You'd have to lose a lot of large bets to make this happen.

His point about GPG signing is valid however. Costs nothing to sign the copy once you've settled on something.

I did think that was a bit weird, because following the chat discussion I thought you decided to not do that.  I'm cool either way.  Whatever approach maximizes betting volume while minimizing investors is a win

115 2013-06-24 18:31:46 (1) manually crediting user 1760 with amount 0.01 RichardChanze
116 2013-06-24 18:31:48 (1) manually crediting user 1764 with amount 0.01 zapeta
117 2013-06-24 18:31:50 (1) manually crediting user 1778 with amount 0.01 stephwen
118 2013-06-24 18:31:52 (1) manually crediting user 1809 with amount 0.01 audrey
119 2013-06-24 18:31:55 (1) manually crediting user 1820 with amount 0.01 Blazr
120 2013-06-24 18:31:56 (1) manually crediting user 1838 with amount 0.01 BTCTalkAccounts
121 2013-06-24 18:31:58 (1) manually crediting user 1758 with amount 0.01 kleetkluts
122 2013-06-24 18:33:38 (1) manually crediting user 1864 with amount 0.01 maryanne23

Did I miss anyone?

Is the 0.01 still available?
User: 1864

I think we need a separate thread for investors, to separate it from the "bitcent please" posts.  What would be the correct forum for it?


I will look into advertising when I feel that we need more players.  The site seems to be doing well at the moment without advertising.  It went down for half an hour yesterday, probably due to the server not being able to handle the number of players that came for the 2 millionth bet promotion.  So I'd like to make sure we can handle the load comfortably before advertising.

I'm not sure if it will be necessary either.  The investors are incentivised to spread the word themselves, since they directly benefit from new players.  I could increase the commission rate enough to be able to afford to advertise, or I can keep the vast majority of the profits going to the investors, and leave it to them to bring in players.  Basically nothing's free (except, apparently, for a never-ending stream of bitcents.  They're free).


Nope.  But it's an easy addition.  I've added it to my massive to-do list.  Thanks.  What might be helpful is that at the bottom of the 'account' tab there are settings to specify which bets you want to see, by size or userid.  So if the flood of small bets is annoying, limit it to only show bets above a certain size, or above a certain profit/loss.


Yes.  Every time anyone invests or divests, all percentages are recalculated.  If you have 10% of the bankroll of 100 and then someone invests another 100 BTC, you will then have 5% of the new bankroll of 200.  Otherwise the initial investor would still own 100% of the bankroll now, since she started off with her 5 BTC investment being 100% of the bankroll.  That wouldn't be even close to being fair.  I'll change the wording.  I find it hard to be concise, clear, accurate and complete all at once.  Pick any 3.  Or possibly 2.


Right.  I was originally thinking that the investors should allow me to use their investment for whatever seems to be needed.  But that's something they didn't agree to, and wouldn't necessarily agree to.  So I changed it to everything being paid for from the commission, with the commission rate being adjustable as needed, with 7 days' notice.  Then I left both changes in the text accidentally.  The "Your investment may also be used ..." text was never intended to be published, and is now gone.

Oh, no!  And it's not meant to be there now either!!!  Your investment is absolutely just for funding the bankroll.  I put it there in my local copy of the file while discussing ideas with investors in the on-site chat and accidentally left it there after we had decided that it wasn't reasonable.  Then uploaded the file when I fixed a typo elsewhere in the file.

What I ended up doing to cover the case where I need more to pay for the site is mention that the commission rate can be changed with 7 days' clear notice.

Thanks for spotting this!

i was interested in the discussion purely from a "have more options for people" vs. "what is the simplest, successful setup."

Those are not mutually exclusive, but it was considered such. Unless some sort of voting system was put in place based on % of shares, of course, it is likely impossible to parse all investors opinions.

And a lot of the sentiment was similar to bugpowder and those who apparently have invested a lot: more investment isn't really wanted, and when the option to increase % of your investment to go towards bankroll happens, there will literally be no real reason for further investment.


So yes, tools + concepts that make investment more robust than what it is are in exact odds with the fact that current investors don't want "more" investors when there is a 1% edge (that is currently performing at 3%). When things are on an upswing sure people want less split, but when it swings back down that extra investment absorbs things


To address the sentiment voiced earlier in the thread of pure bankroll footers cashing in on the investment of those who "opt in" to have their funds used in other ways, it would be trivial to have different returns on the types of investments. Clearly the BTC going towards site investment should return a higher cut than that only footing bankroll, if that were to be initiated.


I recall the rationalization for changing it is that nothing making use of this new policy has been enacted. To be fair, this was only discussed over 5-10 minutes in chat (that i saw) and then updated. There is no news feed, and it wasn't posted here. Perhaps that sort of "news feed" will come in another update to the site. I think the idea was that the sooner it is made clear that investment is left to doog's discretion, the better. I can see the validity to a  complaint of it seeming like a "switcheroo" if you didn't happen to be reading chat to see the discussions, or the pattern that this could be the beginning of.

The flipside of that is to trust.

I do not recall addressing you.