Pages:
Author

Topic: Satoshi Dice -- Statistical Analysis - page 30. (Read 192889 times)

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
March 18, 2013, 03:43:02 AM
Simulation results:



This histogram is the result of running a thousand repetitions of 1127422 trials and record the longest number of losses in a row. From the simulated results, we can say that the probability of less than 16 in a row and more than 31 in a row is less than one in a thousand. So I'd say 65 in a row is significantly improbable.

Since I'm home now I've looked for the paper I thought I had but can't find it. The histogram looks familiar though and I think it might be an extreme value distribution, but I'm not sure. I'll keep looking.


If you want to try the simulation for yourself, especially if you have a faster computer than my macbook air and want to try more than a thousand repetitions, here's the R script I wrote:

Code:
require(ggplot2)


# function to generate simulated maximum losses in a row
sim.func <- function(x) {
   #create x trials: win = 1, loss = 0
   # and find all wins and losses in a row
a <- rle(rbinom(x, 1, 32000/65536))
# find the longest number of losses in a row
b <- max(a$lengths[which(a$values == 0)])
# if no losses, return 0 otherwise return b
if(b == -Inf){return(0)} else {return(b)}
                         }
# number of trials
trials <- 1127422

# number of repetition of trials
# change for greater accuracy
repetitions <- 1000

# generate results
result <- sapply(rep(trials, repetitions), sim.func)
result.df <- data.frame(count = result)

# generate plot
plot.1 <- ggplot(result.df, aes(x=count)) +
geom_bar(binwidth=1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks=seq(min(result.df),max(result.df),2)) +
labs( x = "", y = "Count",
title = "Histogram of simulated maximum number of sequential losses:\n1000 repetitions of 1127422 trials at P(win) = 32000/65536") +
xlab("") + ylab("count")

# display plot
plot.1

#eof
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 18, 2013, 01:13:07 AM
I'll have a go at the theoretical result when I get home. In the meantime I can rustle up a quick simulation and get confidence intervals from that. Can you post the probability of winning the less than "lessthan 32000" for me? Can't get on to SatoshiDice at work.

It's 32000/65536.

The 'lucky number' is a 16 bit number (0 through 65535).  You win 'lessthan N' when this lucky number is less than N...
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
March 18, 2013, 01:03:43 AM
Mr. ooc, or just ooc?

No, "Mr. ooc" is my grandfather. "ooc" is fine.

Anyway, immediate history is interesting. I do not think I am trying to prove that SatoshiDice is fair or not; it seems to me that it is indeed fair considering the secrets, the hashes, the lucky numbers, etc. They can't cheat you, but it is possible for players to cheat them.
Good point - you do have an aim here.

Even if you think you don't:
I don't really know why I am investigating this or analyzing the numbers, I just find it interesting. I mean, we have 3.7 million bets already. I am also playing the game (or rather, I'm gambling my 0.01 coins.) so the results interest me in what is possible, especially since this is practically a game of chance that is provably fair (after the secrets are revealed.)

The only way you can show if anything unusual is going on is by a theoretical comparison. Otherwise you have no idea how unlikely what you are observing actually is. That's ok if you have lots of data points - you can always say "from this sample we expect blah blah to happen blah times". But if you have one data point then you can't generalise
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
March 18, 2013, 12:59:21 AM
When you look at maxima there will be a lot of variance, so it's meaningless to point at one result and say "This the maximum you can expect". Instead, it would be better to point at a result and say "There's a 5% probability a run will last long then n losses in a row". I'll post how to do that when I get home.

What do you think about the 65 losses in a row on "lessthan 32000"?  Is that statistically significant?  It seems to me very unlikely to have happened in just 1,127,422 bets.  I would think we can expect around 10 losses in a row in 1000 bets, and maybe 20 in a row in a million bets.  But 65 losses in a row?

See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1632802 for the stats.

I'll have a go at the theoretical result when I get home. In the meantime I can rustle up a quick simulation and get confidence intervals from that. Can you post the probability of winning the less than "lessthan 32000" for me? Can't get on to SatoshiDice at work.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 18, 2013, 12:39:14 AM
When you look at maxima there will be a lot of variance, so it's meaningless to point at one result and say "This the maximum you can expect". Instead, it would be better to point at a result and say "There's a 5% probability a run will last long then n losses in a row". I'll post how to do that when I get home.

What do you think about the 65 losses in a row on "lessthan 32000"?  Is that statistically significant?  It seems to me very unlikely to have happened in just 1,127,422 bets.  I would think we can expect around 10 losses in a row in 1000 bets, and maybe 20 in a row in a million bets.  But 65 losses in a row?

See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1632802 for the stats.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
March 18, 2013, 12:30:41 AM
Mr. ooc, or just ooc?

Anyway, immediate history is interesting. I do not think I am trying to prove that SatoshiDice is fair or not; it seems to me that it is indeed fair considering the secrets, the hashes, the lucky numbers, etc. They can't cheat you, but it is possible for players to cheat them.

I don't really know why I am investigating this or analyzing the numbers, I just find it interesting. I mean, we have 3.7 million bets already. I am also playing the game (or rather, I'm gambling my 0.01 coins.) so the results interest me in what is possible, especially since this is practically a game of chance that is provably fair (after the secrets are revealed.)
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
March 17, 2013, 11:15:35 PM
Hi Mr. organofcorti,
Please don't call me that. "Mr. organofcorti" is my father. Just "ooc" will be fine.

The theoretical part can be computed with formulas, but that's just a guess.

No, it's not a guess. That's why it's called "Theory". Are you really so certain that SatoshiDice are not playing fair that you want to find the slightest variation from the expected values?

Here, we have the actual historical data of what actually happened. The odds of winning are very close to the actual win:loss. The formula for consecutive losses isn't as close to actual losses especially with that weird 65 losses in a row.

There is no "formula for consecutive losses". There is one for expected consecutive losses in n trials, in the same way that there is an expected number of shares that can solve a block.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but statistics is based on actuarial data. Theoretical possibilities or probabilities are just that, it's possible or it's probably, but not necessarily what already happened. It can still happen.

In any case, both the formula and the historical data are interesting. Why do some match and why do others not seem to match... or will these numbers change a few years from now, or will it be more of the same ... or it doesn't matter since the house always wins.

You're not understanding how to analyse this.It is a little complicated, and you have a bit of a learning curve ahead, but you're still confusing the expected or average number of consecutive wins/losses in n trials with a probabilistic confidence interval. The reason some results are closer to the expected value than other has to do with how likely a particular run of losses is.  For this we use probability rather than statistics.

For example, if there are twice as many losses in a run than expected, we can calculate the probability of that occurring, assuming that SatoshiDice is playing fair.

If you're trying to prove  SatoshiDice is not playing fair, then you use statistics, providing a null and an alternative hypothesis and proving your point with a certain level of confidence (usually p < 0.05).

The problem with trying to find these confidence intervals using real life data is that you will need hundreds of repeats of the data to find out if it agrees with theory.

So you pick a game, decide on the number of trials you want to investigate (say 100) and consecutively split the data into runs of 100 trials. Find the largest number of consecutive losses in each run, and take the average. Only then can you compare the theoretical expected value with the actual average value.

If you want to find the probability of a particular number of runs occurring, using the same data you recorded as above, divide the longest runs into percentile groups. Say you record 10000 runs of 100 trials of a coin flip, and 0.001% of the runs there are more than say 20 consecutive losses. You can say for the sample group that the probability of more 20 losses is 0.001%, and that 99.999% of the time the number of consecutive losses in 100 trials will be smaller than this.

If you compare the quantile groups you calculated to theoretical quantiles, or the probabilities to theoretical probabilities, you can again calculate the probability of the dataset belonging to the same probability distribution as the theoretical probability distribution.

Edit: By all means carry on with your investigations. I find this sort of thing very interesting too, and it might provide a great opportunity for you to learn more about statistics and probability. Personally, I find it hard to learn things unless I need to solve a problem in which I'm interested. Perhaps the same will be true for you.






legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
March 17, 2013, 10:31:24 PM
Hi Mr. organofcorti,

The theoretical part can be computed with formulas, but that's just a guess. Here, we have the actual historical data of what actually happened. The odds of winning are very close to the actual win:loss. The formula for consecutive losses isn't as close to actual losses especially with that weird 65 losses in a row.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but statistics is based on actuarial data. Theoretical possibilities or probabilities are just that, it's possible or it's probably, but not necessarily what already happened. It can still happen.

In any case, both the formula and the historical data are interesting. Why do some match and why do others not seem to match... or will these numbers change a few years from now, or will it be more of the same ... or it doesn't matter since the house always wins.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
March 17, 2013, 08:46:34 PM
Thank you Mr. dooglus. That is really an informative analysis. It tells the gamblers out there that if you want to do a martinegale on 50% (lessthan 32768), you better have a bankroll good for 26 consecutive losses (as a maximum). Although you could always beat the record. The maximum bet means you'll be forced to bet the maximum more than once just to recoup losses if you reach this far.

I'm just curious about another statistic. What's the next longest streak (2nd longest, 3rd longest, 4th longest)? And how often did they occur, if more than once?

You're really wanting a theoretical analysis than a statistical one. I think you're looking for probabilities of various runs in various games.

When you look at maxima there will be a lot of variance, so it's meaningless to point at one result and say "This the maximum you can expect". Instead, it would be better to point at a result and say "There's a 5% probability a run will last long then n losses in a row". I'll post how to do that when I get home.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
March 17, 2013, 08:31:22 PM
Thank you Mr. dooglus. That is really an informative analysis. It tells the gamblers out there that if you want to do a martinegale on 50% (lessthan 32768), you better have a bankroll good for 26 consecutive losses (as a maximum). Although you could always beat the record. The maximum bet means you'll be forced to bet the maximum more than once just to recoup losses if you reach this far.

I'm just curious about another statistic. What's the next longest streak (2nd longest, 3rd longest, 4th longest)? And how often did they occur, if more than once?
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 17, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
Quote
Total of 55 bets unaccounted for.

Results: 2013-Mar-17 09:44am (up to block 226394)

   Address  Target   Should Win |    #Bets |        Win        |   Lose  | Refunds |   BTC In   |  BTC Out   |  Refund  |   Profit  |   RTP 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1dice1e6p       1      0.00002 |   101464 |       1 (0.00001) |   99856 |    1607 |    1182.90 |    1280.39 |   127.07 |    -97.49 | 108.242
 1dice1Qf4       2      0.00003 |     5368 |       0 (0.00000) |    4841 |     527 |      91.45 |       0.04 |    20.72 |     91.40 |   0.051
 1dice2pxm       4      0.00006 |     7828 |       1 (0.00014) |    7373 |     454 |     118.80 |     160.01 |    12.84 |    -41.21 | 134.688
 1dice2vQo       8      0.00012 |    12760 |       5 (0.00041) |   12285 |     470 |     253.11 |     432.11 |    10.08 |   -179.00 | 170.718
 1dice2WmR      16      0.00024 |    14292 |       1 (0.00007) |   13849 |     442 |     490.65 |       5.03 |    22.07 |    485.62 |   1.026
 1dice2xkj      32      0.00049 |    19539 |       9 (0.00047) |   19126 |     404 |    1114.93 |    1396.44 |     1.40 |   -281.50 | 125.249
 1dice2zdo      64      0.00098 |    20074 |      24 (0.00122) |   19580 |     470 |    1481.28 |     803.40 |    55.82 |    677.87 |  54.237
 1dice37Ee     128      0.00195 |    19681 |      37 (0.00192) |   19184 |     460 |    2345.85 |    1557.72 |    48.39 |    788.12 |  66.403
 1dice3jkp     256      0.00391 |    24357 |     106 (0.00442) |   23866 |     385 |    4603.28 |    7359.89 |    13.20 |  -2756.61 | 159.884
 1dice4J1m     512      0.00781 |    33949 |     273 (0.00821) |   32975 |     701 |    5879.88 |    5685.66 |    10.04 |    194.22 |  96.697
 1dice5wwE    1000      0.01526 |   119973 |    1819 (0.01523) |  117629 |     525 |   36973.21 |   32284.23 |     2.07 |   4688.97 |  87.318
 1dice61SN    1500      0.02289 |    24648 |     571 (0.02351) |   23719 |     358 |    7678.34 |    8378.89 |    15.09 |   -700.55 | 109.124
 1dice6DPt    2000      0.03052 |    75335 |    2335 (0.03116) |   72602 |     398 |   37746.56 |   33760.47 |     9.37 |   3986.09 |  89.440
 1dice6gJg    3000      0.04578 |    28850 |    1314 (0.04625) |   27097 |     439 |    9348.77 |   10071.35 |    25.18 |   -722.57 | 107.729
 1dice6GV5    4000      0.06104 |    34798 |    2121 (0.06165) |   32285 |     392 |    7649.33 |    7440.07 |    31.35 |    209.25 |  97.264
 1dice6wBx    6000      0.09155 |    47545 |    4338 (0.09213) |   42750 |     457 |   16075.08 |   17886.65 |     7.34 |  -1811.56 | 111.269
 1dice6YgE    8000      0.12207 |   186068 |   22773 (0.12273) |  162784 |     511 |   91933.92 |   90740.01 |   100.48 |   1193.91 |  98.701
 1dice7EYz   12000      0.18311 |    96420 |   17556 (0.18312) |   78318 |     546 |  171344.11 |  173053.66 |  3314.91 |  -1709.55 | 100.998
 1dice7fUk   16000      0.24414 |   248176 |   60431 (0.24406) |  187178 |     567 |  367455.00 |  353569.21 |  2322.46 |  13885.79 |  96.221
 1dice7W2A   24000      0.36621 |   249181 |   91534 (0.36822) |  157052 |     595 |  584068.95 |  575840.05 |  1013.25 |   8228.90 |  98.591
 1dice8EMZ   32000      0.48828 |  1130273 |  550834 (0.48807) |  577773 |    1666 |  881581.71 |  864483.75 |  2925.01 |  17097.96 |  98.061
 1dice97EC   32768      0.50000 |   613783 |  306087 (0.49962) |  306547 |    1149 |  664456.06 |  648406.55 |  6521.29 |  16049.50 |  97.585
 1dice9wcM   48000      0.73242 |   346065 |  253914 (0.73509) |   91503 |     648 |  300459.95 |  292938.67 |  5455.33 |   7521.27 |  97.497
 1dicec9k7   52000      0.79346 |    76186 |   60104 (0.79437) |   15558 |     524 |   61828.91 |   60536.40 |  1187.60 |   1292.50 |  97.910
 1dicegEAr   56000      0.85449 |    64554 |   54815 (0.85681) |    9161 |     578 |   78054.27 |   77400.42 |   400.57 |    653.85 |  99.162
 1diceDCd2   60000      0.91553 |   100043 |   91143 (0.91617) |    8340 |     560 |   71432.15 |   70620.14 |     0.54 |    812.01 |  98.863
 1dice9wVt   64000      0.97656 |    17040 |   15585 (0.97970) |     323 |    1132 |   24094.49 |   23681.13 |   240.24 |    413.36 |  98.284
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           small (bets < 4 BTC) |  3602879 | 1484923           | 2101283 |   16673 |  778713.01 |  764501.42 |   265.14 |  14211.59 |  98.175
            big (bets >= 4 BTC) |   115371 |   52808           |   62271 |     292 | 2651030.06 | 2595271.07 | 23628.70 |  55758.98 |  97.897
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                |  3718250 | 1537731           | 2163554 |   16965 | 3429743.07 | 3359772.49 | 23893.85 |  69970.57 |  97.960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SD Profit before fees:      69970.57836050 BTC (2.040%)
Cumulative Fees Paid:        2919.32917500 BTC
SD Profit after fees:       67051.24918550 BTC (1.955%)
Pending Liabilities:          -48.11025127 BTC
Final SD Profit:            67099.35943677 BTC (1.956%)
----
Since Satoshi Dice started, there have been:
Blockchain Tx: 11664317  :  SatoshiDice Tx:  6842211  (58.7%)
Blockchain MB:   5014.8  :  SatoshiDice MB:   2814.6  (56.1%)



legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 16, 2013, 10:17:51 PM
The list of longest sequences of wins and losses I posted yesterday had a mistake.  I wasn't counting any sequences which didn't finish yet.  Like the sequence of losing "lessthan 2" bets, which has been building since the start of the game.

Here's a correct list, as of now-ish:

Quote
lessthan     1     99531 bets       1 wins (222877-119  to 222877-119 )   85965 losses (176831-34   to 222877-118 )
lessthan     2      4762 bets       0 wins (None        to None       )    4762 losses (177355-25   to 226257-136 )
lessthan     4      7320 bets       1 wins (213426-111  to 213426-111 )    4259 losses (177365-68   to 213425-123 )
lessthan     8     12266 bets       1 wins (191198-55   to 191198-55  )    4946 losses (202814-664  to 217110-578 )
lessthan    16     13819 bets       1 wins (191139-261  to 191139-261 )   12237 losses (191139-273  to 226237-258 )
lessthan    32     19070 bets       1 wins (184331-26   to 184331-26  )    6360 losses (196254-318  to 219048-260 )
lessthan    64     19566 bets       1 wins (184331-26   to 184331-26  )    4204 losses (191139-273  to 209097-247 )
lessthan   128     19185 bets       1 wins (184218-167  to 184218-167 )    3158 losses (194000-15   to 206389-210 )
lessthan   256     23956 bets       1 wins (179750-57   to 179750-57  )    1289 losses (210373-648  to 214001-353 )
lessthan   512     32995 bets       1 wins (177492-65   to 177492-65  )     564 losses (206416-327  to 207020-196 )
lessthan  1000    119224 bets       2 wins (180131-98   to 180136-87  )     566 losses (214383-45   to 214430-239 )
lessthan  1500     24253 bets       2 wins (180806-572  to 180806-574 )     303 losses (222782-200  to 222904-322 )
lessthan  2000     74793 bets       3 wins (190605-433  to 190605-479 )     280 losses (192015-159  to 192877-145 )
lessthan  3000     28362 bets       3 wins (190605-433  to 190605-479 )     274 losses (196923-121  to 197196-178 )
lessthan  4000     34252 bets       3 wins (187645-74   to 187668-17  )     123 losses (191201-362  to 191339-143 )
lessthan  6000     46934 bets       4 wins (199484-177  to 199512-23  )      96 losses (221597-329  to 221986-337 )
lessthan  8000    185286 bets       9 wins (192997-182  to 192997-232 )      91 losses (197734-53   to 197745-364 )
lessthan 12000     95581 bets      12 wins (208332-49   to 208332-313 )      73 losses (208332-469  to 208335-22  )
lessthan 16000    247070 bets       9 wins (184483-183  to 184483-294 )      42 losses (219440-228  to 219440-350 )
lessthan 24000    248014 bets      14 wins (213616-75   to 213616-1053)      24 losses (225928-411  to 225937-147 )
lessthan 32000   1127422 bets      34 wins (184344-956  to 184345-16  )      65 losses (184391-665  to 184391-739 )
lessthan 32768    611382 bets      30 wins (180866-367  to 180868-167 )      26 losses (216081-852  to 216081-901 )
lessthan 48000    343930 bets      68 wins (182535-247  to 182536-268 )      17 losses (189347-98   to 189347-126 )
lessthan 52000     74960 bets      59 wins (202481-127  to 202567-150 )       9 losses (213719-227  to 213720-86  )
lessthan 56000     63223 bets      60 wins (224067-454  to 224072-192 )       5 losses (196994-197  to 197000-76  )
lessthan 60000     98374 bets     146 wins (213472-454  to 213513-36  )       4 losses (210367-580  to 210367-590 )
lessthan 64000     15488 bets     439 wins (180744-103  to 181691-101 )       2 losses (177069-43   to 177087-37  )

Note there are only 4762 "lessthan 2" losses shown, whereas the most recent daily stats showed there were 4821 losses on the same bet.  That's because I'm not counting two bets in the same transaction before Jan 3rd as being two bets when counting sequence length (since they always got the same lucky number), but am counting them as 2 bets in the daily stats.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 16, 2013, 10:01:43 PM
It seems the transaction format of SD changed. I do not see the usual dust.

They don't charge the 0.0005 BTC fee to losing payouts any more (as of about a week, I think) so the smallest payout now is 0.5% of the 0.01 BTC min bet, or 5000 satoshis.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
March 16, 2013, 03:42:05 PM
It seems the transaction format of SD changed. I do not see the usual dust.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 1362
March 16, 2013, 01:36:58 PM
They had a planned downtime recently.
Ok I thought it was the downtime due to the fork alert.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
March 16, 2013, 01:28:43 PM
They had a planned downtime recently.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 1362
March 16, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote
The downtime caused a flat-spot like I was expected when processing was down for the recent blockchain fork:

Can you explain why it's only appearing now ?
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 16, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
The downtime caused a flat-spot like I was expected when processing was down for the recent blockchain fork:

Quote
Total of 162 bets unaccounted for.

Results: 2013-Mar-16 09:50am (up to block 226194)

   Address  Target   Should Win |    #Bets |        Win        |   Lose  | Refunds |   BTC In   |  BTC Out   |  Refund  |   Profit  |   RTP 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1dice1e6p       1      0.00002 |   101071 |       1 (0.00001) |   99476 |    1594 |    1177.99 |    1280.37 |   126.79 |   -102.37 | 108.691
 1dice1Qf4       2      0.00003 |     5347 |       0 (0.00000) |    4821 |     526 |      91.05 |       0.04 |    20.47 |     91.00 |   0.049
 1dice2pxm       4      0.00006 |     7798 |       1 (0.00014) |    7343 |     454 |     118.40 |     160.01 |    12.84 |    -41.61 | 135.147
 1dice2vQo       8      0.00012 |    12735 |       5 (0.00041) |   12264 |     466 |     252.45 |     432.11 |    10.08 |   -179.65 | 171.163
 1dice2WmR      16      0.00024 |    14282 |       1 (0.00007) |   13839 |     442 |     490.35 |       5.03 |    22.07 |    485.32 |   1.026
 1dice2xkj      32      0.00049 |    19528 |       9 (0.00047) |   19117 |     402 |    1114.13 |    1396.44 |     1.39 |   -282.30 | 125.339
 1dice2zdo      64      0.00098 |    19951 |      24 (0.00123) |   19459 |     468 |    1471.20 |     803.35 |    55.82 |    667.84 |  54.605
 1dice37Ee     128      0.00195 |    19671 |      37 (0.00193) |   19174 |     460 |    2345.66 |    1557.72 |    48.39 |    787.93 |  66.409
 1dice3jkp     256      0.00391 |    24352 |     106 (0.00442) |   23861 |     385 |    4603.12 |    7359.89 |    13.20 |  -2756.76 | 159.889
 1dice4J1m     512      0.00781 |    33755 |     273 (0.00826) |   32781 |     701 |    5747.94 |    5685.00 |    10.04 |     62.94 |  98.905
 1dice5wwE    1000      0.01526 |   119626 |    1815 (0.01524) |  117287 |     524 |   36953.95 |   32275.08 |     2.07 |   4678.87 |  87.339
 1dice61SN    1500      0.02289 |    24632 |     571 (0.02352) |   23703 |     358 |    7677.79 |    8378.89 |    15.09 |   -701.10 | 109.132
 1dice6DPt    2000      0.03052 |    75090 |    2331 (0.03121) |   72361 |     398 |   37722.21 |   33752.49 |     9.37 |   3969.72 |  89.476
 1dice6gJg    3000      0.04578 |    28842 |    1313 (0.04623) |   27090 |     439 |    9348.47 |   10071.13 |    25.18 |   -722.66 | 107.730
 1dice6GV5    4000      0.06104 |    34770 |    2118 (0.06161) |   32260 |     392 |    7648.08 |    7439.57 |    31.35 |    208.51 |  97.274
 1dice6wBx    6000      0.09155 |    47496 |    4335 (0.09215) |   42710 |     451 |   16073.91 |   17885.47 |     7.31 |  -1811.56 | 111.270
 1dice6YgE    8000      0.12207 |   185629 |   22727 (0.12277) |  162391 |     511 |   91842.61 |   90660.50 |   100.48 |   1182.10 |  98.713
 1dice7EYz   12000      0.18311 |    95983 |   17479 (0.18314) |   77960 |     544 |  171317.94 |  173032.51 |  3314.91 |  -1714.56 | 101.001
 1dice7fUk   16000      0.24414 |   247531 |   60270 (0.24404) |  186695 |     566 |  367242.40 |  353354.86 |  2322.46 |  13887.53 |  96.218
 1dice7W2A   24000      0.36621 |   248563 |   91304 (0.36821) |  156664 |     595 |  583948.05 |  575680.26 |  1013.25 |   8267.78 |  98.584
 1dice8EMZ   32000      0.48828 |  1128608 |  549998 (0.48804) |  576950 |    1660 |  878694.15 |  861109.94 |  2925.00 |  17584.20 |  97.999
 1dice97EC   32768      0.50000 |   612187 |  305322 (0.49968) |  305719 |    1146 |  664053.35 |  648020.41 |  6521.27 |  16032.94 |  97.586
 1dice9wcM   48000      0.73242 |   344780 |  252951 (0.73503) |   91188 |     641 |  300301.08 |  292771.78 |  5455.30 |   7529.29 |  97.493
 1dicec9k7   52000      0.79346 |    75937 |   59909 (0.79438) |   15507 |     521 |   61780.20 |   60482.17 |  1187.58 |   1298.02 |  97.899
 1dicegEAr   56000      0.85449 |    64342 |   54633 (0.85679) |    9132 |     577 |   77992.86 |   77345.69 |   400.56 |    647.16 |  99.170
 1diceDCd2   60000      0.91553 |    99498 |   90652 (0.91622) |    8289 |     557 |   71359.32 |   70548.77 |     0.53 |    810.55 |  98.864
 1dice9wVt   64000      0.97656 |    16933 |   15491 (0.97970) |     321 |    1121 |   24078.74 |   23665.34 |   240.22 |    413.39 |  98.283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           small (bets < 4 BTC) |  3593763 | 1480968           | 2096188 |   16607 |  777345.83 |  763239.69 |   264.46 |  14106.14 |  98.185
            big (bets >= 4 BTC) |   115174 |   52708           |   62174 |     292 | 2648101.66 | 2591915.27 | 23628.70 |  56186.39 |  97.878
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                |  3708937 | 1533676           | 2158362 |   16899 | 3425447.50 | 3355154.96 | 23893.16 |  70292.53 |  97.948
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SD Profit before fees:      70292.53912493 BTC (2.052%)
Cumulative Fees Paid:        2909.98447500 BTC
SD Profit after fees:       67382.55464993 BTC (1.967%)
Pending Liabilities:          -52.54336004 BTC
Final SD Profit:            67435.09800997 BTC (1.969%)
----
Since Satoshi Dice started, there have been:
Blockchain Tx: 11629962  :  SatoshiDice Tx:  6825397  (58.7%)
Blockchain MB:   4999.2  :  SatoshiDice MB:   2807.5  (56.2%)



legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
March 16, 2013, 12:37:10 PM
How crazy unlikely (or lucky?) is this? 0.000000000000000012219410750632388 %? Ain't it more likely to win "lessthan 1" two times in a row?

I think it's about as unlikely as winning "lessthan 1" 3.9 times in a row:

Quote
>>> math.log((1 / (1-32000/65536.0)**65), 65536)
3.9267190562541083

I'm trying to think of an explanation for this.  There's no way it happened by pure chance, it's just too unlikely.

The miner of that block could have deliberately picked losing bets to mine.  If the results of the bets were published without any confirmations, like they used to always be some time ago, then that's possible.  I don't see why a miner would do that though.

It's possible that SatoshiDice's hot wallet was out of confirmed coins to pay out winners at the time, and so was only settling losing bets, but that shouldn't affect which bet transactions got mined.

So I'm at a loss to explain it.

How about the conspiracy theory answer: someone who knew the daily secret deliberately sent a bunch of losing bets to manipulate the stats.  But why would a SatoshiDice insider have any incentive to make it look like lots of small bets were losing?
full member
Activity: 222
Merit: 100
March 16, 2013, 07:15:00 AM
How crazy unlikely (or lucky?) is this? 0.000000000000000012219410750632388 %? Ain't it more likely to win "lessthan 1" two times in a row?
Pages:
Jump to: