MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet

[leen93]

when i invested 0.01 bit was just gone 
and not any bet was made
seems not only your description of investments sucks but you are also just stealing people's money?

[1715101244]

1715101244

[1715101244]

1715101244

[1715101244]

1715101244

[1715101244]

1715101244

[1715101244]

1715101244

[leen93]

Site Bankroll: 22,487,123.85 bits
Wagered against bankroll: 51,801,251 bits
Investor Profit: -737,615.82 bits
Your stake: < 0.01 %
Your amount: 99,999.98 bits

this investment is not < 0,01%

everything is just wrong on this website 

[faince222]

Yes but what is the sense of a bitcoin gambling wallet? Why I have to use it when I can use a common wallet?

[arallmuus]

Yes but what is the sense of a bitcoin gambling wallet? Why I have to use it when I can use a common wallet?

If you take time to check the site and read the post, you will actually know why is that the vault is better than common wallet for gambling purposes, In short, I find this will be the best explanation of how it works for everyone else, it actually help you to be safer from a new gambling sites that might steal your balance after you deposit on it

As I understand it, one of the selling points of MoneyPot is that the gambling sites you deposit to using it never get access to the coins you deposit unless you lose them, and so players don't need to trust new gambling sites which use MoneyPot, they only need to trust you. As the player loses coins on a MoneyPot-linked gambling site the player's balance (at MoneyPot) is debited and the site's balance (at MoneyPot) is credited. To get their coins the gambling site requests a withdrawal from their MoneyPot account.

[RHavar]

So I'm still a little confused.

Suppose one of your app owners goes rogue. I have authorised them to take 1000 bits of my moneypot balance, but I never place a bet on the rogue site. Can the rogue app just take my 1000 bits? Or would they have to make API calls to the moneypot provably fair betting system until 'I' lost those 1000 bits?

I initially thought you were ensuring fair play by only allowing them to take from my balance when I lost some bets. But now it sounds as if they can take and keep whatever I authorise them access to which kind of removes one of the key advantages of moneypot (protection from rogue new app just stealing player balances).

Your "we were thinking about re-adding" confused me. What did you un-add and why?

Originally we imagined it as you describe, and required you to put limits in place such as "It can lose up to X, wager up to Y, play with a house edge of less than Z" but it was simply too confusing to users, and was very hard to explain. Now we settled on a much simpler "balance" system, where you transfer money to the app and play with it. The app can only spend from its balance, but nothing more. Since you can do instant transfers, it's extremely easy to top up this balance on demand. People have had no problems understanding it (unlike a permissions based scheme) as that's how they're already used to using a casino. But we're not opposed to the idea of re-adding some more fine-tuned permissions for advanced users.

[RHavar]

what are strange bets?  I understood that MP is taking care that the app owner =OP will not cheat the investors

That's correct, MP protects investors from malicious apps. We check every bet, and require them to play against our provably fair secret, so we know they're not cheating. By "strange bets" I meant bets, I was referring to it from a users perspective. If you authorize an app, and it starts gambling away your money, those are "strange bets". MP itself has no way of knowing if you intended those bets to be placed or not (after all, you authorized the app), so it allows them through.

[RHavar]

when i invested 0.01 bit was just gone 
and not any bet was made
seems not only your description of investments sucks but you are also just stealing people's money?

There's a good reason it shows like that, but I might change the behavior to make it less confusing. It's just a
view-layer rounding of a single satoshis, and investing and divesting all works fine:

Site Bankroll: 22,487,123.85 bits
Wagered against bankroll: 51,801,251 bits
Investor Profit: -737,615.82 bits
Your stake: < 0.01 %
Your amount: 99,999.98 bits

this investment is not < 0,01%

everything is just wrong on this website 

Ah thanks, nice catch. We show  < 0.01% if your stake is less than 0.005 but in reality it should be if your stake is less than 0.00005. I just fixed that, and it should display properly now

[RHavar]

please explain this because like this it's surely a negative EV and you are just betraying other people. there is no reason to not charge a normal commision (under the expected EV of the game) like every other dice website does

The investors will never be given a bet that is -EV, as it's a requirement that it is "acceptable" as per the kelly criterion. The reason we don't charge a normally commission, is because imagine there are two MoneyPot casinos, one who offers a game of 1% house edge dice and another offers keno, with a 20% house edge.

 From the investors perspective it doesn't matter what game people are playing, but from the casinos perspective it's huge. The keno game should expect its players to run out of money 20x faster, and have much more trouble getting customers. If we gave that huge edge to the investors, the business would be unviable for the keno casino and they wouldn't be able to use MoneyPot. So the way it works, is use the extra money to pay the casino rather than the investors. But the important thing is investors still get a good deal, they just get the worst good deal.

We hope this translates into more bankroll turnover, which should makeup for it.

[leen93]

please explain this because like this it's surely a negative EV and you are just betraying other people. there is no reason to not charge a normal commision (under the expected EV of the game) like every other dice website does

The investors will never be given a bet that is -EV, as it's a requirement that it is "acceptable" as per the kelly criterion. The reason we don't charge a normally commission, is because imagine there are two MoneyPot casinos, one who offers a game of 1% house edge dice and another offers keno, with a 20% house edge.

 From the investors perspective it doesn't matter what game people are playing, but from the casinos perspective it's huge. The keno game should expect its players to run out of money 20x faster, and have much more trouble getting customers. If we gave that huge edge to the investors, the business would be unviable for the keno casino and they wouldn't be able to use MoneyPot. So the way it works, is use the extra money to pay the casino rather than the investors. But the important thing is investors still get a good deal, they just get the worst good deal.

We hope this translates into more bankroll turnover, which should makeup for it.

then me and other investors want to know how much, the exact calculations. how much does our investment changes when someone wins/loses 1 btc? what's that on average?
for an investor nothing is "acceptable" as long as we don't know which EV we can "accept".

[RHavar]

then me and other investors want to know how much, the exact calculations. how much does our investment changes when someone wins/loses 1 btc? what's that on average?

There's no average, as even in the simple case of a binary bet (win or lose), it depends on the current bankroll and the house edge on the bet. I could build a debug calculator, where you enter the details and it tells you exactly based on the bankroll at the time.

for an investor nothing is "acceptable" as long as we don't know which EV we can "accept".

The criteria for that is well defined, we use a generalized kelly to determine how much of our bankroll we should risk, for a given bet. If investors are risking less than that, we consider it acceptable. If investors are risking more than that, we consider it unacceptable.

[leen93]

I'm quoting : We then minimize the multiplier, to find the worst acceptable bet that is a good deal for the investors, which might be: 4 BTC @ 85% chance of 1.20x.

I am just asking what you mean with "acceptable". It should be a fixed calculation
the average odd you get is 1.25
the odd you the investors is 1.2 -> WHY ? HOW DO YOU COME TO THIS NUMBER?
and the odd which would leave the investors at an EV of 0 is 1.17647059

why suddenly 1.2 ? how do you come up with this number?

[RHavar]

We then minimize the multiplier, to find the worst acceptable bet that is a good deal for the investors, which might be: 4 BTC @ 85% chance of 1.20x.

I am just asking what you mean with "acceptable". It should be a fixed calculation
the average odd you get is 1.25
the odd you the investors is 1.2
and the odd which would leave the investors at an EV of 0 is 1.17647059

why suddenly 1.2 ? how do you come up with this number?

We actually bisect this. We have a function which applies the generalized kelly, which says if it's acceptable to investors or not . So we start 1.25x,  and are told it's acceptable. So we decrease this to say  1.1x, and are told it's unacceptable. So we increase it, to say 1.17x and told it's unacceptable so we increase it again. We try 1.21x and told it's acceptable, so we decrease it etc.

And eventually we converge on what is the minimal good deal, and use that.

[leen93]

We then minimize the multiplier, to find the worst acceptable bet that is a good deal for the investors, which might be: 4 BTC @ 85% chance of 1.20x.

I am just asking what you mean with "acceptable". It should be a fixed calculation
the average odd you get is 1.25
the odd you the investors is 1.2
and the odd which would leave the investors at an EV of 0 is 1.17647059

why suddenly 1.2 ? how do you come up with this number?

We actually bisect this. We have a function which applies the generalized kelly, which says if it's acceptable to investors or not . So we start 1.25x,  and are told it's acceptable. So we decrease this to say  1.1x, and are told it's unacceptable. So we increase it, to say 1.17x and told it's unacceptable so we increase it again. We try 1.21x and told it's acceptable, so we decrease it etc.

And eventually we converge on what is the worst good odds, and use that.

give us that function please

[RHavar]

give us that function please

Code:

    function canAcceptBet(odds, wager, bankroll) {
        return computeKelly(x) <= wager/bankroll;
    }

where computeKelly the kelly criterion. In the case of a simple binary bet, it returns quite literally the house edge of that bet.

[Superhitech]

I'm wondering, will we ever be able to sign a message from the addresses we generate to prove we own them?

[katerniko1]

its great improvment what you made keep it up

[Kprawn]

Congrats Ryan ... I have a lot of reading to do, and can now see, why some coding could not be done quicker on features asked by the players on the old MoneyPot. {Keyboard hotkey for Payout and tipping in the game}

Hope your security is 100% covered... A vault is always a target. 

[RHavar]

waiting for my withdrawal for a long time already  

queued for a long time
smaller withdrawals are instant
WTF is happening here  

My apologizes, you're the first case of a non-instant withdrawal as the hot wallet got emptied. I try keep the hot wallet with enough money, but it's tough balance and this case I fell short of the mark. I processed the withdrawal and credited your account with 0.1 BTC for the 30 minutes or so it took me to get around to it =)

I'll work on improving this system, so it will be a very rare event. =)

[joclixx]

nice site and smooth load
please add autobet 

[leen93]

To demonstrate solvency, Vault provides a proof of liabilities.

Shouldn't you prove you own the assets to demonstrate the solvency. Proving you have liabilities and owe other people bitcoins doesn't mean you are solvent.