Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'll paste here a critique that I find important in order to evolve that idea:
Brief Critique of a Brief Proposal
The Preposal
BitcoinTalk user Financisto proposed the following "improvement" for Peerbet:
Greetings!
I'm a big fan of Raffle games available out there, and the most innovative by far (IMHO) is PeerBet at the time I'm writting this.
They are the 1st known 0EV (Neutral Expected Value) and zero house edge for gamblers to play against each other.
I've got an idea that might give that inovation one step beyond it is today.
House tickets, additional rounds and progressive jackpots = +EV (Positive Expected Value) Peer-to-Peer Raffle Games.
I've been testing a new "generation" prototype of raffle games in order to achieve some interesting and innovative features:
a) Limited tickets: people get better winning odds and probabilities;
b) Progressive jackpots: "house tickets" win the game (some times) and roll over all the current jackpot to fill next round or game. The game becomes +EV for gamblers to play. So more gamblers will come for next round (bigger pots);
c) Raffle creators (gamblers) might set series ("championships"?) of raffles so when one game ends a % of that jackpot from last round rolls over to 1st round of next game;
d) An option to add manually some coins to 1st round jackpot would be interesting too (1st round starts +EV for all gamblers).
And more:
Always a Winner at the end of last round;
Transparent and Cheat Proof (Provably Fair);
Cryptographically Verifiable;
etc.
A Brief NoteFirst of all, let's consider what any monetary transaction can be modelled as.
For those familiar with business, this is exactly the basic rule of accounting.
This is simple enough. In fact, this is general enough that it can model any type of transaction in any currency over any medium.
Casino gamesCasino games results are a subclass of transactions. There are generally restrictions to casino games. Indeed, casino games generally only have two inputs: Players and House, in addition to two outputs: Players and House. (For the sake of simplicity any other outputs, such as Government Taxation, are included into House.)
Now let's define these terms.
+ve EV
A Casino Game has +ve EV iff (if and only if) the average Players output is strictly greater than the average Players input.
−ve EV
A Casino Game has −ve EV iff the average Players output is strictly less than the average Players input.
0 EV
A Casino Game has 0 EV iff the average Players output is equal to the average Players input.
A +ve EV game?
From the above, it's easy to conclude that in the absence of non-Player and non-House inputs, a +ve EV game must have higher average House input than average House output. For if not, then:
House-in + Players-in < House-in + Players-out ≤ House-out + Players-out
House-in + Players-in < House-out + Players-out
Which is clearly impossible. Thus, a +ve EV game must be a losing proposition for the House in the long run.
So what went wrong with the Proposal?
The Proposal failed to specify who is paying for the House's tickets. In the Proposal, these tickets represented a "thin-air" input. Since casinos cannot in general print money, "thin-air" inputs are impossible.
It is assumed that those tickets will be awarded by the House to the House. In the Proposal, calculations were made based on a pot that is a direct consequence of the number of tickets. But if the number of tickets includes tickets that were not paid for, either the pot will shrink or the House will end up needing to pay for the tickets. Such is life.
Source:
http://bit.ly/1dzFcZgI wish to thank forum member
dree12, also a Peerbet member, for the critique above as it turns this topic richer in content.
Thank you so much and greetings for all members at Peerbet as well.
P.s. I'm gonna make some notes on a separate reply so we can discuss some details a little further...
Show Posts
