Been a great last couple days for players!

Let's hope so! The site has currently handed out 125 BTC net in the last 2 days

Nah, if the max-profit is hit everyone is cashed out at that point (which is earlier than they like) but doesn't affect the actual game bust. He just got super, super lucky

I'm not really sure that's calculable. There are millions of patterns of events that are "wow wtf". e.g. it crashing at  1.23, then 4.56, then 7.89, so even though each might have a 1 in a million chance of happening, there's so many that it's almost certain one of them will happen.

hehe. As cowbay would say: "dust". Just yesterday I lost a net of like 100 BTC bankrolling XD

It seems most of the action was from "molloype" who wagered ~520 BTC on BB, and ended up losing about 0.456 BTC. However investors paid 2.56 BTC to BB in commissions, which results in a net investor loss of 2.11 BTC.

Remember, investing is a risky game, don't put any money in that you're not completely prepared to lose.

That's right. And for legal purposes, both MoneyPot.com and Bustabit.com are owned by the company MoneyPot SLR

Sorry, you're right. I'll hold off making such a change, I didn't realize it would be so controversial. I'll continue to take the approach of temporarily-banning grievous abusers of the current system until I have a more robust long-term solution.

I'll give a bigger discussion period for any changes that would impact apps (none of which I have planned), so we can sort this stuff out before-hand. =)

I think people are forgetting how small a satoshi bet is. It quite literally something like x1000 times the EV to just process that bet in server/db costs. PocketRocketsCasino did a nice breakdown. Just today a (real) gambler was asking why the servers seem a bit laggy, and digging in I found a bot was spamming ~25-50 (i didn't count) satoshi-sized bets at once. At this point, it's really not gambling, it's just going for some vanity bets/second metric, and the end result is degraded service for everyone.  I'm having a look now at building something like a priority queue, to give first priority to larger bets, and bets from unique ips, but it's getting a bit involved. So far the only real use-case I can see for support satoshi-level bets, is that it helps encourage some gamblers fallacy-type betting.

I know pokercoin.casino is going with a split-bankroll, so they can support dust bets (and get the money from it) and only forward us the larger bets. It's probably quite an elegant solution on this issue.

yeah. This was the craziest cashout I've seen:
https://www.bustabit.com/game/1919136

o.0

Can you please not talk in third person, it's confusing to read.

There's also another solution, which is what a new MP casino is using -- a split bankroll. When the best are small, they use their own internal bankroll. And when the bets are over a threshold, they send it to MP. This might even be a good model for casinos who want to maximize the amount of bets/second they can achieve, or lower the min bet.


Well, no matter the size of the bet it takes exactly the same amount of time to process, and costs the same amount to store. So when you're auto-betting at 1 satoshi for instance, from a single faucet claim (2 bits) you can average of like 20000 bets, while someone betting reasonably would make a fraction the amount of bets and contribute a lot more to the site =)

Or what is more the problem, when people can bet dust amounts some of them abuse it. Take the case of making 20k bets from the faucet, this isn't even gambling, it's just database stuffing.


I don't really want to change peoples behavior, but that's really almost the definition of the gamblers fallacy. It really has no impact at all.

Well, all the bets prior to 100 satoshi really have absolutely no impact on the players end result (other than perhaps inducing a large delay). Although, I don't want to be the one to mess with peoples superstitions.

The way I see it, we have two main options:

a) Disallow dust bets completely  (easiest to implement)

b) Allow 1 satoshi bets, but if people make too many (e.g. than 10 in a 30 second window), their ip gets blocked for 30m or so. This is something that would curtail abuse, while allow manual betters to have really fast and responsive bets. Is that something that would be preferable?


( A third option would be to use a fancy backpressure algorithm to add delay to bets depending on how much they're abusing it, but it's kind of too complex)

Wow, whitetuxpeng is making a huge comeback! In the last couple of hours, he's recovered 72 of his bitcoins! And claimed the remaining two silverwallet prizes (Giving him a total of 2 gold ones, and a silver one)

The issue with the throttling of bets, is both apps and people subvert it by betting in parallel. But for people playing manually they bet 1 satoshi to try the site, but end up with a bad experience due to the slowness. Unless I institute a hard ban against ip's that abuse it, the throttling just isn't working.  The proposed new minimum bet is: $0.00024614 which makes me find it difficult to see how that's excessive. I mean, even storing those bets would cost more than the value they generate.

I've had the same limit in bustabit (100 satoshi min bet) and it has not been a problem at all, and it's probably the 2nd active bitcoin gambling site at the moment. I vaguely recall that PRC (which seems to be #2 by all-time wagered) has a similar limit too. Not really sure about other sites, haven't tried betting such quantities before =)

Yes, that's correct. The "all app stats" only shows apps that have requested me to verify their domain. I figure if someone doesn't even ask that, it's probably just a pure test app.  But I've gone ahead and verified the domain of this app, and now it'll appear.

Hi guys. As of today, the minimum bet will be 1 bit (100 satoshis). Please adjust your app to not allow bets below that, or they're going to give errors. I've repeatedly asked apps not not abuse the low bets with auto-betting, but I'm in the role of constantly playing wack-a-mole with people constantly abusing it (like today someone thinking it's a fantastic idea sending 50, 1 satoshi bets in flight at the same time) which degrades the service for people who are actually trying to bet.  Anyway, I'd like to remind everyone that 1 bit is: $0.00024614  which is an insanely low number anyway =)

This is definitely real.

Bustabit charts are a great illustration of this, as people roughly win and lose together, which amplifies the typical variance most sites see.

This is an week old chart from bustabit I generated at day-intervals: https://i.gyazo.com/cb23db21c23de9ca44e600eda85fbec1.png and almost every down-spike in profit, is accompanied shortly by an up-tick. This is normally the same player that won, losing it back. And the effect is even more pronounced on a smaller times interval. Wagered always goes through the roof too, when people are lucky. It forms part of my theory that most players are loss-constrained (as a rough rule of thumb, will play until the house edge whittles down their playing budget).

And you can also see when players lose, the wagered drops. Like the recent leveling off in wagered, with the big uptick in profit.

(Also, incidentally the first giant downspike in profit, has no accompanying up-tick was actually because I lowered the site limits (in response to the whale winning) which drove him to lose their money else where. Lesson learnt. =))

Sure, but that doesn't either make it predictive.


We already have very robust maths to be able to reason about this, which is infinitely better than looking at some historical charts. The maths actually comes to the opposite conclusion, btw. If you're not allowing bets that would significantly affect performance (to a huge degree) you're leaving money on the table (in both terms of EV and expected bankroll growth)

Players can robustly check if they're getting cheated using the provably fair. If the casino is cheating players so much that it effects the profits they can just not show that in the public stats (which they likely would, to avoid sharing it with investors).

While I agree with this in theory, as Dooglus said a few posts above, BTC Just-Dice's (which had phenomenal volume) was less than a third of it's EV. So clearly "long enough period of time" is going to be so long as not really useful (if you waited on the sidelines for JD's profit to reach 1% of its wagered, you would've missed they HYIP-level returns it generated. And very likely still would be waiting, even if it was still operating =)

Or, more likely, an indication that people are gambling =)


I agree with you here, and think showing data is essential. I'm not against automatically generating fancy charts, I just don't think it's that important =)

^ Yeah, it's one of the reasons I haven't prioritized making pretty historical charts (although I really should). Also last time the site profits took a dive (went from 50 BTC to -10 or something), I realized how unprepared most investors are to take the risks they are (and why I diverted commissions profits to them).  And actually, I'm pretty happy with the size of the bankroll at the moment -- it's big enough that it can serve 99% of players, but small enough to not be a huge liability.

Quite possibly a cloudflare problem: https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/3zcnm4rnl0vv it had a big impact on my sites at least