MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet

[ndnh]

@JackpotRacer You understand that the new set up is actually more profitable to you and other devs, than the previous one?


The following won't be applicable once you make the max bet equal or below the 50% of HE (check the dooglus' chart)

sorry but why should get the Investor for a zero risk bet 50% of HE? that is very unfair IMO because he gets 100% for a full risk bet and the app owner gets nothing

the app owner is doing all he can (including costly promos) to bring players to the table and a whale comes and wants to bet maximum and app owner gets nothing for the max bet because the risk is with the investor = ok accepted

So as long as max bet is below 0.5% of the bankroll:
1. You get a flat 50% off HE. More earnings than previous guaranteed.
2. Predictable profit (constant profit to wager ration - better decisions)

(check the chart. The first chart starts from 50% and goes down. The second one (current) goes straight at 50)

(Green)

[1715467418]

1715467418

[1715467418]

1715467418

[1715467418]

1715467418

[1715467418]

1715467418

[1715467418]

1715467418

[1715467418]

1715467418

[JackpotRacer]

@JackpotRacer You understand that the new set up is actually more profitable to you and other devs, than the previous one?


The following won't be applicable once you make the max bet equal or below the 50% of HE (check the dooglus' chart)

sorry but why should get the Investor for a zero risk bet 50% of HE? that is very unfair IMO because he gets 100% for a full risk bet and the app owner gets nothing

the app owner is doing all he can (including costly promos) to bring players to the table and a whale comes and wants to bet maximum and app owner gets nothing for the max bet because the risk is with the investor = ok accepted

So as long as max bet is below 0.5% of the bankroll:
1. You get a flat 50% off HE. More earnings than previous guaranteed.
2. Predictable profit (constant profit to wager ration - better decisions)

(check the chart. The first chart starts from 50% and goes down. The second one (current) goes straight at 50)

I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors

and as you are the maths genius here please explain us why the Investors should get 50% with a zero risk bet

thank you for the input

[ndnh]

I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors

In your opinion, you prefer the previous one?

Okay. I give up.

[JackpotRacer]

I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors

In your opinion, you prefer the previous one?

Okay. I give up.

hmmm so let me ask you

the new set up is better or worse for the Investors?

[BlackPanda]

I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors

In your opinion, you prefer the previous one?

Okay. I give up.

hmmm so let me ask you

the new set up is better or worse for the Investors?

better than the first as a "performance"

[NLNico]

Is it possible to exclude apps as an investor?

[ndnh]

Is it possible to exclude apps as an investor?

Nope. (It is only possible to fund moneypot as a whole at the moment, and at least in the near future AFAIK. as you might already know.)

IMO, the issue is it would place some apps at a disadvantage, esp. emerging ones with lower house edge.


Honestly, I would like a feature like that too, if I am investing.

[RHavar]

I love hearing proposals, but as profit-share is inherently a zero-sum game it's pretty draining to hear: "On X site investors get Y, we should get it too!"  and  "If i privately bankrolled i'd make twice as much!". Both statements are true, but it doesn't really help me strike a balance between apps, investors and myself.

I understand that you are not an app owner and IMO the new set up is better for the Investors

and as you are the maths genius here please explain us why the Investors should get 50% with a zero risk bet

thank you for the input

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose, but as it's been repeated over and over in most cases the new scheme is better for investors, and in all cases the new scheme is better for you. In the case of a 0% risk bet, it went from:

JackpotRacer: 50%
MoneyPot: 50%
Investors: 50%

to:

JackpotRacer: 50%
MoneyPot: 5%
Investors: 45%

In fact, it should be a real positive for you as it'll encourage more investments which will allow you to place bigger bets.

[NLNico]

I wasn't really serious, although there would be one app that I would currently exclude.

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

Then Ryan decides to give his share to the app and mostly investors and this JP guy is still complaining? Really? Even now the commission is 2 till 6 times higher than other dice invest sites. But that's okay, I understand apps need a decent share too.

I would just expect a little bit more appreciation from app owners towards the people that bankroll their website.


I personally think the new scheme is fair for all.

[RHavar]

Is it possible to exclude apps as an investor?

This is not possible, and not something I've currently planned (or understand the usecase)

Under what circumstances would you want this feature? The only one that comes to mind right now is a punitive one?

[ndnh]

I wasn't really serious, although there would be one app that I would currently exclude.

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

Then Ryan decides to give his share to the app and mostly investors and this JP guy is still complaining? Really? Even now the commission is 2 till 6 times higher than other dice invest sites. But that's okay, I understand apps need a decent share too.

I would just expect a little bit more appreciation from app owners towards the people that bankroll their website.


I personally think the new scheme is fair for all.

Zero risk to the investor means a player betting 1 satoshi for which the risk tends towards 0. At least that is what I thought.

Yeah, I would expect devs to be very appreciative of this set up. (apps who limit the max bet below 0.5% of BR still gets very good advantage) Especially since Moneypot themselves reduced their share to make it a very fair deal for everyone.

Overall, the distribution is very fair imo.

[RHavar]

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

While investors always have the risk of trust me with their money, it's indeed possible to place a bet that poses no-risk to investors. For instance if you play that roulette game, and put a 1 bet on every number (including 0) its impossible for the investor to lose (or the player to win).  Not really a common case for single-player games, but it's easy to imagine in a multiplayer bet  (Bob wins 1.99x if it's heads, Matt wins 1.99x if it's tails) where they both bet the same amount.

Currently investors will make 50% of the house edge for that bet (even though they shouldered no risk, so it's effectively free money) but it's really such an edge case at the moment

[JackpotRacer]

I wasn't really serious, although there would be one app that I would currently exclude.

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

Then Ryan decides to give his share to the app and mostly investors and this JP guy is still complaining? Really? Even now the commission is 2 till 6 times higher than other dice invest sites. But that's okay, I understand apps need a decent share too.

I would just expect a little bit more appreciation from app owners towards the people that bankroll their website.


I personally think the new scheme is fair for all.

.........and this JP guy is still complaining?
to be frank this does'nt sound nice and I don't remember that I attacked you in any posting I did.
yes please tell me what is a zero bet? it looks like that you and ndnhc don't understand what a zero bet is but complaining that JP guy is complaining.............

each one should be allowed to have his opinion and to share and discuss it. yes Ryan is the boss of MP
and can do what he likes. fine with me as I appreciate all his work but does it mean that he is always right? no and that is same with me you and many others.

btw BTC IMO is represents real democracy

and yes I am still complaining that it is unfair to give Investors 50% of a zero risk bet. but I invite all app owners to let us now their opinion regarding the zero risk bet even if they think otherwise

right now I am the only one here who is giving his opinion.

[agustina2]

I don't want to interfere with your current discussion since it is so much confidential. I just want someone who can enlightened me about investing in moneypot's bankroll. I want to give it a try.

[ndnh]

it looks like that you and ndnhc don't understand what a zero bet is but complaining that JP guy is complaining.............

Even if I don't understand, it makes absolutely no sense for you to complain.

While you might consider me an idiot (read math genius), I am not.

(though I admit both NLNico and Ryan knows these things better than me.)

I don't want to interfere with your current discussion since it is so much confidential.

lol, confidential means secret.

[JackpotRacer]

What is "zero risk" anyway? Investors always have risk, with every bet. Just the fact that we trust MP with our bitcoins is a huge risk.

While investors always have the risk of trust me with their money, it's indeed possible to place a bet that poses no-risk to investors. For instance if you play that roulette game, and put a 1 bet on every number (including 0) its impossible for the investor to lose (or the player to win).  Not really a common case for single-player games, but it's easy to imagine in a multiplayer bet  (Bob wins 1.99x if it's heads, Matt wins 1.99x if it's tails) where they both bet the same amount.

Currently investors will make 50% of the house edge for that bet (even though they shouldered no risk, so it's effectively free money) but it's really such an edge case at the moment

thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.

and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment  our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.

and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%

and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk

[ndnh]

thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.

and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment  our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.

and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%

and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk

I agree (to some particular parts of the argument). You should have mentioned that this suggestion is particularly relevant to your app. But still, your suggestion that the app owner gets 50% is already there (unless you plan to suggest everything goes to the app owner).
And still your position is the same or better than before which doesn't really explain your stand.

Usually a continuity is expected. If zero risk bets gives nothing to investors, and an extremely small risk tending towards zero gives 50% of edge to investors, it would be a little awkward. Correcting that would put things like the previous set up with less or no predictability of earnings.

lol, once again I don't see why you are complaining.
What investor gets should go to Moneypot?

[agustina2]

lol, confidential means secret.

What I mean is very important. You take time replying to my post but not on my concerned Anyways back on your discussion. I will back again later.

[JackpotRacer]

lol, confidential means secret.

What I mean is very important. You take time replying to my post but not on my concerned Anyways back on your discussion. I will back again later.

please go here https://www.moneypot.com/faq to get all the info and if you have any questions please come back here

cheers

[ndnh]

lol, confidential means secret.

What I mean is very important. You take time replying to my post but not on my concerned : ( : ( : ( Anyways back on your discussion. I will back again later.

Hey, that was because Ryan (Moneypot admin) is more eligible to answer the particular question that I (some guy who likes to argue and learn stuff) am.