Let's talk about it on the JD thread.

From the CLAM thread:


It turns out when I designed the JD database I thought 2.1 billion bets would be more than would ever happen. We just hit 2.1 billion bets (2^31) so things stopped working.

I've suspended betting and am modifying the database to remove the limitation.

I'll post again once it is done. I've no idea how long it will take, sorry.

Thanks CBI. I'll look into it.

I'm not sure it is any more, but an old version of the source is available. I think some anti-spam or anti-DDoS measures were added "in secret" to make it harder for attackers to circumvent them.

Doesn't your signature sponsor ask that you make substantive posts?

Does this nonsense really qualify?

Yours, Santoshi.

When attempting bankroll management it isn't the size of the bet that matters but the size of the potential profit per bet. The biggest payouts I've seen from moneypot have been "jackpot" style bets where the stake is tiny but the payout multiplier is huge (like over a million x). So it would be interesting to see a breakdown based on "target profit" rather than "amount staked".

Also, it doesn't matter what average bet is like, or that the majority of bets are aiming to win small amounts. What matters is the worst case scenario. That is, what kind of expected bankroll growth would investors see if an "angry whale" shows up and aims for the maximum profit over and over. That's the scenario you need to defend against.

I'm not attacking you. I don't know why you think I am. I hadn't realized until recently just how much commission the investors were paying, and so thought I would point it out in case anyone else was unaware of it. That's nothing against you or your site. It's just information.


When I said that it was "like" investors had only kept 15% of their profits or whatever I said, that was because it was true - at the time investors had paid around 85% of their profits back to you and the apps. I wasn't suggesting that taking 85% commission was your policy, just that that is what had happened at the time. As of right now it seems investors have paid well over 100% of their profit as commission:



[edit: made image smaller after receiving complaint about its size via pm]


That's interesting.

Yes, it's true.

The site and the apps make a guaranteed gain every time a bet is placed, even if the bet wins. When a bet wins, not only do the investors have to pay the winner of the bet, but they also have to pay the site and the app owner. You can see that in the screenshot. Comparing the left and right sides you see that while the site profit dropped by just 78.5 BTC, the investor profit dropped by 82.5 BTC. The app owners actually profited by 3 BTC from this large loss, and the site itself profited by a further 1 BTC. The investors made up the difference.

On the other hand, if the apps ever do better than expected then the investors will also do better than expected. The site and the apps take a percentage of the wagered amount, independent of the actual profit. The way things are set up means that when the site performs at less than 70% of expectation the investors take a loss.

I presented hard numbers. Investors have earned about 0% of the profits, while the site and the apps have between them earned about 100% of the profits.

How does that not truly reflect the commission that has been paid? The truth of the matter is that investors have paid a little over 100% of their profits in commission (to the site and the apps).


And that is what I said happens. You (the house + the apps, combined) take 70% of the expected profit. So if the actual profit *is* 70% of the expected profit then you take *all* of the profit, leaving the investors with none. That is what had happened last I looked, as shown in the screenshot I posted.


I wasn't paying attention back then. If investors had paid only 5% commission on profits then it wouldn't be a lie to claim that they had paid 5% commission on profits.

I'm not acting like anything, and not pretending anything.


Who lost some stolen coins? I don't know what you're referring to here, but it's likely unrelated to the point we're discussing.

Maybe this is the old "dooglus vouched for scam casinos" troll? If so, it never happened. I never vouched for any casino other than my own.


Right. To be libelous a statement has to be:

* false and
* known to be false by the libeller and
* damaging to the libeled party

For the record, here are two screenshots side by side of the stats on https://dicesites.com/moneypot that I referred to in the post you accused of being libelous.



It's pretty clear that I used those statistics directly, and didn't make anything up.

It's not libel if it's true. I took the numbers from dicesites.com and calculated the percentages.


All I know is what dicesites.com told me. Is their information incorrect? Did the app owners not really take 334.7 BTC (62%) and did the site itself not take 126.4 BTC (23%) , leaving the investors only 80.4 BTC (15%) of profit? If the numbers on dicesites.com are incorrect you should work with them to fix the numbers rather than falsely accusing me of libel. I don't want to hurt you at all. But if people pulled out of the site when they learned that historically investors have only kept 15% of the profits then presumably that's because they didn't know the information before, and didn't like it. I think the expression is "don't shoot the messenger".


So you're telling me that investors should expect to lose 20% of their profits to you, and a further 50% to the app owners, and so rather than an effective 85% loss that seems to have happened they should "only" be losing 70%?

While Dean's 50% commission and bitdice's 30% commission are obviously pretty high, you're paying for the bankroll management and the game in a single payment. At moneypot you're paying 20% for the bankroll management and 50% for the game, making a total of 70% of the expected profit - that's the highest effective commission rate I've heard of.

I was kind of surprised that investors only kept 15% of their profits instead of the expected 30% when the actual profits were around 80% of the expected profits. Intuitively it seems that when the expected and actual profits are so close together then the investor's take (15%) should be close to their expected take (30%), rather than just half of it. But I guess that intuition is incorrect. The problem is that the house and the apps get their 20% and 50% cuts of the house edge first out of the actual profit, so if the actual profit is less than 70% of the expected profit there is no profit at all left for the investors.

Checking dicesites.com again now, I see:

  total profit: 463.1 BTC
  house commission: 127.6 BTC (27.6% of actual profit, 18.7% of expected profit)
  application commission: 337.8 BTC (72.9% of actual profit, 49.6% of expected profit)
  investors: -2.3 BTC (-0.5% of actual profit, -0.3% of expected profit)


That's pretty clever, if obscure. For those who missed the reference, Just-Dice's actual profit was only 30% of its expected profit. Just-Dice took a 10% commission on actual investor profits, so investors kept 90% of all the site profits. At moneypot the site and the apps together take 70% of the expected profit, so if the actual profit is 70% or less of the expected profit (as it currently is) the investors take a loss (as they currently do) even if the actual profit is positive (as it currently is).

If there are any factual errors in my statements, please point them out to me. I really am not aiming to spread misinformation about moneypot or about anything else for that matter.

People do appear to be confused, which is why I was asking these questions to try to clarify the situation.

I think Dean was having a hard time understanding why people were confused. He thought everything was spelled out in the OP already.

I think now it's pretty clear that investors aren't lending anything to BK. They are buying BK shares from its current owner, DN. When you buy something from DN, DN ends up owning the money that you used to buy that something...

I think you are confused. Let's take your example:

* start at 2000
* +500 -> 2500; pay out 500 in dividends
* -200 -> 1800; no dividend
* +600 -> 2400; pay out 400 in dividends
* -200 -> 1800; no dividend

As you see the bankroll didn't drop to 1.6k at any point, and it doesn't keep depleting.

I think the error you made was in thinking the 3rd period's 600 BTC profit would be paid out as a 600 BTC dividend, whereas only 400 would be paid out as the other 200 is used to make up for previous losses.


DN owns 100% of BK shares right now. BK owns no BTC. DN sells 30% of BK shares for 2000 BTC. Now DN has 2000 BTC and 70% of the shares. DN lends 2000 BTC to BK for use as its bankroll. Now DN is owed 2000 BTC by BK, BK has 2000 BTC in its bankroll and owes 2000 BTC to DN.

The bankroll is not an asset of the company at any point. 2000 BTC of it is owed to DN, and anything over 2000 BTC is owed to the shareholders as dividends.

I don't know where you get the idea that the investors get 30% of the bankroll at any time.

Also, what would it mean to "sell the empty company"? The company is owned by its shareholders. That's what shares are for. DN is offering to "sell (30% of) the empty company" right now. That's what this ICO is for.

I was sent different screenshots of the same chat by a few different people. I have no doubt that they are legit.

That 90% should be 70%. Other than that it looks right to me.

This site can do it for you:

  https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/

I would recommend using an offline copy of the page so you don't accidentally leak any important information.

Are you saying you pay out 1.85 times the stake for a 50% chance of winning?

That's a huge 7.5% house edge.

Why would anyone want to play on such a site when every other site (except satoshidice) is offering 1% house edge games or better?

Everyone has already been forcibly divested.

If you're asking about the shares, I think the situation is that you will be able to sell your shares so long as you can find someone willing to buy them from you.

I don't see how you can be certain of that. Why is it not possible that one of the team is cheating the bankroll, given that people other than yourself have access to the server and could cheat in an undetectable manner.


According to https://dicesites.com/moneypot the profit is 541.6 BTC, but 334.7 BTC (62%) went to the app owners and 126.4 BTC (23%) went to MoneyPot itself, leaving just 80.4 BTC (15%) for the investors. I'm not sure how that is worked out, but when investors are taking ~100% of the risk it doesn't seem fair that they get only 15% of the profit when the expected and actual profits are so close together. It's like the investors are paying an 85% commission on their profits.


Do also need to (d) trust that there isn't some exploit allowing a third party to cheat.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

To further clarify:

You sell 30% of the company (BK) to investors for 2000 BTC (supposing again that the ICO sells out)
You (DN) keep 70% of the company, and 2000 BTC.

So BK has no BTC, DN has 70% of the shares and 2k BTC, and the investors have 30% of the shares.

Do I have it right so far?

If so, let's proceed. I'm guessing here, but is this how it works?

* DN gives BK an interest-free loan of 2k BTC to use as its bankroll.

* BK pays its expenses out of the 2k bankroll. The bankroll grows and shrinks as players bet.

* Each 3 months (or however often dividends end up being paid), you check whether the bankroll is over 2k or not.

* If it is, you pay out the excess to shareholders. 30% to the public investors, 70% to DN.

* If it isn't, you pay no dividends for that period and wait for the bankroll to grow back over 2k before paying anything out.

* If BK is ever sold to a new owner, it pays back the 2k BTC loan to DN. If the bankroll is less than 2k at the time of sale, the shortfall is made up from the sale price so that DN's loan is repaid in full.

* After repaying the loan, the money left over from the sale is paid out to the shareholders. 30% to the public, 70% to DN.

I don't think I've seen you refer to the 2k in BTC's bankroll as a loan from DN to BK, but I don't see what else it could be. It doesn't belong to BK. It belongs to DN, who sold 30% of the company in exchange for 2k BTC. Is it a loan? Is it interest-free?