Yes I'm making a program for create colitions with the same format that uses SD, for proof that is posible the manipulation.
If you can generate a collision, it would indicate their salt is weak. Which would allow you to cheat them, not vice versa. There's simply no way they could have an alternate preimages for a sha256 hash. |
|
|
|
Speaking of Moneypot, does anyone else notice that the footer of the MoneyPot page is still unchanged? "MoneyPot S.L.R. is a fully incorporated Costa Rican gaming company"
Yeah, that's actually my company (which they didn't buy), which operates bustabit.com (but not moneypot.com) I've asked them a few times to remove it from their footer, but am still waiting for them to do so. |
|
|
|
Their reactions tho xD. It still says "You('ll) are/be eligible for 2 bits! (in 60 minutes)", might want to fix that up. In my opinion, the faucet claim is still too small; you should change it to 3 bits every 10 minutes if the account has no balance, to give new players a better experience
Thanks, i'll fix that. Seeing that his total net profit is now only 60.8 btc, it seems he has lost 45 btc back in the past few hours.
Yeah,  Note to self: Next time use screenshots, not hyperlinks. |
|
|
|
To celebrate being #1 wagered bitcoin casino of the week, I've increased the faucet by 50% Now every hour is happy hour, with up to a free 3 bits!  |
|
|
|
Wow, Alexy won another ~60 BTC last night, taking his total net profit to 105 BTC  |
|
|
|
Serious question, is there anything specific contributing to the recent growth of bustabit? It's always been a great site, but it seems like it's had a nice little spike over the past couple weeks/months.
Yeah, the main reason is that a few whales won a lot of money (alexy, THREATT721, kapi18wro (and more?) all won a sizeable amount), so then they tend to churn over their winnings pretty hard, which is where all the volume is coming from. For example: if someone deposits 1 BTC, if they get unlucky they might only contribute 1 BTC to the amount wagered (i.e. lose it on their first bet). But if they get lucky at the start, they very well might be able to turn over that 1 BTC a few hundred (!) times. So in many ways, you tend to see volume go up when players are lucky, and volume go down when players are unlucky  |
|
|
|
lets see what I am still missing here. I don't know any land based or online casino that would take the risk to lose 90%+ of his Bank Roll with one bet and actually risking to close down their casino. I am also not aware that they use KC. why would MP allow this kind of risk?
Well for instance, when I ran MP I personally put 100 BTC in the bankroll. Had the casino lost 90% of it's bankroll, I would've re-evaluated the risk and put another 100 BTC in (and repeat). Alternatively, I could've say put 500 BTC in the bankroll and operated at a 0.2x kelly for instance. (For me the former is much better, especially in in the case of a hack or exploit or what not. And I wanted to hold as little of other peoples money as possible, so by making it stupidly risky, that kind of helped. Most of the big investors I talked to were comfortable with the idea of risking 99% of the money they put in) And while I'm not an investor in the current MP, if I did, I would much prefer it operating at a 1x kelly then something conservative. I think my biggest risk (as an investor) would be a hack, exploit or inside job. So minimizing the amount of money I physically deposit is ideal. |
|
|
|
the problem I see with this bet is that even the chance is 1 in ~30k the user can win it in his first bet before the 29,999 losing bets. or what do I miss here?
Sure, there's nothing stopping that happening. You can be the poor sucker who invests before someone wins 99% of the bankroll, and then get diluted and never get your money back. Bankrolling is a high-risk investment, treat it as such. Sometimes it seems low risk, because there's not much action happening, but it's just an illusion. (And that's even before you take into consideration the counter-party risks and what not). |
|
|
|
~32k bets placed every day, which puts an excessive risk on the bankroll, as if bets are large enough, then the bankroll could potentially be wiped out multiple times per day You've got it backwards. Volume reduces variance. No. Of course it does. For instance, on BaB in the last 6 hours, we've had someone ( Alexy) win as much as the MP whale, and it's a total non-issue because of (our current high) volume. (In the same time period, another guy lost 10 BTC, and another couple people lost a bitcoin each) and in the course of the week the casino is still significantly up. As an investor, you wouldn't even be breaking as sweat. But with low volume site, if the whale doesn't come back (a reason i never delay withdrawals  ) it's a possibility the investors will never even make their money back |
|
|
|
So a bet that should have had a 30%+ house edge (which is certain to make most gambler's think twice) goes through at 0.92% HE? Isn't that considered negligence? Over months of running no one checked if max bet is in force for plinko?
I think you may have missed the part of the thread, where it was demonstrated how and why it should have gone through. There was no mistake I'd just take the highest multiplier as the trying to win amount. So the max-bet would be say on a 100BTC bankroll, and a 100x max multiplier on 1x kelly would be 0.01BTC.
That's not a 1x kelly, though. What MP uses, is a 1x kelly. |
|
|
|
Bustabit has a house edge of 0%-1% depending on your cashout point. The lower your cashout point is, the lower the house edge will be. For details, please check https://www.bustabit.com/faq#odds. Thanks, and yup. Over the 255k bitcoins that have been wagered the "historical house edge" (if that even means something) has been 0.28% ... so it's pretty damn low. And after PrimeDice, we're probably the second most popular gambling game (i suspect both by wagered and users online) |
|
|
|
It's generated client side so more advanced users can still pick their own :-)
Yup, that's by design. But even still the server does do some basic sanity checking. e.g. You can't pick 'password' as your password. I was thinking about that, but the primary problem is that it looks easy to remember. For instance the password I got: "wolf curve arrow wing", which looks easy enough to remember, so I'm probably not going to write it down. But unless I use it every day, it's something that I will forgot. Edit:
You can even get by on just 3 words (33bits) since this will be 8.5 billion combinations. Cost to solve 1000 google reCAPTCHAs ~ $0.80 cents. And no one has $6 million USD in their bustabit account to be targeted.
The long term goal is to actually remove the recaptcha (although still have a sort of fail2ban) completely =) |
|
|
|
@Dooglus an interesting note: Taking the payout line that was used: [ 121, 47, 13, 5, 3, 1.4, 1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.4, 3, 5, 13, 47, 121 ] We naively assumed the house had a 1% edge, but actually it's an illusion. We can actually normalize this payout line to: [ 172.42857142857144, 66.71428571428572, 18.142857142857142, 6.714285714285714, 3.857142857142857, 1.5714285714285712, 1, 0.2857142857142857, 0, 0.2857142857142857, 1, 1.5714285714285712, 3.857142857142857,66.714285714285714, 18.142857142857142, 66.71428571428572, 172.42857142857144 ]
So when betting 0.7 BTC, it's an identical bet! The EV stays the same (-0.01 BTC or what ever), but now we calculate the house edge, we'll figure it out as 0.01 / 0.7 ... or 40% higher. The "super payout" line you had, just exacerbates the problem. The most you could lose was ~4% of your bet, so with a 1% house edge, the *real* house edge, after you normalize the payouts would be 25%! So while crazy, it's not as crazy as you'd first think! -- One take away for plinko players would be that the house edge is rather misleading. You actually pay the house edge on the entire bet, rather than just what you're risking. |
|
|
|
Can you please tl;dr this for me then? Something I'm not catching on to I guess. If the risked amount is a % of the bankroll (as per Dooglus), that % remains the same. So let's say there's 100 BTC in the BR, and 99.84% can be lost (99.84). Player loses 100 BTC chasing it. Now there's 200 BTC there, but he can chase after 199.68 of it (meaning his 100 + 99.68/99.84 of what he was chasing), and this could go on forever.
So for argument sake, lets use a gambler with infinite money. The site starts with a 100 BTC bankroll, this means using Dooglus' payouts the gambler would have to bet 1524 BTC to aim at winning the 99.97% of the bankroll. As the gambler loses money, to the house, the more and more he needs to bet. By the time the gambler wins the 99.97% of the bankroll, he will have probably grown the bankroll so much that the remaining 0.03% is far bigger than the initial bankroll. So even with infinite money, the gambler is still -EV and the casino still have +expected bankroll growth |
|
|
|
I just want to say that... I'm impressed. Even when two of the more mathematically-inclined people on the forums didn't fully understand the repercussions of the Kelly algorithm, you do.
I was going to avoid this thread, but I don't think that's fair. While I indeed underestimated how much the house can "sanely" risk for many plinko bets, I didn't not fully understand the repercussions. In fact, on numerous occasions I have told investors that they could lose (almost) the entire bankroll with a single bet. (The most trivial example: A dice bet with 99.99% house edge can win 99.99% of the bankroll) To me, risking up to almost 100% of the bankroll is ludicrous. Regardless of the CHANCE of that happening, it's essentially taking the risk that at some point (which, statistically speaking, would happen given enough time) someone completely wipes it.
While the house could win 10,000 BTC before that happens, the risk of an all or nothing is still fairly great. From the player's perspective, it's a great deal -- it essentially says that if you lose enough, you can keep your bets in line with the entire bankroll and at some point win back not only ALL your losses so far, but everyone else's losses + all investments that were made.
FWIW, even if you don't understand the maths you should at least understand the high level purpose of the kelly criterion. This is almost the exact opposite of reality, and what we just spent hours proving on your behalf. |
|
|
|
So in layman's terms, did the bet go through due to an error or was it simply just luck? A huge heap ton of luck?
The bet going through or not is something completely deterministic. As in, if it's "kelly compliant" it will go through. If it's not, it won't. So there's no luck involved. The greater question is, was the bet "kelly complaint" or not? I'm not really sure. Both Dooglus and I have independently calculated it, and are getting the same result (which would indicate it is). Blockage has calculated it, and believes the house is risking ~120x too much. Honestly, I don't know which is right. I have very little confidence in the hacked up code I wrote and the results are rather unintuitive (e.g. in some cases, Dooglus found it's recommending the casino to risk 90% of it's bankroll for a plinko bet with < 1% edge). Perhaps Dooglus and I are making the same mistake and getting the same result. But I also feel strongly like blockage's results are incorrect. I think that the house edge should be a lower-bound for the kelly, and blockage's result is under that. Although, it wouldn't be the first time he's proven me wrong. Anyway, maths if for nerds. Just simulate it and it should be be easy to see |
|
|
|
Whoa, so it allowed a bet of 9 BTC?? How is that possible?
The restriction is on profit, not wagered. You could wager >1000 BTC if you wanted, as long as you weren't trying to win too much To me ~0.29% seems more realistic than 35.3028752%. So assuming the bet was a max bet (which it probably wasn't but was close) the house overbet by a factor of roughly 120x. Good job!
While it's more realistic, I think it doesn't pass the sniff test either. I believe the absolute lower bound would be the house edge, which in this case is ~0.92%. |
|
|
|
If no one else does it, i'll go through it for that bet and see what it should be
My (untested) calculations: The kelly for that bet is a staggering 0.353028752 (aka the house should risk 35% of it's bankroll)?! wtf? Seems rather unintuitive, and likely I made a mistake (and possibly twice, once when first writing the generalize kelly code). Most of the work is in inverting the bet to be from the houses perspective, so here's what I came up with if it is of any help to anyone: { profit: -4800000000, probability: 0.0000152587890625 },
{ profit: -1840000000, probability: 0.000244140625 },
{ profit: -480000000, probability: 0.0018310546875 },
{ profit: -160000000, probability: 0.008544921875 },
{ profit: -80000000, probability: 0.02777099609375 },
{ profit: -16000000, probability: 0.066650390625 },
{ profit: -0, probability: 0.1221923828125 },
{ profit: 20000000, probability: 0.174560546875 },
{ profit: 28000000, probability: 0.196380615234375 },
{ profit: 20000000, probability: 0.174560546875 },
{ profit: -0, probability: 0.1221923828125 },
{ profit: -16000000, probability: 0.066650390625 },
{ profit: -80000000, probability: 0.02777099609375 },
{ profit: -160000000, probability: 0.008544921875 },
{ profit: -480000000, probability: 0.0018310546875 },
{ profit: -1840000000, probability: 0.000244140625 },
{ profit: -4800000000, probability: 0.0000152587890625 }
|
|
|
|
When I set up the payout table like that myself it tells me the max bet is around 9k bits, so I don't understand why this bet was allowed to go ahead.  That's definitely a huge underestimate. The max bet should be considerably larger. Although, I'm quite surprised it would allow 0.4 BTC bet -- that seems a bit much to me. By any chance, did the owners of MoneyPot.com change the bankroll risk to a 10x kelly? If anyone wants a worked example of figuring out the max bet for a normal kelly the maths is this: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/662104/kelly-criterion-with-more-than-two-outcomesIf no one else does it, i'll go through it for that bet and see what it should be |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
