Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Comments Welcome!

I have not posted in ages, and for that I must apologize. I have been going through a difficult time with a close family member's illness and death. This has been both distracting and time consuming, but soon I will be able to focus on healing and happiness. Thanks to all on the site who were aware of my challenges, and who offered comfort and support. There are some truly wonderful people at Just-Dice.

I have decided that for this post I am going to step away from the format I normally use and just talk a bit about all things dice. 

As most of you are aware, the site has been experiencing huge variance with our favourite whale 'Nakowa' visiting us most days, playing on a variety of accounts.

Here are some numbers from wagered

2013-09-19 23867.62734429
2013-09-20 32099.11803927
2013-09-21 140897.33210454
2013-09-22 41941.00744216
2013-09-23 384965.66095365
2013-09-24 150827.48156427 

As you can see, the typical 4-5k btc wagered per day seems to be a thing of the past, at least for now.

This resulted in some good publicity for the site as seen here: Whale at Just-Dice 

The site is experiencing monumental ups and downs, with Nakowa always leaving our profits lower than when he began. This is mathematically possible as he has such a high bankroll, the site has a low house edge, and the max profit per bet is large. (Max profit is either too high, too low, or just right, depending on which forum post you are looking at.)

There are many things about this level of variance that make it difficult for dooglus and I, when the site loses. Of course if the site wins there is a completely different picture painted.

If I am being completely honest, the biggest challenge I face is that of doog being accused of scamming, cheating, conning, lying, and abusing the trust of the investors.

My relationship with doog is no secret. Most of you know that I am his partner, in life as well as on the site. I care for him far more than I do Just-Dice, and he is my priority. I will continue to encourage him to hang in there with the site, just as long as I feel that it is not damaging him in any lasting way.

If people have concerns regarding the fairness of the site, then I encourage them to ask questions. Doog is always happy to answer intelligently phrased questions on chat, via email, or on the forums. (He will often even answer questions that are less than intelligent)

I don't expect to be able to convince people that doog is honest, trustworthy, and brilliant. I will not try. What I will say, is that if I feel that there is too much FUD or even just too much negativity and doog stops enjoying what he does here, that I will strongly encourage him to move on to something different.

So, where do we go from here? At this time, doog is looking at ways to try to mitigate the losses to investors, while still enabling the whales to play big and lose big. This is challenging, and many people have many different ideas of how best this should be done. He is also looking closely at Nakowa's wins and making every effort to ensure fairness.

I encourage you to comment on this post. Thoughts about improving the site, words of encouragement, or doubts you are having are all welcome. Please don't use this as a forum to bash doog, as that will be most unwelcome!

On a lighter note, drfred from J-D has kindly offered to help me out with the blog. Look forward to some new and innovative material as drfred becomes more involved. 

Take care and see you next week.


  1. I have always believed in the idea of just-dice being a legitimate website for investors and players alike.

    Why is one or two players able to bust the entire operation is beyond me. I think greed has so much to do with that and not only from the ownership side but the investors side. If people want to gamble on dice with these limits in place they might as well invest in Bernie Madoff.

    Folks continue to say "oh they just got lucky" well sorry but if the site is what they say it is 99% they could literally bankrupt it with these limits in a few days.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. I will not argue numbers with you, Pro, as I probably don't know enough math. What I do know is that doog set the limits he did based on what he felt were sound numbers, and has stuck by them. There was no excess greed involved, at least from the ownership side. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (Sorry for the deleted comment, but I couldn't figure out how to edit it and didn't like the typo!)

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

  2. ALL HAIL DEB!!! :)

  3. I think the fundamental problem is that the Kelly Criterion is being misapplied. In the Kelly model, the player with the edge controls the betting, and since he has an edge, he keeps on betting.

    At JD, the house has the edge, but the whale controls the betting. Since the edge works against the whale, he can, should, and does quit when he's ahead.

    I also suggest reframing the business model... instead of "how can we attract whales?", ask "how can we attract tuna and marlin?" That's really what JD needs, the medium-sized gamblers.

    I appreciate your and doog's hands-on approach... the availability in chat and bitcointalk, this blog, the data dumps. While the investors have to consider the possibility of an "inside job", transparency is the best way to dispel those doubts.

    1. Thanks Olomana for your well written response. I will point doog at this comment and ask him to read what you've said. Your appreciation is noted, thank you.

    2. I don't believe Kelly Criterion is misplaced, in this case the house has the edge and the house does keep on betting indefinitely as long as the site is up. That one whale may stop, but all the other players keep playing (and thus the house keeps betting). The mathematical models, including this behaviour, still show maximum profit when you follow the Kelly Criterion.

      However, I think the Kelly criterion maximizes long term profit regardless of variance. Investors currently have a problem with variance. The solution to that is to go half-Kelly or quarter-Kelly. Less variance but less profit. Alternatively you can raise the edge and try to pull more profit amongst the variance, keeping maximum earnings the same or raise minimum bet to match the new edge.

      I do agree that more "marlin" would be great, decreasing variance with a larger volume of bets while maintaining the same profit level.

  4. I said it, maximize the bets, 10-20 BTC, or U'll lose the site....
    It's your decision.

    1. how are 100 10 BTC bets any different than 1 1000 BTC bet?
      Please explain how minimum bets have anything at all to do with the success of the site?

    2. the difference is variance, expected return is the same but the distribution is closer centered on the mean

  5. As long as you do NOT assume that he isn't cheating, and you actively search for security holes, I'm fine.

    Sorry for your family member :/

  6. Deb,

    Just to state my position:
    if doog is the same doog who did lots of opensource work for many years in numerous places on the net (I have no doubt at this stage), I have not seen anything unethical done by doog. I've only seen uttermost professionalism.

    1) What are your Deb and doog's views on variable house edge based on size of bets? Bigger the bet bigger the house edge.

    2) Also a variable for investors of how much they would want to risk per bet(was discussed before)

    Above two questions only apply until/if the blinding of server seed can be achieved.

    With all due and undue respect.

    1. hey ontogo,

      yes, the doog running JD is the same doog you mention :-)
      but concerning your questions, i guess you'll get faster answers at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613.0

      right now there is alot of buzz because of today, but it might be worth a shot.

      have a nice evening,