Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 57. (Read 454769 times)

I agree with the stacking system, investors have the advantage of getting stack rewards 24/7 and the stack reward on clams that are on the balance of players? By the way can you confirm this last point?
Could you tell me approximatively the average total balance of players for the last 2 weeks or now? I understand it must fluctuate a lot.

The motivation of suggesting such a scheme is that some investors are interesting about having a return with low volatility and some investors are interested about having the best return long term even if it means having a small risk of losing most their investment.
Allowing investors to choose the max profit they are "playing" would allow the prudent investors to have steady returns and the others to have a bigger return (if whales don't get lucky). I understand why it would be technically difficult to do it.

If your CLAM are only used for bets of less than 1 CLAM you would likely win everyday and if your clams are only used for bets of less than 10 CLAM you will likely never lose a large portion of your investment.

This is in reply to a post on the CLAM thread.

I'm answering it here because it doesn't really belong there.


It's tricky. Suppose you deposit 100 CLAM and a minute later I withdraw 100 CLAM. I'm going to get the 100 you deposited. Should you have to wait 4 hours before you get staking rewards? I don't see why you should. The full onsite invested amount is now staking... I have things set up such that new deposits are used to service withdrawals, and so there's never a huge amount of coin 'waiting' to age.

It's almost always true that the amount of coin in the wallet that is waiting its 4 hours to start staking is smaller than the amount that is in people's balances but not invested. So you end up getting more than your fair share of the reward anyway.


I don't like the idea, and it would be a real pain to implement. Currently I don't track each investor's balance, I only know what percentage of the total bankroll they own. We can handle 100 bets per second because each bet only has to update the site's bankroll, not 200 different investor balances. If each investor had a different range of bet sizes they were willing to get involved with it breaks that scheme, and I have to update all the investor balances for all bets.

What's your motivation for suggesting such a scheme? How would it be fair for you to take all the nice low variance bets and leave the more dangerous bigger bets to other people? I don't think it would be.

If you are claiming a lot of offsite coins that you don't have, you don't get any stack reward from them and you risk to lose more if a whale wins big.

You should ask me to translate, I don't use Google translator, my translation service link  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fox-english-chinese-translation-service-759494

So if I do not want to lie on my bankroll and I do not want it to be diluted (assuming others are lying), I have to wait that a winning player 'calls' their bluff (?)


If you risk *everything* (as you are allowed to do by lying on your bankroll), you will incur in a variance which will slow down the rate at which your wealth grows. That's what Kelly's criterion is saying.


This is the solution in any given moment. But I fear that someone over there is 'cheating' on their bankroll, putting a 10X multiplier where they shouldn't have. I also fear they can very quickly chicken out when a whale is coming and I am sleeping. And at that point I found myself with 5% risk.

Who are you arguining that it is unfair to?

* the investor who is 'lying' can lose his coins pretty quickly - but he knows that going in, so that's not unfair

* the player who wins big sees that the max profit drops a lot after his win - but he just won big, so he's not complaining

* the investor won isn't lying sees his share of the bankroll diluted by 'lying' investors - but he gets to stay invested when the liar investors are forced out by a winning player, and gets a much bigger share if the winning player turns into a losing player after that


I think it tells us that risking 1% of your investment on every bet maximises the expected value of the logarithm of your bankroll - or something like that. To maximise the expected value of your bankroll when you have an edge you should risk everything on every roll shouldn't you? Your expected profit is 1% of the amount the player risks, so you want them to risk as much as possible against you. The reason we look to maximise the logarithm of the bankroll is that when you have 100 coins, losing 100 is catastrophic, but winning 100 isn't equal and opposite. 100 and 200 are similar amounts, one being only twice the other, but 100 is many times bigger than 0.


We can't tell whether it's against their own interest or not, or whether they're lying, since we have no idea of the size of their whole bankroll. Most of it won't be CLAMs anyway.

If you want to risk 0.5% of your bankroll per roll, calculate the size of your bankroll, work out what that comes to in CLAMs, subtract your onsite investment size from that number, and that tells you how much you should declare to be '/offsite'. For this you need to decide what constitutes your bankroll. You'll also need to regularly monitor the situation - perhaps the price of CLAM changes, or the value of the non-CLAM part of your bankroll.

Again, it's not lying. I have $100 sitting in my pocket. That's worth 0.5 BTC or 100 CLAM. I don't HAVE to hold it in CLAM *or* BTC. But if I want to, I can convert $100->BTC->CLAM->JD. That is in no way lying. It's just holding a different currency. That's what the entire system is all about.

And how is it "guesswork" to figure out how much you want to risk? Pretty simple formula that you can work out in your head within a second. Kind of funny that you bring up a lack of knowing statistics when you apparently have issues with basic mathematics, :p.

I have mixed feelings about the /offline idea. Surely it is innovative, but is it fair? People are allowed to lie about their offline stakes which basically means that if they lose their investment, the max bet will decrease dramatically, as they cannot fill up again with their non-existent coins.

Secondly, math tells us that 1% max bet is the fastest way to increase your profits. Now people are allowed to increase their risk (when lying) to more than 10% against their own interest (the fact that some JD investors aren't proficient in statistics was already clear though.)

In the end I find myself making a guesswork of how much I should declare offline in order to reach a 0.5% of risk that I want to afford.

Sorry wrong link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9867838
UA translation with the help of my wife.

1000 CLAM gets you 3 CLAM/day from stacking.

The bankroll has been hit when the players won 5700 CLAM two days ago.

Looks like ukraine

What language is that even?

If translation bounties still available, can I receive CLAM for https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9867903

I'm sure he will find someway to sleep tonight!  (sarcasm)

Probably just gamble that shit back.  Winning players leads to investor players.... that is when things get interesting!

Looking strictly at the numbers as opposed to percentages, that top investor lost an equivalent of almost 6 BTC to AK, which I'm thinking is still a depressing amount to lose for any whale.  

Two separate accounts would work great for that. Just use the 1x account for all the gambling and leave the 10x sitting, .

Thanks for the rundown Doog, that's exactly the kind of real-world numbers I've been looking for.

I ran a test myself overnight too to see where the numbers would land after the site loses or profits some.  I didn't expect AK to show up, but he ended up doing a great job of putting my experiment to the test.  

I invested 4 clams on my main account, and 4 clams on an alternate account at exactly the same time.  The main account was at 1x leveraged and the alternate at 100x leveraged.  I was puzzled at first after I noticed that my 1x investment was slowly profitting while the 100x investment was dropping along with the site profit.  I realized after a bit that the staking coins were the reason.  It looks like there's a crossover point where staking coins will make you more profit with lower investment leverages, even if the site profit is going down.  That's something I didn't expect.  

Anyways, in 8 hours with 4 clams at 1x I profitted .001 while 4 clams at 100x lost me .3 thanks to AK's incredible run.


Dooglus, I had a thought about investment options.  With the way I play, I like to keep my coins invested, and sporadically divest them to play for short bursts during the day, and then reinvest immediately after.  This worked fine before when 1x leveraged was the only option.  Now with the new options, I'd like to keep a consistent 5-10x leveraged.  The only caveat is the 24 hour limit that is providing a roadblock to my gambling spontaneity since I have to "/offsite 0" every time I want to do a quick divesting to play.  I'd like to avoid playing between two accounts, which can be a pain to manage thanks to cookies.  Is it a possibility to include an option that allows you to invest, say, 50 clams at 10x, while leaving another 50 at 1x for easy divesting?   I hope that makes sense.

This data is immensely helpful in understanding the effects of big winners. It also shows that the risk level, on a "I'm going to lose everything" basis, is actually a lot smaller than I thought. For example, the winner overnight would have had to win the same total amount at least another 25-30x (without losing) to wipe out a 100x investor.

congrats AK. i said your about to hit and i was correct.


1% predict fee does apply here

Here are some numbers that should give some insight into how things work now...

I made a list of the top ten investors some time yesterday at the 42k profit plateau, then again this morning after AK won a few thousand overnight. Here's a chart showing the recent loss:



The first thing I noticed is that only 6 yesterday's top 10 are still in the top 10. I removed the 4 others from the lists. The remaining 6 were in the same order in both lists. Here's yesterday's:


and here's this morning's:


Note that only the one with the lowest multiplier made a profit overnight. He made more from staking than he lost to AK. All the rest made losses. The 100x guys lost around 5% of their onsite amount, and the 30x guy lost around 2% of his. (Note also that I haven't checked what happened in the period between the two snapshots - it's possible some of them gambled, depsosited, withdrew, etc. - 3 of them changed their offsite amounts for sure).

So while it's true that the top investors take most of the profits, they also take most of the losses too, while the smaller ones with lower multipliers take a bigger share of the staking rewards.