hi, i want to know this..
( 5 seconds +2 x3.53 ) i bought it down, and won but its pay x1.16? its not x3.53?
5SECONDS+2 UP 353% , DOWN 137% You got your numbers wrong too, shouldn't be 1.16 unless it is not +2. You may give your txid or betid, etc. so that they can check properly. |
|
|
|
A discussion on the great concepts behind cryptocurrencies..  Every cryptocurrency is fueled by a concept. A concept that could solve one or more problems we face. We have cryptos that give priority to Privacy and Anonymity. Coins like CLAM - a PoS coin with fair distribution, the future ETH, the popular meme backed DOGE, NBT that always equates to $1 and so on. Coins like Monero, MaidSafeCoin, Peercoin, Gridcoin, Earthcoin... |
|
|
|
Skill based games aren't always profitable. Suppose you are pretty experienced and lucky, it is. But if you aren't, the edge (in say sports betting) is much greater than other types of pure luck games (coz sportsbooks take more than that into account while calculating odds). The most profitable type of gambling is buying bitcoins.  |
|
|
|
now my question is how much will the app owner get if there is a zero risk bet and the Investor has actually zero risk?
The rewards from a zero risk bet are split 50% to app, 45% to investor, 5% to moneypot. But the amount being split is itself zero so it really doesn't matter. You are arguing over how to divide a zero amount of money. Do you want more than 50% of nothing? Are you prepared to fight for it? but now the app has a bet from the whale that will be zero risk for the Investor and the app owner will need to split the HE with the Investor? that is more than unfair IMO
What kind of bet do you think causes no risk to the investors? If the investors can't lose then the player can't lose either, and there's nothing to divide up. Compare the green line in the two charts showing the app earnings. There is no point at which it is lower now than it was before. App owners did well from the change, so you probably don't need to keep complaining about it. Investors have gained too except for high risk bets where they've lost a bit (up to 10%) to moneypot, and moneypot has lost almost everywhere to both apps and investors, gaining only on the top 20% of riskiest bets, and then only gaining from investors, as did app owners. I got the "zero risk" bet wrong too.. It means player betting on all possible outcomes (not possible in dice, which is why we don't see it right at first) and ends up losing the house edge. Like betting on all 6 racers in his app. Or say 0 and above in dice giving a 99% return on the sure win (no such option tho). He seems to be ignoring all the other points. Claim is investors shouldn't be getting 50% off zero risk bets. Why not? I don't see any reasons why app owners should be getting more than 50% of HE to be honest. They are obviously in a very good situation than investors, IMO. (No risk of losing funds and guaranteed 50% HE if max bet is limited to 0.5% of BE.) |
|
|
|
thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.
and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.
and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%
and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk
I agree (to some particular parts of the argument). You should have mentioned that this suggestion is particularly relevant to your app. But still, your suggestion that the app owner gets 50% is already there (unless you plan to suggest everything goes to the app owner). And still your position is the same or better than before which doesn't really explain your stand. Usually a continuity is expected. If zero risk bets gives nothing to investors, and an extremely small risk tending towards zero gives 50% of edge to investors, it would be a little awkward. Correcting that would put things like the previous set up with less or no predictability of earnings. lol, once again I don't see why you are complaining. What investor gets should go to Moneypot? it is not only related to our game. there are many games out there with possible zero risk bets (not yet on MP). lets take roulette (Ryan' example). a zero risk bet in roulette would also be (much easier to place) same roll to bet same amount on red and black pair and impair passe and manque and if one wants to make it even more secure he will bet the zero with a small amount actually paying the HE for each bet and lets imagine the new owner of the roulette app will do a most wagered contest. now ndnhc will watch the contest and jump in with some zero risk bets to win the contest and maybe some other smart players will do the same too (maybe even whales) and you can trust me that I know why I am complaining and as I mentioned it before for me it is a big difference between MP and Investors and yes each one should get their share but a fair share and again IMO the Investors should not get 50% of a zero risk bet cheers But, mate, the solution for that would mean reverting back to the previous one in which: 1. You would get a less share than before. 2. Earning would be less predictable. All because you don't want investors to get 50% of a risk-free bet? IMO, the current one is much more fair than the previous one. There is no rule that investors should get nothing for a zero risk bet. Suppose your site is funded by X who is an investor, he would get his share whichever bet the player makes - zero risk or not. Most sites do not differentiate - Investors have the same, exactly the same EV whether the bet is small or big, zero risk or not. |
|
|
|
lol, confidential means secret. What I mean is very important. You take time replying to my post but not on my concerned : ( : ( : ( Anyways back on your discussion. I will back again later. Hey, that was because Ryan (Moneypot admin) is more eligible to answer the particular question that I (some guy who likes to argue and learn stuff) am. |
|
|
|
^^ LOL, good one.  If you want to profit only, buy some bitcoins, and store em in a cold wallet without touching them.
No fun in that. (You sure that won't end up in losing the investment?) If your intention is to make profit, there is no sense in gambling (unless you have really good self-control and would stop once you make a good profit or stupid). Better off running your own dice site. |
|
|
|
thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.
and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.
and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%
and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk
I agree (to some particular parts of the argument). You should have mentioned that this suggestion is particularly relevant to your app. But still, your suggestion that the app owner gets 50% is already there (unless you plan to suggest everything goes to the app owner). And still your position is the same or better than before which doesn't really explain your stand. Usually a continuity is expected. If zero risk bets gives nothing to investors, and an extremely small risk tending towards zero gives 50% of edge to investors, it would be a little awkward. Correcting that would put things like the previous set up with less or no predictability of earnings. lol, once again I don't see why you are complaining. What investor gets should go to Moneypot? |
|
|
|
after 300 bets you quit? You must be new.
Why not? Gambling is a negative EV game. It is always better to quit, to be honest. |
|
|
|
it looks like that you and ndnhc don't understand what a zero bet is but complaining that JP guy is complaining.............
Even if I don't understand, it makes absolutely no sense for you to complain. While you might consider me an idiot (read math genius), I am not.  (though I admit both NLNico and Ryan knows these things better than me.) I don't want to interfere with your current discussion since it is so much confidential. lol, confidential means secret. |
|
|
|
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.
Zero risk to the investor means a player betting 1 satoshi for which the risk tends towards 0. At least that is what I thought.  Yeah, I would expect devs to be very appreciative of this set up. (apps who limit the max bet below 0.5% of BR still gets very good advantage) Especially since Moneypot themselves reduced their share to make it a very fair deal for everyone. Overall, the distribution is very fair imo. |
|
|
|
I remember a while ago when dooglus' idea of offline investments was taken into consideration. I guess you put that aside for moneypot's development (which by the way is amazing). Never got to know what happened tho.
Offline investments (which I think is a fantastic idea) ended up getting implemented in just-dice with clams. MoneyPot went for a bit of a different scheme, and for the moment bustabit is just privately bankrolled, which helps keep things simple. Isn't offline investment technically the same as offering kelly risk level investment? Like say I invest 1 CLAM at JD with 100x offsite which is the same is investing 1 CLAM at 50x kelly risk? |
|
|
|
Is it possible to exclude apps as an investor?
Nope. (It is only possible to fund moneypot as a whole at the moment, and at least in the near future AFAIK. as you might already know.) IMO, the issue is it would place some apps at a disadvantage, esp. emerging ones with lower house edge. Honestly, I would like a feature like that too, if I am investing. |
|
|
|
I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors
In your opinion, you prefer the previous one?  Okay. I give up. |
|
|
|
@JackpotRacer You understand that the new set up is actually more profitable to you and other devs, than the previous one? The following won't be applicable once you make the max bet equal or below the 50% of HE (check the dooglus' chart) sorry but why should get the Investor for a zero risk bet 50% of HE? that is very unfair IMO because he gets 100% for a full risk bet and the app owner gets nothing
the app owner is doing all he can (including costly promos) to bring players to the table and a whale comes and wants to bet maximum and app owner gets nothing for the max bet because the risk is with the investor = ok accepted So as long as max bet is below 0.5% of the bankroll: 1. You get a flat 50% off HE. More earnings than previous guaranteed. 2. Predictable profit (constant profit to wager ration - better decisions) (check the chart. The first chart starts from 50% and goes down. The second one (current) goes straight at 50) (Green)  |
|
|
|
All teh IPz I have on tspacepilot, very outdated but why not let it show up in Google?
Where are they from? coinchat, I guess. TF gave (or sold, maybe) the site to the current admin around that time, AFAIK. Is that actually fine? People trust admins with... I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.
It's it fair to dox someone who did not any scam? afik he just escrowed for himself! I do agree with that. I do not approve QS' actions, but doxxing him seems a step to far IMO. I agree with that. |
|
|
|
Exploitable concept. Transaction ids can be known before broadcasting to the network. So, if OP is legit, and someone want to win, they sure will.
|
|
|
|
Congratulations LaudaM |
|
|
|
Now his account actually was compromised because he posted that link. I locked it for now. THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THIS. Didn't realize the account was taken over at the time. It doesn't actually mean that you were talking to the hacker. The account might be compromised once he posted the screenshot, meaning he posted the thread and very possibly the hacker may not have posted anything with the account, but he certainly was able to change the password. He got "user does not exist" same as I did may be because someone already did it before him. |
|
|
|
I am willing to check it out  Sure, if you're from USA I'll give you a free copy that you will review honestly for me. PM me Just PM him, he's probably too busy to PM you I'm waiting to hear on the legitimacy of this method OP is very possibly a hacked account. And this was probably an attempt to scam. Please refer to this thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179091.msg12408974#msg12408974BadBear locked the account. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
