🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com

[WEBcreator]

App owners do bet on their own sites, however they make up a very minor portion of the site volume.

Let me help in crunching down some simple number to help understand this.

Assuming that an app owner wager 100 bitcoin of volume in his 1 % house edge site, that gives him half of the house edge back to him as app owner

So 50 % of 1 % house edge * 100 bitcoins = 0.5 bitcoin

Assuming that there is no variance or anything at all, he will lose 1 bitcoin for every 100 bitcoins volume

Which means he lose approx 0.5 bitcoin every 100 bitcoin volume

In the end it will be the same as normal player betting on a 0.5 % house edge?

P.S : Is the share of app profit still 50 % of the house edge?

Your calculation is right. So basically, it is like losing 1 btc but you still are able to get back 50% of it which is 0.5btc back. However, i remember that it is not 50%. I remember there is one time i hear that it also factor in on the fee for campaign signatures and some other misc stuffs.

Yeah it seems my calculation is wrong, it cant be 50 % at all because the current system actually has a commission structure to moneypot for every wagered amount so it cant be that however assuming that it is then the numbers are actually correct , in the end it will be mostly the same

[MillionsBTCdev]

App owners do bet on their own sites, however they make up a very minor portion of the site volume.

Let me help in crunching down some simple number to help understand this.

Assuming that an app owner wager 100 bitcoin of volume in his 1 % house edge site, that gives him half of the house edge back to him as app owner

So 50 % of 1 % house edge * 100 bitcoins = 0.5 bitcoin

Assuming that there is no variance or anything at all, he will lose 1 bitcoin for every 100 bitcoins volume

Which means he lose approx 0.5 bitcoin every 100 bitcoin volume

In the end it will be the same as normal player betting on a 0.5 % house edge?

P.S : Is the share of app profit still 50 % of the house edge?

Your calculation is right. So basically, it is like losing 1 btc but you still are able to get back 50% of it which is 0.5btc back. However, i remember that it is not 50%. I remember there is one time i hear that it also factor in on the fee for campaign signatures and some other misc stuffs.

Yeah it seems my calculation is wrong, it cant be 50 % at all because the current system actually has a commission structure to moneypot for every wagered amount so it cant be that however assuming that it is then the numbers are actually correct , in the end it will be mostly the same

50%(last time i checked) of the Housed Edge goes to App owner, no deductions,fees(except when withdrawing,miner fees).. The other 50% is then split 20-30(last time i checked) between Moneypot & Investor.

[hua_hui]

App owners do bet on their own sites, however they make up a very minor portion of the site volume.

Let me help in crunching down some simple number to help understand this.

Assuming that an app owner wager 100 bitcoin of volume in his 1 % house edge site, that gives him half of the house edge back to him as app owner

So 50 % of 1 % house edge * 100 bitcoins = 0.5 bitcoin

Assuming that there is no variance or anything at all, he will lose 1 bitcoin for every 100 bitcoins volume

Which means he lose approx 0.5 bitcoin every 100 bitcoin volume

In the end it will be the same as normal player betting on a 0.5 % house edge?

P.S : Is the share of app profit still 50 % of the house edge?

Your calculation is right. So basically, it is like losing 1 btc but you still are able to get back 50% of it which is 0.5btc back. However, i remember that it is not 50%. I remember there is one time i hear that it also factor in on the fee for campaign signatures and some other misc stuffs.

Yeah it seems my calculation is wrong, it cant be 50 % at all because the current system actually has a commission structure to moneypot for every wagered amount so it cant be that however assuming that it is then the numbers are actually correct , in the end it will be mostly the same

50%(last time i checked) of the Housed Edge goes to App owner, no deductions,fees(except when withdrawing,miner fees).. The other 50% is then split 20-30(last time i checked) between Moneypot & Investor.

You mean that if the app owner want to advertise about his games, he actually need to fork out from his 50%? And i dont know the investor only get this low percentage of the profit. I always think it is much higher. With the crazy amount of bankroll, no wonder that the profit is increasing at a very slow rate right now.

[Deuceisgood]

Apps can be set up to run on their own BR and kick back bets larger than what they can handle to MoneyPot ...

For investors I think this is a relevant disclosure, and should be disclosed somewhere other than in random forum posts. I'm sure you look at the data and can see that essentially no apps (volume) are using this feature (?) so it is not relevant, but they could choose to use it, and it could become relevant at any time.

Does MP have some type of basic 'investment disclosure' that it provides bankroll investors? I've been using MP for a while, but don't recall seeing one. Then again, I don't recall looking for one either ... :-)

[AcoinL.L.C]

App owners do bet on their own sites, however they make up a very minor portion of the site volume.

Let me help in crunching down some simple number to help understand this.

Assuming that an app owner wager 100 bitcoin of volume in his 1 % house edge site, that gives him half of the house edge back to him as app owner

So 50 % of 1 % house edge * 100 bitcoins = 0.5 bitcoin

Assuming that there is no variance or anything at all, he will lose 1 bitcoin for every 100 bitcoins volume

Which means he lose approx 0.5 bitcoin every 100 bitcoin volume

In the end it will be the same as normal player betting on a 0.5 % house edge?

P.S : Is the share of app profit still 50 % of the house edge?

Your calculation is right. So basically, it is like losing 1 btc but you still are able to get back 50% of it which is 0.5btc back. However, i remember that it is not 50%. I remember there is one time i hear that it also factor in on the fee for campaign signatures and some other misc stuffs.

Yeah it seems my calculation is wrong, it cant be 50 % at all because the current system actually has a commission structure to moneypot for every wagered amount so it cant be that however assuming that it is then the numbers are actually correct , in the end it will be mostly the same

50%(last time i checked) of the Housed Edge goes to App owner, no deductions,fees(except when withdrawing,miner fees).. The other 50% is then split 20-30(last time i checked) between Moneypot & Investor.

You mean that if the app owner want to advertise about his games, he actually need to fork out from his 50%? And i dont know the investor only get this low percentage of the profit. I always think it is much higher. With the crazy amount of bankroll, no wonder that the profit is increasing at a very slow rate right now.

We have had this fee structure in place for the past half year (and it was announced when we did it), the vast majority of investments is made up by a few investors and they are satisfied with the way the business is operated. The only reason profit has been moving slow recently is because we had 4 days of downtime just a week ago, and over the past few days we have had a player win over 40 BTC (https://www.moneypot.com/users/copypasta).

Also a bit curious as to who you think should be paying for apps advertising if not the app owners

[AcoinL.L.C]

Apps can be set up to run on their own BR and kick back bets larger than what they can handle to MoneyPot ...

For investors I think this is a relevant disclosure, and should be disclosed somewhere other than in random forum posts. I'm sure you look at the data and can see that essentially no apps (volume) are using this feature (?) so it is not relevant, but they could choose to use it, and it could become relevant at any time.

Does MP have some type of basic 'investment disclosure' that it provides bankroll investors? I've been using MP for a while, but don't recall seeing one. Then again, I don't recall looking for one either ... :-)

Terms are here:
https://www.moneypot.com/faq#what-is-the-investment-option-

The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets.

[Xanidas]

my withdrawal is still unconfirmed after 10hours because of low transaction fee. Can you please fix this so that all future withdrawal willl not only add 100bits fee but only pays 2k-6k satoshi network fee

[Deuceisgood]

The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets.

Well, it would definitely affect the Volatility of pool returns if apps are taking all the small bets and the pool only underwrites the largest bets. Of course as you say, that is not happening now. And volatility does affect the pool value in and of itself, so I'd like to suggest that yes, it does affect the investment pool. (A pool +EV with higher volatility is less valuable than the same EV with lower volatility.)

A primary concern of all investors is the prospect of a 'Hufflepuff' type event - you may recall the guy who hacked/broke primedice for an egregious stack of coins. Hufflepuff didn't do that with small bets - he was a 'whale.' So when an app owner takes on the small bets themselves but leaves the largest bets to the investment pool they are in effect hedging their 'hack risk' given the hack will manifest with very large bets.

TL;DR : Apparently an investment in the MP bankroll is not necessarily positioned to underwrite all bets. In fact at any given moment it is not clear which, or what percentage of bets, are being underwritten by the public bankroll, and how much is underwritten by the apps themselves.

Again, I totally believe you that the app owners are not underwriting their own bets with any consistency, and thus it is 'not an issue' ... now. But I think as MP grows, it could be.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult. As an 'investor' I just like to understand what I'm invested in ...

[AcoinL.L.C]

my withdrawal is still unconfirmed after 10hours because of low transaction fee. Can you please fix this so that all future withdrawal willl not only add 100bits fee but only pays 2k-6k satoshi network fee

You can choose the priority option which charges 200 bits instead of 100.

The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets.

Well, it would definitely affect the Volatility of pool returns if apps are taking all the small bets and the pool only underwrites the largest bets. Of course as you say, that is not happening now. And volatility does affect the pool value in and of itself, so I'd like to suggest that yes, it does affect the investment pool. (A pool +EV with higher volatility is less valuable than the same EV with lower volatility.)

A primary concern of all investors is the prospect of a 'Hufflepuff' type event - you may recall the guy who hacked/broke primedice for an egregious stack of coins. Hufflepuff didn't do that with small bets - he was a 'whale.' So when an app owner takes on the small bets themselves but leaves the largest bets to the investment pool they are in effect hedging their 'hack risk' given the hack will manifest with very large bets.

TL;DR : Apparently an investment in the MP bankroll is not necessarily positioned to underwrite all bets. In fact at any given moment it is not clear which, or what percentage of bets, are being underwritten by the public bankroll, and how much is underwritten by the apps themselves.

Again, I totally believe you that the app owners are not underwriting their own bets with any consistency, and thus it is 'not an issue' ... now. But I think as MP grows, it could be.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult. As an 'investor' I just like to understand what I'm invested in ...

Hufflepuff abused a flaw in PrimeDice's system, that is not relevant to legitimate players. We want players to bet big, small bets make up a very, very small percentage of casino revenue.

Again, this is not occurring at the moment and if apps decide to start doing this MoneyPot is able to change our T&C accordingly.

No where does MoneyPot promise low volatility to people who play as the house, nor will we. If you are unable to handle swings in the bankroll you should probably divest. Compared to our competitors such as Bet King and BitDice, and SafeDice, we have extremely low volatility (mainly because we have a large "bread and butter" base). As an investor you should want the larger bets: small bets do not make the bankroll anything.

The bottom line is as long as bets are kelly compliant, MoneyPot is happy to take them.

[ranlo]

The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets.

Well, it would definitely affect the Volatility of pool returns if apps are taking all the small bets and the pool only underwrites the largest bets. Of course as you say, that is not happening now. And volatility does affect the pool value in and of itself, so I'd like to suggest that yes, it does affect the investment pool. (A pool +EV with higher volatility is less valuable than the same EV with lower volatility.)

A primary concern of all investors is the prospect of a 'Hufflepuff' type event - you may recall the guy who hacked/broke primedice for an egregious stack of coins. Hufflepuff didn't do that with small bets - he was a 'whale.' So when an app owner takes on the small bets themselves but leaves the largest bets to the investment pool they are in effect hedging their 'hack risk' given the hack will manifest with very large bets.

TL;DR : Apparently an investment in the MP bankroll is not necessarily positioned to underwrite all bets. In fact at any given moment it is not clear which, or what percentage of bets, are being underwritten by the public bankroll, and how much is underwritten by the apps themselves.

Again, I totally believe you that the app owners are not underwriting their own bets with any consistency, and thus it is 'not an issue' ... now. But I think as MP grows, it could be.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult. As an 'investor' I just like to understand what I'm invested in ...

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

[Xanidas]

my withdrawal is still unconfirmed after 10hours because of low transaction fee. Can you please fix this so that all future withdrawal willl not only add 100bits fee but only pays 2k-6k satoshi network fee

You can choose the priority option which charges 200 bits instead of 100.

i read somewhere in this thread that a user chose to pay 200bits transaction fee when withdrawing but moneypot still paid less than 10k as network fee so i didn't pay more just to recieve same TX fees on my withdrawal :/

[DarkStar_]

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

[Deuceisgood]

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc ...

There seems to be some confusion, so I will simplify:

As a bankroll investor I've been under the impression that I get a piece of EVERY BET. If in fact app owners have an opportunity to cherry pick bet flow, in any way, that should be disclosed clearly. Irregardless of whether you believe that benefits, disadvantages, or is otherwise neutral for bankroll investors.


*I'm a happy investor, fully get that app owners need certain accommodations, and know that nobody has been short-changed or misled. Still as MP grows and evolves, things will not always be so simple. I'm suggesting that if bankroll investors are not underwriting every bet, that should be disclosed.

[AcoinL.L.C]

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc ...

There seems to be some confusion, so I will simplify:

As a bankroll investor I've been under the impression that I get a piece of EVERY BET. If in fact app owners have an opportunity to cherry pick bet flow, in any way, that should be disclosed clearly. Irregardless of whether you believe that benefits, disadvantages, or is otherwise neutral for bankroll investors.


*I'm a happy investor, fully get that app owners need certain accommodations, and know that nobody has been short-changed or misled. Still as MP grows and evolves, things will not always be so simple. I'm suggesting that if bankroll investors are not underwriting every bet, that should be disclosed.

I am not confused at all, I think you are misunderstanding the situation. This is not an issue whatsoever, if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C. We make money when volume flows through MoneyPot, just like bankroll investors And you are receiving a piece of every bet that flows through MoneyPot, even if apps did only kick back certain bets to MoneyPot, MoneyPot would not be handling the rest of their bets.

[retrocoingames]

So I just invested a small amount in the bankroll

Not sure if this has been answered already or not but can you change the kelly of the investment or is it all 1x?

[Deuceisgood]

So I just invested a small amount in the bankroll

Not sure if this has been answered already or not but can you change the kelly of the investment or is it all 1x?

It is all 1x here. Other places offer leverage ... I've been happy here, more or less.

[Deuceisgood]

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

[JackpotRacer]

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

thanks for pointing this out and 100% correct but investors should understand that all bets are +EV and that it was at the end of the day (year) counts. it looks that many investors or players don't know what +EV means and that variances are there and always will be.

[ranlo]

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

We can't take into consideration anything but the 1 BTC bet, which stands on its own. The rest is all situational and you don't know what happened: they could have busted on run #1 (site a wins, MP wins), they could have tripled up first (site a loses, MP wins), they could make it and stop (site a loses, MP loses). Because of this conditional setup, you can only take into consideration a single bet: the one that would have been on MP regardless.

If someone goes to BetKing and bets 1 (lose), 2 (lose), 4 (lose), 8 (lose) and then stops and comes to MP and bets 16, should MP have said "no bro, you were on BetKing before and they got all your losses to this point so you can no longer play here?" That's essentially the same scenario, just a bit more of a hassle on the player's part.

[cazkooo]

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though