I am currently almost 1 coin in profit overall. I def have been really lucky, I was ready to lose some coins but didn't need it (yet.) Just imagine it took hui 110k rolls once to hit 9900 :x I am not sure how much it took me exactly for those 0.01 ones but obv much less.

Damn, but hope you at least you got some profits




Someone beat my 0.05% (not posted tho), so new one :x https://i.imgur.com/eSwNUdg.png 5657558

Thanks, mostly because I am using a script to bet and don't want to mess anything up by chatting/etc on my main account.

#5516721

0.01% win

Thanks!

Actually below player is the #1 at 9900x atm though

#5410770

0.09% hit

And 0.01% hit yeahhh

#5074674

0.05% hit

#5035293

#5021894


0.09% win



Could have been 9900x, lol.

I wasn't really serious, although there would be one app that I would currently exclude.

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

Then Ryan decides to give his share to the app and mostly investors and this JP guy is still complaining? Really? Even now the commission is 2 till 6 times higher than other dice invest sites. But that's okay, I understand apps need a decent share too.

I would just expect a little bit more appreciation from app owners towards the people that bankroll their website.


I personally think the new scheme is fair for all.

Is it possible to exclude apps as an investor?

A DDOS attack doesn't have much to do with security or hacking IMO.

It basically means there are too many (fake) visitors. It's like when you have a store and the attacker gets thousands of people to stand before the entrance so no one else can enter. This doesn't affect the security of the store, but it is a bit unfortunately that you cannot enter. A lot of bitcoin (gambling) sites are attacked by this, mostly because the attackers demand money to stop. Of course no one should ever pay these extortionists. I do not know if this was actually the case at MagicalDice. You can google "DD4BC" if you want to see some more details about the biggest group doing this.

He means leaderboard for players over all sites :p I think.

Already 0.00054 BTC from faucets lol, don't really care, but just very addictive



Seems it does make my i7 CPUs go to 60%, so I can see how it is laggy for some (Firefox, didn't try other.) It doesn't use much bandwidth, around 5KB/s.

Is this site based on that NodeJS Agar clone, or built from scratch?




Bitcoin XT tryin' hard to destroy Core:

For the bigger picture, just imagine that the commission should have been divided by 50/50 between app and MP with the old rules. This should make you realize already that before you should have gotten less than 50% since investors obviously also get a share. Right? That's all you need to know, to understand why this is a better deal for app owners.






Now the "max profit" thing is something else.

Let's say app's HE to the players is 1.3% and BR is 450. This means max profit on a bet is: 450*1*0.013 = 5.85 BTC based on 1x kelly. Right?

Some examples how much percentage of the HE everyone gets with several bets:

Bet	App	Investors	MoneyPot
BTC5.25	0%	90%	10%
BTC4.4	25%	67.5%	7.5%
BTC3.1	47%	47.7%	5.3%
BTC2.925	50%	45%	5%
BTC1.5	50%	45%	5%
BTC0.1	50%	45%	5%

Basically, the higher the bet, the more money goes to investors because they can only risk their money based on 1x kelly. This also happened with the old rules, see this older post.

If you, as an app owner, want a 50% of HE guaranteed profit always, you can limit your max bet to 2.925 as shown in this example (if BR is 450 and player HE is 1.3%.) This is based on half kelly:

450*0.5*0.013 = 2.925

So basically, if you always want 50% of HE, you could do: 0.5*bankroll*player_HE = max profit of bet.







Ps, @Ryan, correct me if I have something wrong And I am not sure how the 10% of MP commission relates to the 1x kelly thing. Most dice-invest sites also don't really have 1x kelly as 1x kelly because of the commission, but idk.

Before with the official old rules app owners should get less than 50% (a bit below 40% to my estimation.)

However, because Ryan is a nice guy, he gave app owners extra commission sometimes, see for example this post. So even though app owners should have gotten 35-40%, the actually received commission was 61% based on the stats. This is only because some of the commission, that should go to MP, went to the app owners instead.


So: new rules are better for app owners compared to the old rules. But it seems worse based on stats, because MP gave extra commission to the app owners sometimes.


Is it more clear now?

Not really. Well based on the stats it is I guess.

However officially MP's share was much bigger. Officially the share between app owners and MP was 50/50. Therefor officially the app devs should get much less than 61%. So the app owners get a worse deal based on the stats, but a better deal based on the official MP "rules".

AFAIK, MP gave extra commission to app owners sometimes. And currently MP gives also a better deal to investors (commission-free.) This is why the stats are not really correct.



So basically in the end, I think these new rules are actually better for both the app owners and the investors. And mostly bad for MP.

Based on the stats: app devs go from 61% to 50%. MP from 14.5% to 5% (and with variance instead of guaranteed.) Investors from 24.5% to 45%. So yes, should be good for investors. This is all in theory and based on stats, I agree with RHavar that it depends on other factors as well.

Works pretty good, nice job



I think so too, I noticed I got 4 different amounts:

#1: 0.00005000
#2: 0.00003000
#3: 0.00001000
#4: ?
#5: 0.00000500

That is simply unfair. The motivation given by DaDice before my reply was "he used high multipliers" and "is against TOS". These are not acceptable arguments for banning and stealing from someone. I always give arguments when I say something and don't simply accuse sites or people without arguments.




Still 3935 times is unclear to me. Did he use multiple accounts?

IMO the faucet functionality is the problem. If he was able to get "too many times" (whatever that amount is?) faucet claims on 1 account, then the time limit should simply be bigger?! So if he was able to get it every minute, maybe put a limit of an hour? Etc. If he was never supposed to get "so many times faucet claims", then the system should be the one to control this. Seems fairly easy to me. If he tries to cheat it with multiple accounts, THEN I could agree he was wrong.



Also curious in what timeframe these 3935 times was. Like I said, I could see "automated faucet claiming" as a fair argument against "farming", and in that case I think timeframe is relevant.