MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet

[JackpotRacer]

..............................
Lastly, the investment model is also built on the fact that investors have an interest in advertising the site that they're invested in. That would be easier if they knew which app was worth to push atm.

to be frank I did not know that but a very interesting info

do you have an example where I could see such an advertisement of an app by an investor?

thanks

He didn't say it happens, but that it will theoretically happen. Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so. Whether or not they do is a different story.

it looks that I misunderstood it thank you for explaining I really was surprised and glad to see this happened already and therefore I misunderstood it

I agree with you - Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so -

wouldn't it be nice to have a private corner/place where investors (future investors) and app owners could discuss ideas regarding advertising etc and try to find together ways that would be helpful for all sides = investors, MP and app owners?

[PocketRocketsCasino]

..............................
Lastly, the investment model is also built on the fact that investors have an interest in advertising the site that they're invested in. That would be easier if they knew which app was worth to push atm.

to be frank I did not know that but a very interesting info

do you have an example where I could see such an advertisement of an app by an investor?

thanks

He didn't say it happens, but that it will theoretically happen. Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so. Whether or not they do is a different story.

it looks that I misunderstood it thank you for explaining I really was surprised and glad to see this happened already and therefore I misunderstood it

I agree with you - Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so -

wouldn't it be nice to have a private corner/place where investors (future investors) and app owners could discuss ideas regarding advertising etc and try to find together ways that would be helpful for all sides = investors, MP and app owners?

From experience having the most number of investors and the most amount of Bitcoin invested for over a year now, investors do almost nothing to advertise or promote.

[JackpotRacer]

..............................
Lastly, the investment model is also built on the fact that investors have an interest in advertising the site that they're invested in. That would be easier if they knew which app was worth to push atm.

to be frank I did not know that but a very interesting info

do you have an example where I could see such an advertisement of an app by an investor?

thanks

He didn't say it happens, but that it will theoretically happen. Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so. Whether or not they do is a different story.

it looks that I misunderstood it thank you for explaining I really was surprised and glad to see this happened already and therefore I misunderstood it

I agree with you - Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so -

wouldn't it be nice to have a private corner/place where investors (future investors) and app owners could discuss ideas regarding advertising etc and try to find together ways that would be helpful for all sides = investors, MP and app owners?

From experience having the most number of investors and the most amount of Bitcoin invested for over a year now, investors do almost nothing to advertise or promote.

thank you very much for disclosing your experience with your investors = another interesting info and valuable insight

maybe they fully rely on you to do the advertising. because IMO you cannot compare your investor and game system with MP investor and game app system. it is different and new concept. it will need time to get well established and therefore I agree with earlier postings that investors could help app owners. the question is how and in which way. I am glad that someone started this discussion and lets see where we will end up

[PocketRocketsCasino]

..............................
Lastly, the investment model is also built on the fact that investors have an interest in advertising the site that they're invested in. That would be easier if they knew which app was worth to push atm.

to be frank I did not know that but a very interesting info

do you have an example where I could see such an advertisement of an app by an investor?

thanks

He didn't say it happens, but that it will theoretically happen. Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so. Whether or not they do is a different story.

it looks that I misunderstood it thank you for explaining I really was surprised and glad to see this happened already and therefore I misunderstood it

I agree with you - Investors helping advertise = more play = more investor money, so it's in their best interest to do so -

wouldn't it be nice to have a private corner/place where investors (future investors) and app owners could discuss ideas regarding advertising etc and try to find together ways that would be helpful for all sides = investors, MP and app owners?

From experience having the most number of investors and the most amount of Bitcoin invested for over a year now, investors do almost nothing to advertise or promote.

thank you very much for disclosing your experience with your investors = another interesting info and valuable insight

maybe they fully rely on you to do the advertising. because IMO you cannot compare your investor and game system with MP investor and game app system. it is different and new concept. it will need time to get well established and therefore I agree with earlier postings that investors could help app owners. the question is how and in which way. I am glad that someone started this discussion and lets see where we will end up

They do prefer passive investing and rely on the operator to do the advertising work, and expenses. But then investing probably is the wrong term anyway.

First off I'll say that Moneypot is excellent and I think the owner and app devs have done a good job. But it is not a 100% new idea. PRC actually started out doing something similar and the initial plan was for a model quite like Monepot has and will offer something similar soon. However PRC has pivoted a lot in the past few years and I certainly did not know it would currently be a dice site

[jonte]

I must say I'm loving the investment feature on MoneyPot. Makes it easy to profit from the gambler's demise on many sites simultaneously! I've finally found a worthwhile site to invest my spare coins.

I can only hope MoneyPot continues to grow and attract more apps. Keep up the good work.

[BitcoinRichman]

i would like to invest into moneypot. are their some detailed stats about how it went out for investors latley? Couldnt find it or i am blind. to be honest i didnt read the whole thread, only a few pages.

[jonte]

i would like to invest into moneypot. are their some detailed stats about how it went out for investors latley? Couldnt find it or i am blind. to be honest i didnt read the whole thread, only a few pages.

I can't give any long term stats since I only invested 2 days ago and the site doesn't give any stats besides the total investor profit. In my 2 days of having funds invested I have made a profit of just over 3%. Not bad imo.

[NLNico]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

[jpcfan]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

very nice page. love the stats

[hopenotlate]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

very nice page. love the stats

Completely agree, that spread between profit and expected profit is exactly what I was looking for: it really display if investors (looking from my perspective) have been lucky, unlucky  or they are just earning what they expect to.

Great job Nico

[ComboChris]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

Would be cool if you could add stats from all apps if you can get these from the API. They wouldn't have to be shown on the main page of dicesites.com to avoid the main page being filled with 10s of additional sites, but people who really wanna see them would be able to view them on the "moneypot stats" subpage.

[dooglus]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

very nice page. love the stats

Completely agree, that spread between profit and expected profit is exactly what I was looking for: it really display if investors (looking from my perspective) have been lucky, unlucky  or they are just earning what they expect to.

You shouldn't allow the historical charts to influence your decision of whether to invest or not.

What happened in the past has no bearing on what happens in the future in terms of whether gamblers perform better or worse than expected. All you should consider is your expected earnings going forward, the variance, and how much you trust the site.

For example, Just-Dice for BTC had a house edge of 1%, but an actual profit of around 0.35% after billions of bets, whereas Just-Dice for CLAM has the same house edge but an actual profit of 1.47% after almost a billion bets. That's over 4 times higher. Does that mean that Just-Dice for CLAM is 4 times better as an investment? No, it doesn't. Going forward it is expected that gamblers will lose 1% of everything they bet.

[RHavar]

^ 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.

[Quickseller]

Historical performance of a gambling site's bankroll investments can tell a potential investor a large number of things.

If there are large swings in the bankroll performance, then this is a sign that the maximum bet is sufficiently large so that performance can be impacted by the bets of a small number of whales (in other words the maximum bet size is larger then it should be).

If bankroll performance is significantly larger then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the casino is (at least selectively) cheating their players. This can also be detected if the bankroll performance is significantly greater then expected over short periods of time if there is sufficient amounts of gambling volume.

If bankroll performance is significantly lower then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the site owner is cheating it's investors by playing against the bankroll with knowledge of the serve seed. This would be very easy for the site owner to do, and would be very difficult to detect assuming the site owner does not go crazy with stealing a lot of money from a single account they are gambling with.

A large amount of variance may also be an indication that gambling volume is too small for the size of the bankroll.

Exactly how much deviation from the EV is necessary to make the above conclusions, and over what periods of time are both unknown and are both up to the individual (potential) investor to decide.

However yes, historical data should absolutely influence your decision to invest in the bankroll or not because this data can assist in helping you conclude if a site is 100% "above board" or not.

[RHavar]

Historical performance of a gambling site's bankroll investments can tell a potential investor a large number of things.

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

If there are large swings in the bankroll performance, then this is a sign that the maximum bet is sufficiently large so that performance can be impacted by the bets of a small number of whales (in other words the maximum bet size is larger then it should be).

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)

If bankroll performance is significantly larger then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the casino is (at least selectively) cheating their players. This can also be detected if the bankroll performance is significantly greater then expected over short periods of time if there is sufficient amounts of gambling volume.

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).

If bankroll performance is significantly lower then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the site owner is cheating it's investors by playing against the bankroll with knowledge of the serve seed. This would be very easy for the site owner to do, and would be very difficult to detect assuming the site owner does not go crazy with stealing a lot of money from a single account they are gambling with.

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 =)

A large amount of variance may also be an indication that gambling volume is too small for the size of the bankroll.

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

Exactly how much deviation from the EV is necessary to make the above conclusions, and over what periods of time are both unknown and are both up to the individual (potential) investor to decide.

However yes, historical data should absolutely influence your decision to invest in the bankroll or not because this data can assist in helping you conclude if a site is 100% "above board" or not.

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 =)

[NLNico]

I agree with RHavar there, but IMO the historical data of wagered amounts (and therefor expected profit) is relevant in deciding to invest in a site. If the wagered amount is fairly stable you can make an estimation of estimated profits for the future (together with house edge / commission / your BR share.) Even though the actual profits can look different because of variance.

The historical data of actual profit is indeed rather useless for deciding to invest, because of variance.

I think that is what hopenotlate meant. Currently MP only shows "actual profit" but you cannot imagine if it's high/low/normal because of variance. For that you need to know "expected profit".




That being said, I actually have an hidden page that shows those "estimated gains" for all invest-sites (based on wagered/BR/HE/commission.) But it's hidden because it might motivate investors to invest in whatever site gives the "best numbers" without realizing the most important factor:

and how much you trust the site

Ps, I actually use short-term expected vs actual profits myself to decide to invest. This sounds like a fallacy, but let me explain. I believe with the current sites when a whale wins big, the chances are high he losses it all the next days after that. I don't really base this on variance/math or whatever, just on how it goes a lot of times. So I personally actively monitor sites to see where there was a big win (generally from 1 player) in the last 1 or 2 days. And if I estimate the player will keep playing, I invest more at that site. Worked great for me so far

[RHavar]

I believe with the current sites when a whale wins big, the chances are high he losses it all the next days after that.

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. =))

[Quickseller]

If there are large swings in the bankroll performance, then this is a sign that the maximum bet is sufficiently large so that performance can be impacted by the bets of a small number of whales (in other words the maximum bet size is larger then it should be).

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)

Well if you maximum win is 100 BTC, but most players are making bets with the potential to win under .01 BTC, and (except for one person), no one is betting amounts that would result in a win greater then 1 BTC, then one person comes and deposits 1,000 BTC, makes a single 89% win chance bet with his entire bankroll and then withdraws the entire amount, then how your bankroll performs is going to be very strongly impacted by the result of that single bet. Sure the EV of that bet for the bankroll is +10 BTC, but since only a single bet was made it will either be -100 BTC or +1,000 BTC.

Sure, if you are disallowing bets that your bankroll is large enough to withstand loosing against then you are missing out on the +EV value of those bets, but if the volume of those bets is not large enough then the outcome of a small number of bets is going to have a disproportionate impact on performance, which is something that you probably don't want.

If bankroll performance is significantly larger then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the casino is (at least selectively) cheating their players. This can also be detected if the bankroll performance is significantly greater then expected over short periods of time if there is sufficient amounts of gambling volume.

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).

I agree with this, however I would be willing to say that most players do not check their bets. In fact, I would say that most players do not even understand how to check their bets (of those who understand the concept of provable fairness).

If bankroll performance is significantly lower then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the site owner is cheating it's investors by playing against the bankroll with knowledge of the serve seed. This would be very easy for the site owner to do, and would be very difficult to detect assuming the site owner does not go crazy with stealing a lot of money from a single account they are gambling with.

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 =)

Well my understanding is that Just-Dice had a very large amount of gambling volume in proportion to their bankroll size which is what explained the HYIP-level returns.

If Just-Dice experienced actual profits of significantly below 1% over the long term, then it is possible that Just-Dice was cheating their investors by winning large amounts of BTC, yet small enough so that investors still had positive returns. It is also possible that the house simply had "bad luck".

My point is more that if a bankroll has historically earned "significantly" less then the house edge over a large volume of bets, then maybe it is not a good idea to invest in that site's bankroll.

A large amount of variance may also be an indication that gambling volume is too small for the size of the bankroll.

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

Fair enough

Exactly how much deviation from the EV is necessary to make the above conclusions, and over what periods of time are both unknown and are both up to the individual (potential) investor to decide.

However yes, historical data should absolutely influence your decision to invest in the bankroll or not because this data can assist in helping you conclude if a site is 100% "above board" or not.

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 =)

I think this data should be one factor in determining if it is a good idea to invest in the bankroll. There are several other factors as well.

Also to be very clear, I am not accusing you nor moneypot of any wrongdoing, nor am I implying as much. I just happened to see statements about bankroll investing that I disagreed with that happened to be in your thread. Although this was posted in the Moneypot thread, it would probably be more relevant if it was in a more general thread in the gambling section. 

[hopenotlate]

I made this page for it http://dicesites.com/moneypot and the most popular MP site has historical stats/graphs: http://dicesites.com/betterbets If you do the extra math it can give a decent impression of the expectations, although it's not really complete.

very nice page. love the stats

Completely agree, that spread between profit and expected profit is exactly what I was looking for: it really display if investors (looking from my perspective) have been lucky, unlucky  or they are just earning what they expect to.

You shouldn't allow the historical charts to influence your decision of whether to invest or not.

What happened in the past has no bearing on what happens in the future in terms of whether gamblers perform better or worse than expected. All you should consider is your expected earnings going forward, the variance, and how much you trust the site.

For example, Just-Dice for BTC had a house edge of 1%, but an actual profit of around 0.35% after billions of bets, whereas Just-Dice for CLAM has the same house edge but an actual profit of 1.47% after almost a billion bets. That's over 4 times higher. Does that mean that Just-Dice for CLAM is 4 times better as an investment? No, it doesn't. Going forward it is expected that gamblers will lose 1% of everything they bet.

Am not arguing with you on this matter cause I recognize your superiority in the field.

Just want to explain better my thoughts about the bolded part: contrary of what you wrote I assume JD for BTC would be a better investing option because in the long run (I expect) profit will rise to reach  EV .

[a1choi]

Just want to explain better my thoughts about the bolded part: contrary of what you wrote I assume JD for BTC would be a better investing option because in the long run (I expect) profit will rise to reach  EV .

Actually, Both options are the same.  JD for BTC and JD for Clams both have a 1% edge.  Just because one is underperforming, and one is overperforming has no impact on future performance.  One can't say that because it is at 0.3%, that the site will have a >1.0% in the future.  It still has 1% in the future.

yes, it might rise up to get to the 1% total in the long run,

But that doenst mean that you as an investor will earn MORE than 1% of wagered in the long run.

Just because it is underperforming, doesnt mean that it'll quickly catch up..  wow this is really hard to explain.