Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

[Bitcoin Betting Guide]

About how often is the sites bank (currently 36,010) bet through? Because that is how long it should take an investor to realise 1% gain. So if 36,010 is bet about every 39 days investors should make about 1% every 39 days which annualises to about 9% per year.

But I just made the 39 days up what is the actual time it takes on average?

Check the tab stats for the daily wagered amounts.

Okay I have done that now and the last 4 turnovers of the bank have taken 13, 6, 5 and 1 days for an average of 6.25.

So over the last 3 and 1/2 week investors should be making 1 % every 6.25 days or an annualised 58.4% (much more because it would compound but lets keep this simple).

but the site does not make 1% it makes 0.26% so investors should make 0.26% every 6.25 days or an annualised 15.18%.

Does that agree with peoples real investment performance? I have only been invested for 3 week and I have broke even in that time.

What about this 0.26% return on a 1% edge? you cant call variance on a sample size of 563,854,546 bets. The only thing I can think if is if the site has run bad on max bets which are a small sample size. Any stats available on number and results of max bets or all bets over 100 BTC? Average bet is 0.0876412 btw

[zipmaster]

The site DOES run on a 1% edge.  The reason why current profit is at 0.26% is because a whale won 10k by wagering 1 million coins (20% of total wagered) in one day.

He never regambled his winnings and walked away with a house loss. Since then, profits have been tracking the 1% edge very well.

[meta.p02]

... the site has run bad on max bets which are a small sample size.

  yes
Check https://just-dice.com/wagered.txt for daily wagered amounts, and https://bitcoinproject.net/justdice.php for the theoretical house earnings.

[Bitcoin Betting Guide]

I think the site could relativity easily make more betting stats available. Data with bet time, bet amount and other filters.

[TheFuneral]

I think the site could relativity easily make more betting stats available. Data with bet time, bet amount and other filters.

why bother?

You might find this useful;
https://bitcoinproject.net/justdice.php

[dooglus]

The chart looks really bad. Though i dont understand why the chart at bitcoinproject is working so fine.

bitcoinproject started collecting data after nakowa's lucky streak.  His 'expected profit' is calculated from the day he started collecting data.

at least there should be a pressure to the top... but that the bets from nakowa are "forgotten" by luck... i dont know what to think.

If you mean the 37k 'gap' should tend to close to zero, then you're mistaken.  The law of large numbers says that the profit percentage will get arbitrarily close to 1% not because the gap gets smaller, but because the profit and expected profit get larger.  The 37k gap stays at 37k, but 37k becomes less and less significant.  When the profit is 100 million BTC, a 37k gap won't be noticed, and the profit will be 1% of amount wagered.  Turns out "the long run" is longer than we thought...

Isnt the site profit calculated solely from profit divided through house?

It is simply the profit divided by the amount wagered.

Currently we have a profit of 12,941 and a wagered of 4942k.  12941 * 100 / 4942e3 = 0.26185%

But for example when JD runs with 1000 house and makes 10 profit it would mean 1% profit. But if you add 30000 to the house

The size of the bankroll isn't relevant.  A bigger bankroll allows us to take bigger bets; that's all.  The profit is calculated as how much we kept from how much was wagered.

That would mean that your 3000 more fee would have been earned and taken from the investors that were invested while nakowa played. The fee would have hit the investors very hard additionally i guess. 70% house crash? Wouldnt the theoretical profit that high that any investment would be wiped out with the fee then? Probably even going into negative then...

If the fee was taken per-bet, the bankroll would have reduced quicker than it did, and so would the max profit.  Investors wouldn't have been wiped out, or had their investment go negative, but it would have cost them more.  The new scheme of charging investors 0.1% per bet instead of 10% on profit costs them more whenever the house does worse than expected, and costs them less whenever it does better than expected.  When the house does much worse than expected, like at the end of September on nakowa's biggest day, it costs them a lot more than the current system (which costs them nothing if they stay invested, since they only pay on profit; interesting aside: that was my most profitable day by far, ever.  So many investors were 'day trading' the massive swings that I took huge commissions when they managed to divest at the top)

The house was crashed 70%? And the graph Peter R posted supports that it was quite normal? At 1% kelly, which means nakowa only could win max 1% of the house at one bet means that he had to win more than 70 times at full profit. And that should be a quite normal happening? Of course im not a genius in math so i might think wrong here somehow...

I'm not sure where you're getting that 70% number from.  At no point was the bankroll depleted by 70%, even including people divesting.  Nakowa bounced the house profit between +7k and -7k (roughly) on his biggest day.  A swing of 14k.  The bankroll was around 50k or 60k at the time.  14k is 28% of 50k.  So at most he took 28% of the bankroll.  Bear in mind the profit didn't start at +7k and end at -7k.  Those are just the extremes of the profit through the day.  So he took less than 28%.  And that doesn't mean he won 28 times in a row.  He played hundreds of bets over a very long session.  Also, I don't think Peter's graph suggests his result was "normal", just that it wasn't exceptionally unlikely.

Really? I thought implementing risk settings would be impossible because the server would have to calculate too much. I thought till now you calculate the profits only when divesting or weekly and that the profit shown at the website is some javascript running on the users computer that is guessing the profit from the bets.
Then the server load wouldnt be an argument against risk settings anymore too...

I don't do per-investor calculations after each bet.  I just recalculate the size of the bankroll after each bet.  I know each investor's share of the bankroll, so can calculate their investment size when I need to.  Charging a fee per bet is simply a case of adjusting the bankroll calculation I already do.  It doesn't introduce a per-investor calculation per bet.  Variable rate investment DOES.

I hope i can use JD with HMA again and its only temporary. But the nakowa thing, the luck he had to have and that the profit isnt moving back makes me think. I dont want to bring back a "maybe" old discussion but i dont see how thats possible. Practically winning 70 times in a row?

* What's HMA?

* We don't expect the gap to close; we just expect it to become a smaller percentage of profit as profit increases.

* Why 70?

[dooglus]

What I am saying is that Nakowa had no way of losing 10k because he never had that kind of money walking in. He could only lose 10k after winning. The same is true with almost all players. On the other hand, any player with 100 BTC or so, can accumulate 10k if playing aggressively and with a bit of luck. The chance of that happening is small but not insignificant. The law of large numbers more or less guarantees that we never make much more than 1%, but a lucky player who manages to stop at the right time can bring us down significantly. This means that the actual expected return is less than 1%.

I don't like what you're saying.  Especially this bit: "the actual expected return is less than 1%".

It reminds me of this argument, which works in the opposite direction:

"Players tend to play until they go bust.  They might get lucky, win a bunch and lose it back, but if they get unlucky they have to stop.  Hence the expected return is more than 1%".

I think both arguments are similarly invalid, and the expected return is actually exactly 1%.

The easiest way to see this is that the server sees a stream of bets, from bet #1 onwards.  It doesn't care who each bet belongs to, who's winning, who's losing, who's walking away with a profit.  Each bet has a house edge of 1%, and so the sum of all those bets has a house edge of 1%.  How can it be different just because at one point the bettor stops being "nakowa" and becomes "satoshi" or whatever?  It's just a stream of 1% edge bets, all the way.

[organofcorti]

I don't like what you're saying.  Especially this bit: "the actual expected return is less than 1%".

Yeah, it all comes down to this bit:

"The law of large numbers more or less guarantees that we never make much more than 1%, but a lucky player who manages to stop at the right time can bring us down significantly."

Firstly, "The law of large numbers more or less guarantees that we never make much more than 1%" is wrong. It means that the site profit will approach 1%, but says nothing about the direction in which it approaches, or any mention of how long  it will take.

I've proven to my own satisfaction that the variance in profit per bet is infinite while the mean is finite. This means that it can take a long time for 1% to be approached. If the amount bet is increased, then variance increases even more.

Secondly, "but a lucky player who manages to stop at the right time can bring us down significantly" isn't very useful information - if you could "pick the right time" you'd win *every time*.

[tucenaber]

What I am saying is that Nakowa had no way of losing 10k because he never had that kind of money walking in. He could only lose 10k after winning. The same is true with almost all players. On the other hand, any player with 100 BTC or so, can accumulate 10k if playing aggressively and with a bit of luck. The chance of that happening is small but not insignificant. The law of large numbers more or less guarantees that we never make much more than 1%, but a lucky player who manages to stop at the right time can bring us down significantly. This means that the actual expected return is less than 1%.

I don't like what you're saying.  Especially this bit: "the actual expected return is less than 1%".

It reminds me of this argument, which works in the opposite direction:

"Players tend to play until they go bust.  They might get lucky, win a bunch and lose it back, but if they get unlucky they have to stop.  Hence the expected return is more than 1%".

I think both arguments are similarly invalid, and the expected return is actually exactly 1%.

The easiest way to see this is that the server sees a stream of bets, from bet #1 onwards.  It doesn't care who each bet belongs to, who's winning, who's losing, who's walking away with a profit.  Each bet has a house edge of 1%, and so the sum of all those bets has a house edge of 1%.  How can it be different just because at one point the bettor stops being "nakowa" and becomes "satoshi" or whatever?  It's just a stream of 1% edge bets, all the way.

Yes, I was thinking about the reverse argument myself after posting that. It is exactly as you say. Maybe I should be more careful before posting.

[autotoss]

Hi, dooglus. I want invest 1 btc for your website. I need to sell $1k amazon gift card. Can I use you website as escrow? I want get my just-dice deposit wallet to buyer. He send money on this wallet. I send him amazon code. Can you confirm that I send buyer your wallet? Can you lock withdraw from my account on one week?

[SebastianJu]

Really? I thought implementing risk settings would be impossible because the server would have to calculate too much. I thought till now you calculate the profits only when divesting or weekly and that the profit shown at the website is some javascript running on the users computer that is guessing the profit from the bets.
Then the server load wouldnt be an argument against risk settings anymore too...

I don't do per-investor calculations after each bet.  I just recalculate the size of the bankroll after each bet.  I know each investor's share of the bankroll, so can calculate their investment size when I need to.  Charging a fee per bet is simply a case of adjusting the bankroll calculation I already do.  It doesn't introduce a per-investor calculation per bet.  Variable rate investment DOES.

I dont think that it needs per-investor calculations per bet with variable risk. It could run like it runs now. The only difference would be that the bankroll is handled differentlynt the number anymore where all comes from. At the moment its so that the bankroll is the value for everything. You know that everyone risks 0.5% of the bankroll and the max profit is 0.5% of the bankroll. And so the profit develops.
With variable risk investments you would have the bankroll as value and the max profit as another value. Because you cant simply take 0.5% of the bankroll as the max profit anymore. Instead... everytime a user is investing you know what risk level he wants. You know the bankroll is +100% of his investment and when he wants to run 1% kelly then the max profit is +1% of his personal investment. Then you know the maximum winable amount that is a running number like the bankroll was before too. The bankroll and the max profit are adjusting with the bets results now.
Everytime a investor is divesting you know the amount of bitcoins he put into the max profit value. And you know how the house developed from there. So calculating the profit or loss is not much different like it is now. The same goes for weekly fees. All numbers are there to be able to know the personal profit/loss of an investor. And you dont need to calculate the profit per bet per investor the same way like it is now. Its only needed for divesting and weekly fee.
The only thing that changes is that the bankroll and max profit are 2 values now. And the % Risk Level of each investor has to be stored for the calculation of profits. Its not anymore a fixed value for all investments.
If im not wrong then there is nearly no additional calculation needed. Even with the new fee setup it wouldnt be needed because the max profit value contains the whole real investment per bet. Per bet fees can be calculated against it.
Let me know if there are errors in thinking.

I hope i can use JD with HMA again and its only temporary. But the nakowa thing, the luck he had to have and that the profit isnt moving back makes me think. I dont want to bring back a "maybe" old discussion but i dont see how thats possible. Practically winning 70 times in a row?

* What's HMA?

* We don't expect the gap to close; we just expect it to become a smaller percentage of profit as profit increases.

* Why 70?

HMA is HideMyAss VPN and i thought JD didnt work with it anymore though it was another reason that CloudFlare blocked JD.
More than 70 winnings in a row would have been needed to win 70% of the house. Though i found already that the graph didnt show the development of the house but the development of the house from a startpoint in time. I mistook it first.

[wolverine.ks]

is there a way to request anonymous account balances more frequently than just on Sundays? I'm trying to develop an widget that displays you JD account balance. this might be useful to investors and bettors with bots.

[zipmaster]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

[itod]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

It was ignored because it makes no sense. Private key can not be "partially" generated, it must be generated in one step from complete passphrase. This means one person would have to know the whole passphrase to generate the keypair for the new cold wallet. Even if that person is dooglus, we get no added security except we would have to worry that group of investors could conspire and steel the whole cold wallet, their funds + funds from the investors who are not in their group.

[zipmaster]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

It was ignored because it makes no sense. Private key can not be "partially" generated, it must be generated in one step from complete passphrase. This means one person would have to know the whole passphrase to generate the keypair for the new cold wallet. Even if that person is dooglus, we get no added security except we would have to worry that group of investors could conspire and steel the whole cold wallet, their funds + funds from the investors who are not in their group.

Ehm.... you're wrong. A public key can be fully recovered from a private key. What this means is that Doog could use a hash of the investor's individual passwords to construct a new private key daily and dump the cold wallet into the public key derived from it.

bitaddress.org, for example, allows you to recreate your public key from a private key. Go to the "Wallet Details" tab, paste in the private key and click 'view details'.

The page is a single large javascript program, and works entirely offline. If you don't trust it, you could disconnect from the Internet before pasting in your private key.

Nonetheless, this wouldn't be ideal because it would give a few investors access to the WHOLE cold wallet. What we need is some sort of decentrally stored script which, given the investor's passphrase, will dump the cold wallet to ALL the investors at once.

Doog???

[itod]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

It was ignored because it makes no sense. Private key can not be "partially" generated, it must be generated in one step from complete passphrase. This means one person would have to know the whole passphrase to generate the keypair for the new cold wallet. Even if that person is dooglus, we get no added security except we would have to worry that group of investors could conspire and steel the whole cold wallet, their funds + funds from the investors who are not in their group.

Ehm.... you're wrong. A public key can be fully recovered from a private key. What this means is that Doog could use a hash of the investor's individual passwords to construct a new private key daily and dump the cold wallet into the public key derived from it.

bitaddress.org, for example, allows you to recreate your public key from a private key. Go to the "Wallet Details" tab, paste in the private key and click 'view details'.

The page is a single large javascript program, and works entirely offline. If you don't trust it, you could disconnect from the Internet before pasting in your private key.

Nonetheless, this wouldn't be ideal because it would give a few investors access to the WHOLE cold wallet. What we need is some sort of decentrally stored script which, given the investor's passphrase, will dump the cold wallet to ALL the investors at once.

Doog???

You've completely misunderstood what I've written. There's no mention of the public key in it. There's no transaction without the private key, and group either has or has not access to the complete passphrase (as a group) = private key. Read again, I'm out.

[dooglus]

Yes, I was thinking about the reverse argument myself after posting that. It is exactly as you say. Maybe I should be more careful before posting.

Your argument about nakowa having limited funds reminds me, however, of the following:

People have run simulations, running the bets that nakowa made against a random number generator over and over, to find out how likely it was that he got the result he got purely by chance.  They found that he wins as much as he did only 1 in 20 times (or whatever the number was; I forget).

However, the bets they're running through the simulator include one day where he bet over 1.5 million BTC.  We can be pretty sure he didn't have a million BTC at any point.  And that he couldn't have bet that much if he didn't have the kind of luck he had.

So is the simulation even valid?  The bets he made could *only* have been made if he won a significant number of them.  So running them through a random number generator seems somehow invalid, but my knowledge of stats (or whatever) isn't strong enough to know for sure.

This is the cue for someone knowledgeable to come and use some Latin or mention Bayes' theorem or such other clever stuff.

[dooglus]

Hi, dooglus. I want invest 1 btc for your website. I need to sell $1k amazon gift card. Can I use you website as escrow? I want get my just-dice deposit wallet to buyer. He send money on this wallet. I send him amazon code. Can you confirm that I send buyer your wallet? Can you lock withdraw from my account on one week?

I don't check these forum posts often enough to answer this kind of question in a timely manner.  It's better to email the address at the end of the JD FAQ tab if you need my attention.

But as a rule I don't want to get involved with escrow.  It seems messy.  I don't understand what I'm meant to do when he gets your amazon card and finds it has already been used.  You say it was good, he says it was bad, and I have to somehow pick sides?  Ewww.

[dooglus]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

I saw your original post, didn't know how to respond, put it off, then forgot about it.  Sorry.

I've been asked for this kind of thing before.  The previous suggestion was to regularly issue timelocked transactions paying the top investors their balance.  There's some feature of Bitcoin where you can set a transaction to only be valid after some point in time.  When I run 'decoderawtransaction' on a transaction I see "locktime" : 0, which I'm guessing would be different for a timelocked transaction.

The problems with that scheme are:

1) Investor balances change every second.  I guess I'd have to make the transaction for some amount under the investor's balance.

2) I'd have to keep moving the cold wallet coins around before the date on the timelocked transaction to invalidate the transaction in the event that I'm not dead yet (or whatever).  I try not to be accessing the cold wallet too often.

I'm unclear of the details of zipmaster's proposed scheme.  How does it allow funds to be returned after I'm dead but not before?

[bittymitty]

My original post was ignored so I'll bump.

Would it be possible to implement a failsafe for the cold wallet. Something where the top 5-10 investors can put together a passphrase made out of their individual passwords and dump the cold wallet to the safety wallets of ALL the site's investors??

I saw your original post, didn't know how to respond, put it off, then forgot about it.  Sorry.

I've been asked for this kind of thing before.  The previous suggestion was to regularly issue timelocked transactions paying the top investors their balance.  There's some feature of Bitcoin where you can set a transaction to only be valid after some point in time.  When I run 'decoderawtransaction' on a transaction I see "locktime" : 0, which I'm guessing would be different for a timelocked transaction.

The problems with that scheme are:

1) Investor balances change every second.  I guess I'd have to make the transaction for some amount under the investor's balance.

2) I'd have to keep moving the cold wallet coins around before the date on the timelocked transaction to invalidate the transaction in the event that I'm not dead yet (or whatever).  I try not to be accessing the cold wallet too often.

I'm unclear of the details of zipmaster's proposed scheme.  How does it allow funds to be returned after I'm dead but not before?

you just need a multi-signature wallet and share the keys to trusted people( maybe a laywer etc.)  then if you are unavailable then the wallet is unlocked by consensus and the funds released to all the investors.  I am guessing you keep a backed up list of investors somewhere?