Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 322 results by a1choi
I think that is like the classic gambler's fallacy 
The profit should reach EV because the numbers get bigger, not because it's more likely to be "extra EV". The 1% HE is the same for both sites.
In comparison: gamblers say that when you have a coinflip, and after 1000 bets it's 40% tail, it's more likely to be "head" because it will get close to 50%. However, it will get close to 50% because the sample will become bigger, not because there is a bigger chance for any side to win - that's still 50%.
The profit should reach EV because the numbers get bigger, not because it's more likely to be "extra EV". The 1% HE is the same for both sites.
In comparison: gamblers say that when you have a coinflip, and after 1000 bets it's 40% tail, it's more likely to be "head" because it will get close to 50%. However, it will get close to 50% because the sample will become bigger, not because there is a bigger chance for any side to win - that's still 50%.
Exactly. Wikipedia has a good gif demonstration of this. I edited my previous answer a little bit. but same thinking.
Just want to explain better my thoughts about the bolded part: contrary of what you wrote I assume JD for BTC would be a better investing option because in the long run (I expect) profit will rise to reach EV .
Actually, Both options are the same. JD for BTC and JD for Clams both have a 1% edge. Just because one is underperforming, and one is overperforming has no impact on future performance. One can't say that because it is at 0.3%, that the site will have a >1.0% in the future. It still has 1% in the future.
yes, it might rise up to get to the 1% total in the long run,
But that doenst mean that you as an investor will earn MORE than 1% of wagered in the long run.
Just because it is underperforming, doesnt mean that it'll quickly catch up.. wow this is really hard to explain.
charges on the wagered amount 0.1% on other sites
other sites usually takes 10 % comission of the profit
These two are theoretically the same if you look at this from an infinite time range. (super long term) In the short term, there will definitely be differences between these two methods.
Another way to look at it is that Dean currently taking 25% of profit. (but he's taking it risk-free on wagered, which is way better than only taking it on house profits)
I understand Dean's move as he was interested in selling the site all together if the bid/buyer was right. I hope this bodes well for new entrants into the crowdfunded casino space. I'm actually working on a new casino with a brand new game that will be crowdfunded. Details coming soon. Hope there are still lots of interested investors looking for a new game and trusted place to store their coins.
were you ever able to do anything about the 2nd user that had stolen from you? It seems like you had even more specific information about the user and was going to open up legal recourse.
Would love to hear if there are any updates there.
Would love to hear if there are any updates there.
Not only do you have to make sure that the site is provably fair, you have to make sure that the site is fairly random. How is this site coming up with the results? Are you sure the results are 100% unbiased?
One extra benefit of going nonceless is that it is hugely easier to verify each bet with a script (or verify the script) as there's no history (bet direction, bet size, result) to accumulate, you can just on-demand verify each bet.
Not sure if you're talking about the 2nd method here (nonceless), but i would find this system provably, but not fair. As, it could be possible that the user does not update his client seed while the serverseed will update after every bet. If the operator is unscrupulous, he could take advantage of the users that don't change their client seed as often, and find a serverseed pair that will have an advantage, assuming that the user does not change his betting % or hi/lo option.
of course this would require some work on the operator's part as well as some added technical knowhow, but i could see something like this being done.
I personally had a worst streak on dogecoins dice testing only, I had 54 in a row...
I sent those coins directly from freedoge.co.in but lost them due to that streak, the coins were just 150 in total, and I was testing the dice with 0.00001 Doge per bet with x2 on loss...
I sent those coins directly from freedoge.co.in but lost them due to that streak, the coins were just 150 in total, and I was testing the dice with 0.00001 Doge per bet with x2 on loss...
54 at 49.5% is quite a lot. you probably hold a world record or something special for that streak.
whoever has large bankroll takes the other one into it 
how much big bankroll needed to play at dice but we have to keep in mind that thing losing streak with 2x payout can go up to 30 in a row if got that kind of losing streak with martingale than we can overcome or not? using martingale is always risky where house edge exist.
its simple as that ... explained below
you have 10 BTC and site has 1 btc then start with 0.05 btc bet and most probably u will eat the site's BANKROLL
If the site has 1btc bankroll, they they probably only allow max profits of 0.01 per bet (1%) Thats at a maximum. At just-dice, you would only be allowed 0.005 max profit (0.5%). Also, the max bet would also depend on the bankroll size, as the % stays the same. This would make it more difficult that you will eat away at the sites bankroll too much, even by playing martingale. But it is still possible to eat a lot of it. (maybe 25-50%?)
Re: Are there any chess sites that allow people to bet with Bitcoin?
I think there aren't any chess sites & there won't be any sites which provide chess games because there are many smart chess bots out there 
If you have time, try search it on google & you'll find many chess bots
If you have time, try search it on google & you'll find many chess bots
You dont even need a chess bot software you could copy moves of your opponent into windows chess on the maximum level which should beat most people no? if not sure there are versions that would beat most people.
Lol, thats actually a good point. A lot of available bots out there, and you'll never know if you're playing against one. I would assume sites like this would get their userbase burned out unless the site had a really good way of matching opponents together (but i dont really see that as a viable option as most users want to remain anonymous)
In the analysis I did (linked at the top of this post), the 5 longest winning streaks at 49.5% were four 27's and a 30, while the 5 longest losing streaks at 49.5% were 32, 27, and three 26's. It's interesting that you don't really see the house edge in operation there, in that the winning streaks were longer than the losing streaks "on average". (I know, you can't average streak lengths like that...):
Quote
W L
30 32
27 27
27 26
27 26
27 26
30 32
27 27
27 26
27 26
27 26
ah i totally misremembered the win streak. the spread is a lot closer than i had originally thought.
This is the 1st time I have heard of 0% house edge.
We should support sites with the least house edge even if it is temporary.
interesting to see someone do this. would love to see if traffic jumped up and if the house was on the right side of lucky.
I did a write up of 0% house edge gambling and how it will be profitable
"a combination of display advertising, paid accounts for premium features, leveraging their users to cross sell other products, data selling and things we have not even thought of yet. Social gaming providers such as Zynga that offer play money gambling have found ways to make a very nice return without making anything of the games themselves.
Think of how many users would be attracted to a gambling service that offers all the same sports betting, poker and casino products people use now but where the users break even on average and it is available to everyone in the world. There are many ways to monetise an audience of that scale."
"a combination of display advertising, paid accounts for premium features, leveraging their users to cross sell other products, data selling and things we have not even thought of yet. Social gaming providers such as Zynga that offer play money gambling have found ways to make a very nice return without making anything of the games themselves.
Think of how many users would be attracted to a gambling service that offers all the same sports betting, poker and casino products people use now but where the users break even on average and it is available to everyone in the world. There are many ways to monetise an audience of that scale."
i dont think bitcoin casino's or online casinos will ever go to 0%. Its just a bad business practice. Zynga gaming and real-gaming are completely different experiences, and they work with very different markets. We'll see other innovations in the market, but a race to 0% is not feasible.
Statistically thats only true if the players are betting flat bets, whenever you start using a so called ''strategy'' you risk to lose everything easily. You dont need the casino to have infinite funds just put a max bet limit (shouldnt be too big at first) After you make some profit you can start increasing the limit a little bit.
Assuming that you have lots of players that each bet at variable sizes, then with 0% house edge, the house should expect to make nothing.
if you have players betting at max limit, over the long run, you still expect to be even.
If you have players that use martingale, over the long run, you'll expect to have players that win streaks that last until max bet, and you'll have players that lose streaks until max bet.
As the house, you might even get unlucky as some people do reverse martingale on you and win until the max bet.
In the end, as the house, you still expect to make 0 profits at 0% house edge. NO MATTER HOW THE PLAYERS BET.
The gambling site owner have to earn money through the house edge, so you can't expect there is no hous edge.
That is exactly what we offer. We offer 0% fees on all sport bets: https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/soccer/ Since we don't take a position but instead user bet against user the average user has an expected value of 0. If your bets are better than the average user your bets will make money in the long run.
Fees and house edge are quite different things all together.
On sport betting sited the "house edge" is usually the spread of the odds. However - we are an exchange where user bet directly against each other - so there is no spread. A dice site could operate with 0 house edge as well if bets where user against user.
PD has or used to have PvP dice. not sure what state it's in now. didnt seem very fun. i would assume that sooner or later, the house would invoke a "rake" on it to monetize it somehow. Unless it was a real source of traffic for the site (then you just cover the cost as marketing)
so i assume you guys aren't making any money off the PvP bets? where does your rake come into play then?
before JD shut down the first time, Doog did some stats on longest losing and winning streak at 49.5%.
I believe loses was as big as 32 in a row, and wins was 19 or 20.. i'm not 100% sure of the stats. its in the old JD thread somewhere.
Remember that this isnt simple 50/50. at 49.5/50.5, the max loss streaks will be longer than the max win streaks. (thus you can see the house edge in action, sortof)
I believe loses was as big as 32 in a row, and wins was 19 or 20.. i'm not 100% sure of the stats. its in the old JD thread somewhere.
Remember that this isnt simple 50/50. at 49.5/50.5, the max loss streaks will be longer than the max win streaks. (thus you can see the house edge in action, sortof)
The gambling site owner have to earn money through the house edge, so you can't expect there is no hous edge.
That is exactly what we offer. We offer 0% fees on all sport bets: https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/soccer/ Since we don't take a position but instead user bet against user the average user has an expected value of 0. If your bets are better than the average user your bets will make money in the long run.
Fees and house edge are quite different things all together.