Thanks for your feedback dooglus.
One more: I appear to be earning 2 DirectBet Coins for every CLAM I bet. When I try to gamble with them, I am told: Sorry : Games can not be played with DirectBet Coins. Please select another coin. Why would that be? Seems to be that since DirectBet Coins can be exchanged for BTC there's no reason not to let people gamble with them. People will likely gamble and lose their DirectBet coins, reducing the amount of BTC you ever have to give up in rakeback. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the bounty. I found more, all on the FAQ page:
Yeah, the FAQ was real messy. Although it was not written by me, I did fix up what you pointed out, and I'll leave you another bounty in your account soon  "Soon". |
|
|
|
On this app there's been made: 572102 bets @ 0.0001 BTC (on 2x). 282271 have won, and 289831 lost resulting in a net player loss of 0.756 BTC. 543899 bets @ 0.0002 BTC (on 2x). 269188 have won, and 274711 lost resulting in a net player loss of 1.1046 BTC 277403 bets @ 0.0004 BTC (on 2x). 137664 have won, and 139739 lost resulting in a net player loss of 0.83 BTC 140016 bets @ 0.0008 BTC (on 2x). 69327 have won, and 70689 lost resulting in a net player loss of 1.08 BTC This sort of general trend continues, unless you get to the bets that have only been done a few times, where the player(s) have got rather lucky e.g. 82 bets @ 4 BTC (on 2x). 45 won, and 37 lost resulting in a net player win of 32 btc 8 bets @ 6 BTC (on 2x). 5 won, and 3 lost resulting in a net player win of 12 btc so actually, the small bets haven't really done much but added a lot of noise. The investors would be far worse off without them  That last line contradicts itself. Are the small bets not much but noise, or would the investors be far worse off without them? |
|
|
|
why you again started to work on logo ? The contest is already over and winners are already chosen.
He's also working on a time machine. |
|
|
|
According to the moneypot user page stats: name bets wagered profit
----------- ---- ------- ---------
katerniko1 547 79,200 1,732.50
dooglus 92 7,410 601.70
Hexcoin 45 1,195 469.30
DarkMatters 271 2,936 375.44
jikin 22 319 10.28
panjul07 62 7,472 -502.40
Cybernick 212 65,646 -2,416.10
yahoo 493 89,433 -6,191.50
... but that includes profits and losses from before the hand-raking bug was fixed I guess. Subtracting the data from before the reset: name bets wagered profit
----------- ---- ------- ---------
dooglus 94 7420 611.30
DarkMatters 231 2729 379.56
1aguar 49 596 164.32
Everybitbit 0 0 0.00
Hexcoin 0 0 0.00
huggy 0 0 0.00
jikin 0 0 0.00
panjul07 0 0 0.00
retlus 0 0 0.00
Rmcdermott927 0 0 0.00
rozee 0 0 0.00
webcreator 0 0 0.00
zz11 0 0 0.00
katerniko1 777 107969 -4999.10
Cybernick 173 55480 -5000.00
yahoo 493 89433 -5000.00
|
|
|
|
It's possible to hit the 'restart' button right after hitting 'deal'. It ends up with the screen getting corrupted - here I have 3 'winner' markers:  |
|
|
|
the outcome is and must be random in our opinion because it is provably fair. please correct me if I am wrong.
for example if you bet on seat #4 and #5 and the seats tie that means your both bets are a tie and we didn't find a way to solve this kind of outcome. actually the other 8 seats lost but the 2 bets are a tie.
Well, you could have it so that when there's an N way tie, each of the winning seats gets 9.9/N times the amount they bet. It looks like moneypot doesn't offer card shuffles as one of its modes, so you have no choice but to fake it using the 'custom bet' endpoint as things stand. not sure if I understood it. do you mean to split the profit and payout both seats? that would mean that this kind of tie would give the player a payout. fine for me (if I understood it right) but how about there will be another seat you didn't bet on but did tie with your 2 seats in this hand? how should we payout this hand? when we joined moneypot we asked ryan if we can offer multiplayer player table but then he reversed it  ok he is the boss so we adjusted our games. but we are still aiming to offer multiplayer tables and if not with moneypot then we need to go outside and give it a try. thank you again for trying to help. very much appreciated Again, I understand that the games are not multi-player. I am talking about how to pay out when multiple seats have the best hand. I don't think it is possible to make a game where that can happen on moneypot, so it doesn't really happen. But if you could, then I think paying each winner 9.9/N times their stake would be the fair way to do it. If two hands tie for the best hand, one of them is owned by the player and the other by the house, you would pay (9.9/2)x to the player. You don't pay the house anything, of course. If two hands tie for the best hand and they're both owned by the player, you pay both of them (9.9/2)x. If they both staked the same (which they would, given how the game is currently set up) then the end result would be the same as picking just one of them and paying it 9.9x. -- I've been playing the contest for an hour or so. It's more fun than I expected it would be. I was thinking that knowing that the winner was picked at random, and then the cards 'made up' to get the required result would spoil the feel of the game, but the illusion is pretty good. It feels like watching a poker hand play out. According to the moneypot user page stats: name bets wagered profit
----------- ---- ------- ---------
katerniko1 547 79,200 1,732.50
dooglus 92 7,410 601.70
Hexcoin 45 1,195 469.30
DarkMatters 271 2,936 375.44
jikin 22 319 10.28
panjul07 62 7,472 -502.40
Cybernick 212 65,646 -2,416.10
yahoo 493 89,433 -6,191.50
... but that includes profits and losses from before the hand-raking bug was fixed I guess. |
|
|
|
the outcome is and must be random in our opinion because it is provably fair. please correct me if I am wrong.
for example if you bet on seat #4 and #5 and the seats tie that means your both bets are a tie and we didn't find a way to solve this kind of outcome. actually the other 8 seats lost but the 2 bets are a tie.
Well, you could have it so that when there's an N way tie, each of the winning seats gets 9.9/N times the amount they bet. It looks like moneypot doesn't offer card shuffles as one of its modes, so you have no choice but to fake it using the 'custom bet' endpoint as things stand. |
|
|
|
I just saw this and wondered what's going on. Is it a rounding error? Bet #143075335
General Info
User: totolino
App: Texas Hold'em All-In
Bet Kind: custom
Wager: 1 bits
Profit: -1 bits
Investor Profit: 0.994999999308493 bits
App Dev Profit: 0.005000000691507011 bits
House Edge: 1.00%
Total Expected Value: -0.02 bits
If the house edge is 1% and the wager is 1 bit then why is the expected value -0.02 bits and not -0.01 bits? |
|
|
|
Hope I will not bring bad luck with me as Dooglus did (j/k as well) It's not the first time. It often seems to be that when I invest in a bankroll the site starts losing. I refuse to believe I'm causing it to happen, but it is a little disturbing. |
|
|
|
The deviation from the expected profit is crazy. I could understand it if the site has only a few thousands of bets, but it has over 2.8 millions bets already. How unlikely is it for a site to have an expected profit of 0.98% and to have an actual profit of -1.91% over so many bets?
It's impossible to answer that question if you don't tell me the distribution of the bet sizes. If all the bets were the same size, it's very unlikely. If 1% of the bets were significantly bigger than the other 99% then it's much more likely, because only 1% of the bets would be significant to the total site profit. When Just-Dice was running for BTC we had billions of bets and ended up with an actual profit of around 0.35% when the expected profit was 1%. That's because a small percentage of the bets were huge, and they did better than expected. The billions of tiny bets have little to no impact on the bottom line. |
|
|
|
i think that contest needs to be resumed (with restart of balance to 5k bits) as bug is fixed it should be resumed asap atleast thats what everyone else is doing, lets say in some texas online poker tournoment when something is bugged they pause it and resume the game (which i personaly saw playing on pokerstars tourney) regards. -Katerniko1 Yes, it's a 48 hour game, and only 6 hours were lost due to the bug. You should reopen it now and let us have the remaining 42 hours to compete. it is not a multiplayer table (PvP) as players are used to. at the 10 seat table the user is playing alone at the table and betting on one or more seats and always all-in. there is no event of a split. we adjusted the game for now to the money API and for each bet there is always a winner and no tie.
I understand that it's not a true multiplayer game, but you're dealing hole cards to 10 players, then dealing 5 board cards. Assuming the deck isn't rigged then it's possible for multiple people to have the best hand. What if the 5 board cards are T,J,Q,K,A, rainbow? Everyone ties. Are you saying the board never appears like that because the shuffle isn't random? Or what are you saying? Why won't a tie ever happen? Edit: I just checked a random hand and it looks like the game kind of works backwards. You use moneypot to pick a winning seat number at random from 1 to 10, and then arrange the deck to make the selected player win. That explains why there's never a tie - because we're not playing poker, we're playing something like dice or roulette, with the hands made up after the fact to make it look like poker. |
|
|
|
Yes we're aware that the provably fair method can be improved and have already passed a similar suggestion to the games provider. They are looking into improving it in the future.
If they're going to change it, maybe you can suggest that they use a method similar to any of the big dice sites, whether there are long-lasting pairs of seeds, and a per-user nonce. That way the user doesn't have the overhead of having to make a note of the seed hash every hand they play. Each hand is derived from a hash of (server_seed, client_seed, nonce) where nonce is incremented each time the player plays a hand. Then the user can play 100 hands, ask for a change of seeds, at which point the old seed is revealed and he can verify all 100 hands at once without having to input 100 pieces of data. cf. Prime Dice, BitDice, PRCdice, Just-Dice, SafeDice, etc. - they all use the same scheme. |
|
|
|
DirectBet is pleased to present...DirectBet Casino & Playing Wallet !Casino.DirectBet.euYou can now play your favorite Casino games at DirectBet, with Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Dash and Clam.
Blackjack, Texas Hold'em, Jacks or Better, Slots, Roulette, HI - LO Switch, Heads & Tails, Baccarat, Virtual Horse Racing and more !More than just a CasinoDirectBet is not just a Casino. It's a playing wallet.
You can use it as a regular multi currency wallet for your everyday use in addition to playing your favorite Casino games.
You can also use it to fund your Sport bets in our award winning Sportsbook. This will ensure that all your bet transfers arrive and confirm instantly so you won't miss any action.Free WithdrawalsMove funds in and out of your playing wallet free of charge. We cover the miner fees !DirectBet CoinsEarn DirectBet Coins every time you play through our most lucrative VIP Rewards Program. These coins have real cash value and can be exchanged to Bitcoin instantly.Sign up now to our new Casino & Playing Wallet and get 30,000 DOGE FREE !Play on the house. No deposit required.For more details : Casino.DirectBet.euGood Luck ! I just tried a 100 CLAM deposit. I bet 25 CLAMs on blackjack, hit a blackjack, won 37.5 CLAMs, and then made a 137.5 CLAM withdrawal. It all worked pretty smoothly. I couldn't figure out how to withdraw at first - you have to click your username in the top right corner and then "my account". I was expecting to be able to withdraw from the "playing wallet" page - but it seems that that page doesn't do anything at all - it's all just inactive text. My only other minor complaint would be that the provable fairness is a little weak. I only get to cut the cards, I don't get to influence the shuffle at all. I'm sure it's possible to stack the deck in such a way that more than 50% of the cut points are losing deals for the player, and so it really would be better if you allowed the player's seed to have an effect on the shuffle as well as the cut point. Other than those two niggles it looks like a good site. |
|
|
|
|
What does your game do in the event of a split pot?
If the board is a royal flush, say, it's a ten-way split pot. It's also possible to have a 4 or less way split (with a board 9TJQK, and 2-4 players each have an ace, say). I don't think it's possible to have a pot that splits between 5 and 9 ways.
I guess the correct thing to do is to pay out 1/N times as much as if the pot is won uncontested, where N is the number of people splitting the pot.
|
|
|
|
coders are working already to fix the hand ranking. they said it is connected to the straight with ace as lowest card in the straight. anyway we told them to set it up from scratch to be on the sure side.
This might help: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20715903/1253362thanks again. I forwarded it to coders. but as I saw it it was for 5 cards and not 7 cards but I am not a coder:( It's easy enough to make it work for any number of cards using a recursive step: def evaluate(hand):
ranks = '23456789TJQKA'
if len(hand) > 5: return max([evaluate(hand[:i] + hand[i+1:]) for i in range(len(hand))])
rcounts = {ranks.find(r): ''.join(hand).count(r) for r, _ in hand}.items()
[...]
Edit: I posted full source code for a hold'em hand evaluator. |
|
|
|
coders are working already to fix the hand ranking. they said it is connected to the straight with ace as lowest card in the straight. anyway we told them to set it up from scratch to be on the sure side.
This might help: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20715903/1253362 |
|
|
|
Thanks Man... Yup we are Professional. Your dice had 2 and 5 on adjacent faces. I already mentioned on this thread how opposite sides sum to 7. Is this is the reason? Why My logo are Not accepted? Edit: By the way I didnt See your post :p I don't know if that's the reason or not. I'm pointing out that it's not very professional not to research the topic you are attempting to represent in a design. If I was a designer asked to incorporate a dog into a logo and my final design showed a dog with 5 legs, you would be justified in thinking I wasn't very professional, right? Then, when someone pointed out for the 2nd time that dogs actually have 4 legs and I replied "Is this is the reason? I didnt See your post :p", would that confirm your impression of me? Anyway, it's not a big deal. I'm just butthurt that none of my "professional" designs made the top three. |
|
|
|
Thanks Man... Yup we are Professional. Your dice had 2 and 5 on adjacent faces. I already mentioned on this thread how opposite sides sum to 7. |
|
|
|
yes saw the PM now. coders are working now to fix it. but we don't understand after testing it with many bets and the bug only showed up now during start of contest What's the bug? Can I help you fix it? we will send you and the other users who did not show up yet and also cant login now the 5k guarantee back.
I showed up but couldn't get in. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
