It's possible he's using dicebot and the bot failed to connect for some reason and tried to unsuccessfully reconnect a few times, or he might have written his own bot or used another bot that runs on jdcapi (like tigers bot) that handles disconnects/reconnects incorrectly or tries to log into a whole bunch of accounts too quickly.
I just had another player complaining that the bot had lost all his balance, and that the same numbers were being rolled several times. Turns out the bot is showing the same bet multiple times:  Not sure what's going wrong, but it also seems to be skipping some bet sizes, and resetting on loss sometimes. Maybe it's user error, but it's odd how the same bet shows up multiple times. |
|
|
|
Or they can just check against your JD ID. If it's not your ID, it's not you.
(971307) <cloverme>, right? |
|
|
|
Wait what?
are those successful logins? Or is it loading the page using my hash and then getting redirected to the login page?
The latter I think. Does your bot try to log in using your hash? Because that won't work since you set a username and password on your account. |
|
|
|
This one is new for me:
Your IP address has been blocked for an hour. Sorry for the inconvenience.
What for is it blocked? I refreshed the page and this message showed up, my UID is: 1035511
The first time I've seen it. I'm not using vpn or anything and haven't been in chat since 8 hours or so.
IP addresses are only blocked if they are hitting the site much too often. It's a primitive DOS protection. In your case it looks like user 91380 (Seuntjie) is logging in over and over from your IP address. Are you using his bot perhaps? If so I think it's the bot that is getting your IP address banned. Edit: specifically, your IP address tried logging in 25 times in a single minute, at these timestamps (UTC): 2016-11-16 18:24:08 2016-11-16 18:24:08 2016-11-16 18:24:09 2016-11-16 18:24:09 2016-11-16 18:24:09 2016-11-16 18:24:09 2016-11-16 18:24:14 2016-11-16 18:24:14 2016-11-16 18:24:36 2016-11-16 18:24:36 2016-11-16 18:24:36 2016-11-16 18:24:36 2016-11-16 18:24:36 2016-11-16 18:24:42 2016-11-16 18:24:42 2016-11-16 18:24:42 2016-11-16 18:24:42 2016-11-16 18:24:42 2016-11-16 18:24:47 2016-11-16 18:24:47 2016-11-16 18:24:47 2016-11-16 18:24:47 2016-11-16 18:24:52 2016-11-16 18:24:52 2016-11-16 18:24:52 Some seconds there you were doing 5 logins per second. That's what got your IP address banned... |
|
|
|
We've gone ahead and credited the players that were affected out of pocket.
There were four 50,000 bits wagers that had won the main bet but carried along a sidejackpot that exceeded the 20BTC cap. They were all fully refunded and allowed to keep the winnings (they all resulted in winning bets).
There were a few dust lottery that barely exceeded the 20 BTC cap. These players were credited with an amount that covered well above the summation of their bets.
That's a good way of resolving things. Well done. We've been doing at least 2,500,000 a day for a while.
BK does about 75k, BD does about 100k, (edit) CG about 1.8M, SatD about 300k, and SD 500,000.
I've put my signature now to 'As many bets as all other crowdfunded casinos combined' which I believe is a fair statement that can be backed by the data available
Just-Dice.com is a crowdfunded casino. It had 20 million bets in the last 7 days. That's about 2.85 million bets per day. In the 710 days that the site has been up it has had 2.024 billion bets. That's also 2.85 million bets per day. Now Just-Dice uses CLAMs, not BTC. But can it really be true that Just-Dice has more bets than any other crowdfunded casino? That seems unlikely to me, given the relative lack of interest in CLAM. Either way, your "As many bets as all other crowdfunded casinos combined" is clearly wrong. You don't even have as many bets as Just-Dice, let alone more than all the others combined. |
|
|
|
Why would they refund anyone that didn't win?
1. because that's the right thing to do. 2. because they already stated that they will: We also realize that this was unfair to any player (there were only a very short few) that had an accepted bet that showed a higher payout than 20 bitcoin. We will be reviewing all those that were affected and contact them to credit their accounts for more than their potentially lost equity.
They wouldn't have paid out winnings over 20 BTC and so will be refunding stakes accordingly. If they won, they would have been entitled to it since the bet was accepted. And, they said they would have paid out.
Can you quote them saying that? |
|
|
|
The 20btc cap was in place but setup incorrectly. This is on us, but investors were not affected.
Ouch. For simplicity and ease of coding, we are heavily discussing the possibility of abandoning kelly criterion completely and implementing a straight forward 1% of bankroll max win with a mandatory minimum house edge of 0.75%.
Note that this will lead to very small max bets for the "2x plus jackpot" type bets. If someone is aiming for 2x and (million)x in a siingle roll you'll have to use the (million)x to limit the bet size. If your bankroll is 1000 BTC then the max win will be 10 BTC (1% of the bankroll), and so the max bet will be just 10 bits. Seems to me that pretty much kills off the lottery/jackpot style games. if player wins after taking such big risk and he get only 20 BTC means then it is considered as cheating to players.
Luckily it seems this didn't happen. Nobody won more than 20 BTC since the buggy limit was put in place. Some players will have been aiming to win more than 20 BTC though, and it's not clear how to refund them. If I had bet 1 BTC aiming to win 100 BTC and missed, what refund am I due? If I had hit, I would only have won 20 BTC, or 20% of my intended jackpot. So perhaps the bet should only have cost me 20% of what I paid, and so I should get a 0.80 BTC refund. That seems clear enough. But what about for the custom bets. If I bet 1 BTC aiming to win either 10 BTC *or* 100 BTC and hit just the 10 BTC part, do I still get the 0.80 BTC refund? That part of the bet could only even have won 20% of the intended amount, but the other part won the full amount. It's kind of confusing to think about. I hope the MoneyPot guys work out a way of refunding people that's fair to both players and investors. |
|
|
|
We'll assume the game is being played heads up @ 10k bets for ease of calculation/showing work. Thanks for that. Your math looks right to me. I was thinking that if I was playing against 99 players all betting 10k each and cashing at 2.00x then cashing at 2.01x would be optimal for me, but even then it's not. Your 1x cash is still the best. At least my 2.01x cash becomes profitable if enough players are playing though. |
|
|
|
This question has come up before when there was a large win on plinkopot. See this post, and the following posts in the same thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1345170.msg13720264#msg13720264It turns out that the Kelly Criterion tells us to risk up to 81% of our bankroll on that 50k bit bet. Apparently it's worth a tiny chance of losing 81% of the bankroll in order to pick up all the 50k's when the bet loses. I came up with that 81% by plotting: ( 0.0 - 1024.0) * log(1 + x * (50000 - 51390.62 - 513906250)/(51390.62 + 513906250 - 50000)) + \
( 1024.0 - 4123168604.0) * log(1 + x * (50000 - 51390.62 )/(51390.62 + 513906250 - 50000)) + \
(4123168604.0 - 4294967296.0) * log(1 + x * (50000 )/(51390.62 + 513906250 - 50000))
and visually finding the lowest point - very similar to in the linked post. Well, not if you consider: 20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.
If you could win more than 20BTC, it goes above the amount in the above statement. It does. But that 20 BTC maximum win per bet seems like a silly rule to have made. Maybe the rule changed back again since? (Even a real casino will not bet The Casino on a single bet (no matter how low the risk).)
Right, you should never risk 100% of your bankroll on a single bet. But apparently it is sometimes optimal to risk a large percentage of it. |
|
|
|
They can't risk using that 100 BTC to pay out winners, because they need to keep it in reserve to pay me back at the end of the year.
Well, I think that constraint needs to be relaxed for fixed-interest investing to make sense. Let's say I borrowed 1000 BTC from you at 3% interest over a year. I throw that 1000 BTC in my bankroll, knowing that I can attract more action on my site. Even if a whale wins a lot of that money in the short term, he (or someone else) will probably maybe lose it back to the site. If everything goes well after a year, I give you back 1030 BTC and profited from the increased action on my site. If things go badly, I need to refinance the loan or declare bankruptcy.  I would be better off investing the money in the bankroll myself (assuming an expected >3% return) if you're going to pass on any losses to me. It doesn't sound particularly appealing for investors (and even stressing on MP's behalf, as it would effectively imply fractional reserving and needing to worry about bank runs and blah blah), but in the real world there are billions of dollars of loans/investments built on pretty similar principles
We already have too many sites that we suspect are risking more than they can sensibly afford to risk, and others with possible solvency issues. I think MoneyPot aims to size their max bets properly and also to maintain solvency. I can't imagine that their "fixed investment" idea involves taking risks that could end up bankrupting them. Clearly lots of real world investments do exactly that, but when things go wrong they are "too big to fail" and get bailed out at public expense. I don't think modelling MoneyPot on such real world fractional reserve disasters is helpful. |
|
|
|
If investing wasn't risky, nobody would ever need an investment. The whole point behind it is to help lessen the personal risk, otherwise why would you give everyone else guaranteed income when you could have taken it all for yourself? NO investment is guaranteed.
I see things the same way. What I'm trying to understand is what you have in mind for the 'fixed' investment. Dogedigital described it like this: It'll be a set % roi by the term you select for those wishing to have a constant and steady source of positive investment rather than 'gamble' with the volatility of the house bankroll.
That doesn't sound risky. How are you planning to offer a steady positive return without volatility? That's what I'm asking about. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't take too much notice of Luke's post. Mycelium uses Bitcoin Core for its fee estimates, and Core doesn't know anything about individual miners or their fee policies. > When you target the next 3 blocks, your wallet knows it can ignore up to 66% of the highest-fee-required miners I've no idea how that is meant to make any sense. But the bottom line is that we have to pay enough for the miners to put our transactions into blocks. How much that is depends on the miners' individual fee policies, of course. |
|
|
|
What is up with this fee? I send $19 and they charge me $4? Even with priority fee set I don't see how they take almost 25% of my transaction. What the heck is up with this?  I looked into using Mycelium to send 50 BTC a while ago, and took screenshots showing the fee for each setting:  I wish there was an option to use a smaller fee. I ended up making the transaction manually with a much lower fee, and it was confirmed within 3 blocks I think. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure there is any such thing as a guaranteed investment, but am willing to learn more.
You can read discussion regarding this on 12th page of this thread Thanks a lot for the pointer. I remember a few years ago people were asking for the same kind of thing at Just-Dice. I looked into it and saw that it made no sense at all to offer such a thing. If an investor cannot lose then what use are they to the site? The only reason a dice site wants investors rather than bankrolling it themselves is so that they don't get hurt too badly if the players get lucky. It's a way of spreading the risk. But if you have investors who literally are taking no risk at all, but still taking a profit, they are doing nothing but harming you. They aren't offering any way of spreading the risk, but are taking some of the profits that you could otherwise keep for yourself. Look at it this way: I want to invest 100 BTC as a guaranteed investment for a year. The site offers me 3% for this. They can't risk using that 100 BTC to pay out winners, because they need to keep it in reserve to pay me back at the end of the year. So how about I just keep the 100 BTC in my own wallet for the year and promise not to spend it. And the site can just send me the extra 3 BTC at the end of the year. That sounds like a good deal to me. Let's make it 1000 BTC instead, and the site can send me 30 BTC at the end of the year. It'll be a set % roi by the term you select for those wishing to have a constant and steady source of positive investment rather than 'gamble' with the volatility of the house bankroll.
We have absolutely no plans to do anything illegal and it definitely will not rely on other people's funds to cover others. Until it's announced/released, I can't really talk on the subject any further than that.
If the interest doesn't come from other people's funds, where does it come from? If the site makes a profit over the term, it could come from the profit (and less profit would go to the real investors who are willing to take a loss), but what if the site makes a loss over the term? Is the site itself going to cover the interest? Why would the site want to do that when they get nothing out of the deal? Mmm...so you're saying the house will absorb basically any losses...sounds like a risky strategy unless you have a huge bankroll compared to your investors - which begs the question why you even need any investors.
No, the house bankroll funds and the fixed interest funds are separate funds. We're not taking the fixed interest funds and just putting it into the house bankroll funds. More will be explained when the time comes to be announced/launched. If you're not putting the fixed interest funds into the bankroll how will they grow? Will you be investing them in some other 100% guaranteed profitable investment? If so, why wouldn't I just invest directly in that thing rather than having you do it for me? It's not really that risky if structured properly. For example let's say that the average moneypot return was 20% a year.
I would happily offer 7.5% guaranteed to a max exposure of 5BTC.
Worst case if somehow the bankroll gets wiped out I owe 5BTC plus interest, far more likely case I just pocketed 12.5% +/- on your 5BTC.
So you're an MP investor, making an expected 20 BTC return per year on your 100 BTC investment let's say. Some guy approaches you (off site) and offers to lend you 5 BTC for a year, at 7.5% interest. Would you really happily take that loan? Whether your investment performs well or badly, you end up giving him the 5 BTC back plus 7.5% interest. Either way you are 7.5% of 5 BTC worse off than if you hadn't accepted the loan. But, you say... You're going to take the 5 BTC at 7.5% and invest it on MoneyPot and make 20% off of it. Wouldn't you be better off just investing an extra 5 BTC of your own rather than borrowing it at 7.5% interest? You have an extra 5 BTC hanging around, right? You had better, because you'll need it (plus interest) to pay back the loan if the bankroll gets wiped out. |
|
|
|
Sorry, a little confused, where is the guaranteed investment option? Or is that still in the works?
I'd be interested to hear about this too. Where did you hear about it? I'm not sure there is any such thing as a guaranteed investment, but am willing to learn more. |
|
|
|
Your theory is correct, but I'd like to point out that the GTO play in your scenario is to bet 10k and cash out at 1x.
Interesting. Can you explain why? ie. "show your working" |
|
|
|
Is there a recent chart over staked and mined coins?
  |
|
|
|
Even though syncing through the p2p network would be slow it would be done by now if it weren't for the 750 orphan limit. Its been almost four days now, as a test I left it running, I noticed that very slowly new blocks were getting in, but at a rate of maybe a 1000 a day - which is silly.
This really should be fixed.
I think it will be fixed in the next release. I saw a request for a CLAM supply chart and noticed I hadn't run my local copy of the CLAM client for 20 days or so. I'm using the code on xploited's "reindex" branch and just watched it sync the last 20 days' worth of blocks (a total of 30101 blocks) in 34 minutes. That's not too bad: 2016-11-04 22:33:48 SetBestChain: new best=37a087593760701d6bc3cdb1a77f90346289a567598ba50e9abc715fdd25eeaf height=1208261 trust=321758553107633851925 blocktrust=8163903854571474453 date=10/14/16 20:49:20
[...]
2016-11-04 23:07:25 SetBestChain: new best=53702435da83a93774383fb98f32b527b9eb7901f2e369ba9864148c0dce11ef height=1238361 trust=336352383226816688909 blocktrust=4310989900044759821 date=11/04/16 23:07:12
[Edit: I'm on a very laggy Internet connection, and was connected to only 4 peers] I heard recently that he's pretty much ready with the new release, so hopefully we'll see it soon. |
|
|
|
Is it possible for players to have a positive expectation playing poker in a casino? Sure it is. So isn't the casino losing money? Because the players who have a positive expectation do so at the expense of the worse players who have a negative expectation.
It's the same at bustabit. The house is +EV, and so are the good players. Their positive expectation comes from getting more than their fair share of the 1% "bonus" that is taken from every bet.
They ban you anyway if you win. Hope ryan cant ban my bitcointalk account. My vpn not work so i cant change my ip yet I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying casinos ban winning poker players? Because I never heard of it happening. They'll ban winning blackjack players, or at least ask them to play a different game, but poker players win from other players not the house. Or are you saying that Ryan bans winning bustabit players? Because I never heard of that happening either. I would expect he would want them to keep playing so they have an opportunity to lose their winnings back to the house. |
|
|
|
The pure amount you bet shouldn't matter, since it's a % that you get, not a hard number.
Well, the percentage that you get is influenced by the amount you bet. So in that way it does matter. Suppose there's one guy betting 10k and a bunch of people betting dust amounts, and suppose you know everyone is cashing out at 2.00x so you set your cashout to 2.01x. How much should you bet to optimize your expected profit? You could bet a small amount and end up winning a 1.000x% bonus when you successfully cash out. Or you could bet 10k, matching the biggest player, and end up winning a 2.000x% bonus when you successfully cash out. The 2nd is clearly better than the first, not just in absolute terms but also in percentage profit terms. In the 1st case the big player gets 1% of his bet back as bonus every game but in the 2nd you get that 1% of his bet for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
