I guess the summary is there are two types of bustabit players: a) Those who play casually and against the house (and generally are bonus oblivious) b) Those who play competitively for bonuses libertynow with his bonus bot obviously belong to group b) and greatly benefits from playing against people in group a) (to their detriment). I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it. One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. ) -- Anyway, nothing is going to be happening soon. So no need to panic. Just playing around with stuff to do my best to make everyone happy  How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake? |
|
|
|
Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead. There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play. Let's stop right there! If bonus hunters don't play, then is it not profitable again? 
This may be akin to stating, "it's a terrible move to bluff on the river: you shouldn't shove with nothing," yet if we keep that ideology, then it suddenly becomes a +ev move. If it's always terrible to bluff on the river and nobody does it, then would it not be profitable to do so? Your opponents would never think that you were bluffing!
But in correspondence with bustabit, this will simply result in a sort of oscillation in the number of players. Sounds like you don't understand how bustabit works.... |
|
|
|
Yeah, the plan is always been to create two different versions of the game. One for people who like the pvp competitive part, and one for people who don't. But I have no problem changing depending on what people prefer and how they play =)
For the record, I hate the idea of splitting the player base since the great aspect of the game is that the people who grind the bonus% can gain an edge from the people who don't care about the bonus%. By splitting it up, it seems like the only people playing the bonus game will be the ones who are actually competitive for the bonus which will essentially kill the game. But I mean, I get it. By eliminating the bonus aspect, you'll attract a clientele who aims for higher bust numbers, which have higher house edges. Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead. There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play. This new version effectively kills the entire game. The good news is that other websites are putting up the same bustabit version and keeping the bonus so there are potentially other places to play. It's hard to beat Ryan's trustworthiness though. That takes time... |
|
|
|
What is new on the next version of bustabit except for busting up my money? It's been a year since the last time I play this game which resulted to lose half of my asset that time. Are there any cool features just like a rebate for the loss that you had and bonuses? I might be interested in this game again. I will keep an eye for this update, I hope that you will bring something cool on the site. Goodluck With all due respect to everything Ryan has accomplished with Bustabit, the new site completely SUCKS. Removing the bonus competition of the game just turns it into a money raking casino slot machine. Maybe we can BustaBit fork. :-) |
|
|
|
This is really disappointing. The bonuses is what makes the game actually possible to beat long term. Seems like a money grab decision. It's really too bad because it's currently a unique game, now it'll just be another casino website. whoopee, as if that's really needed....
Not really, the change isn't expected to make me any less or more money. The issue is this, I love the idea of pvp gambling and think it's really cool and indeed something that makes bustabit unique. However for players who play purely against the house, the pvp aspect does them a disservice (they unknowingly get taken advantage of by players who are playing pvp). Based on my unscientific polling and analysis, leads me to believe that playing bonus oblivious is by far the most common way to play bustabit. So for that reason, I think the most reasonable and fair thing to do, is split it into two games. One specifically for people who want to play against each other. And one for people who want to play against the house How would the pvp game work? What would be the incentive for anyone to play at all?
I'm currently working with the idea that in the pvp version, the multiplier starts at 0.9x and increases from there. The bonuses would work just like they do currently on bustabit, except that they would be an average of 10% instead of 1% 1) How long will the current site be available for/when will the new site be released? 2) I still don't understand how the pvp will work? Don't you need "oblivious" players to keep playing or it's just negative ev if one guy is playing all by himself...? |
|
|
|
My current plans are to remove bonuses completely from the main game (and put that in a separate, much more pvp game with ~10% bonuses). I really hate to remove the bonuses and variable-house edge, but with the vast majority of bustabit players playing "bonus oblivious" I can't help but feel I'm doing them a disservice.
This is really disappointing. The bonuses is what makes the game actually possible to beat long term. Seems like a money grab decision. It's really too bad because it's currently a unique game, now it'll just be another casino website. whoopee, as if that's really needed.... How would the pvp game work? What would be the incentive for anyone to play at all? |
|
|
|
libertynow, is RoberBaron your account? same bets and cashouts.
Yes, it's an account I've used for testing for a long, long time. Probably ran more than 100 different scripts on that account. :-) Why did RoberBaron fall from +4btc to -2btc? Have u any expierence with percentage bet (percentage of bank)? What algorithm do u use to cashout instanly? I was betting to high a % of my bankroll. About 1%, which was not low enough to account for variance. Sorry, I will not be sharing any details on the actual algorithm itself with the possible exception of a little more detail to large investors. |
|
|
|
You can't beat the EV that is why it is an EV. Just gamblers fallacy to believe a bot can magically do what a human cannot.
1) The bot isn't "beating EV", it's constantly making positive EV decisions which assuming bankroll is large enough and given enough time, turns into actual profit. Like what Ryan is doing with the actual site itself or what any other casino does.... 2) Actually, gamblers fallacy is "the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future" and vice versa. 3) There's nothing magical about the EDGE bot. I'm a professional coder and have put a lot of time into fine tuning the algorithm to adjust for max EV situations...and I'm not saying it can't be beat sometime in future by someone else or another bot, but right now, it's playing positive EV. This is all assuming that enough games can be +EV right? Given where the whales cash out, not every game is +EV? Yes, it's an average. Right, but theoretically you could have a scenario where it's impossible to play +EV, no? Does your bot account for that? Sorry, this is about as far as I'm willing to go on explaining the bot. This is a competitive game after all. ;-) |
|
|
|
You can't beat the EV that is why it is an EV. Just gamblers fallacy to believe a bot can magically do what a human cannot.
1) The bot isn't "beating EV", it's constantly making positive EV decisions which assuming bankroll is large enough and given enough time, turns into actual profit. Like what Ryan is doing with the actual site itself or what any other casino does.... 2) Actually, gamblers fallacy is "the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future" and vice versa. 3) There's nothing magical about the EDGE bot. I'm a professional coder and have put a lot of time into fine tuning the algorithm to adjust for max EV situations...and I'm not saying it can't be beat sometime in future by someone else or another bot, but right now, it's playing positive EV. This is all assuming that enough games can be +EV right? Given where the whales cash out, not every game is +EV? Yes, it's an average. |
|
|
|
You can't beat the EV that is why it is an EV. Just gamblers fallacy to believe a bot can magically do what a human cannot.
1) The bot isn't "beating EV", it's constantly making positive EV decisions which assuming bankroll is large enough and given enough time, turns into actual profit. Like what Ryan is doing with the actual site itself or what any other casino does.... 2) Actually, gamblers fallacy is "the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future" and vice versa. 3) There's nothing magical about the EDGE bot. I'm a professional coder and have put a lot of time into fine tuning the algorithm to adjust for max EV situations...and I'm not saying it can't be beat sometime in future by someone else or another bot, but right now, it's playing positive EV. |
|
|
|
libertynow, is RoberBaron your account? same bets and cashouts.
Yes, it's an account I've used for testing for a long, long time. Probably ran more than 100 different scripts on that account. :-) |
|
|
|
Still trusting in the EV?
His bot seems to be doing reasonably well. It's wagered wagered 501.34 BTC, but got 8.1453 BTC in bonuses. His average cash out is around 1.28x, so that puts him pretty firmly in +EV territory. Thanks for that confirmation, Ryan. I was starting to wonder if my EV calculation was wrong. You calculate it in real-time? The bet amount has the EV stored in the last 3 digits. For example, right now the bet amount is 17,117. The "1" in the hundreds spot means the EV is positive. The last two digits, "17" means that it's currently running a minimum EV of .17%/bet. According to the stats Ryan provided, EV is actually much higher around .40%. 8.1453 / 501.34 = 1.6247% - 1% (0x bust every 101 games) - .218% (house edge at 128) = .407%/betEvery once in a while, I start and stop the bot. So that EV stored in the bet amount is for that session. Previous stats are stored at the NXT forum here: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=13275.msg229488#msg229488Thanks for the question. LibertyNow |
|
|
|
Still trusting in the EV?
His bot seems to be doing reasonably well. It's wagered wagered 501.34 BTC, but got 8.1453 BTC in bonuses. His average cash out is around 1.28x, so that puts him pretty firmly in +EV territory. Thanks for that confirmation, Ryan. I was starting to wonder if my EV calculation was wrong. |
|
|
|
Actually, I'm very pleased. You can see the bet amount right now is 6,132. That means EV is positive and a whopping .32%/bet. The variance swings wildly, but if EV is positive the peaks and troughs will move up. Yesterday, it was over 300k. Just watch and you'll see. I also take BTC investments directly. Just msg me with your NXT account and how much your sending. I'll reply with the BTC address to send to and what your NXT/BTC price lock is. Thanks, LibertyNow |
|
|
|
LQD June 2016 Profit Summary (Asset #17750387231635486778) Stats URL: http://liquidtech.info/summaryAssets: 327,859 Total Profit: 50.88 BTC ROI: 53.38% Capital Before Dividend: 146.18 BTC Dividend Amount: 17.81 BTC Divs Paid: 542,096 NXT Div/Asset: 1.65 NXT (TX: 12419481672093925125) Capital After Dividend: 128.37 BTC As you can see here, I did decide to start valuing the fund in BTC this month. If you've been to the summary page anytime in the last week, you probably already noticed that. On that note, the fund made whopping 53.38% ROI on the previous month's after dividend capital. Profits were a mix of buying a million NXT at 1100 satoshis and some strong trade profits. It is exciting to see the bots continue to trade well and volume on Poloniex continued to stay high. I'm quite optimistic about the fund. Please add @tech_liquid to your Twitter account for more frequent updates. Thanks for your continued investment. LibertyNow |
|
|
|
|
Exciting to see NXT taking off again. So much good tech and the way their moving NXT to Ardor is ingeniously seemless.
|
|
|
|
May 2016 Profit Summary (LQD, Asset #17750387231635486778) Stats URL: http://liquidtech.info/summaryAssets: 325,359 Capital: 8,432,796 ROI: 66.57% Total Profit: 3,370,122 Divs Paid: 1,011,037 Div/Asset: 3.107 (TX: 13317707396644648277) Well, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Profit over 3M NXT or 24BTC! Massive volume in May mainly from ETH and MAID and then at the end LSK and DOA really brought some great returns this month. One week, we made over 1 million in trade profits alone. Still a large part of the total profit came from the drop in the price of NXT, so not great there, but it does increase the fund's NXT value because we mainly hold BTC for trading. The algorithm is working well, although I'm still tweaking here and there as edge cases arise. Remember, check your NXT LEDGER for the dividend. If your shares are on Poloniex ( https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_lqd), Tristan has already been alerted and should be paying out soon. Thanks for your investment. Feel free to contact me on NXT slack or here on the forum if you have any questions. LibertyNow |
|
|
|
|
A lot of good things going on with NXT right now besides the fact that it's still head and shoulders the best decentralized Asset Exchange out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
