[Proposal] SatoshiDice Pool (Crowdfunded gambling)

[Matthew N. Wright]

Mining pools do it. They spread the risk of mining across multiple individuals and their hardware and share the rewards.

Why not a pool of people who deposit bitcoins for betting on SatoshiDice where the shares are determined by how many multiples of 0.01 BTC are deposited, and if let's say a jackpot of 640 BTC is won, it would be split across those shareholders?

[Tomatocage]

Interesting idea. Individual miners could mine just as they normally would, but pool proceeds go directly to SatoshiDice?

[Bowjob]

There;s no point, really. It's all the same result. House wins, mining pool loses.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Interesting idea. Individual miners could mine just as they normally would, but pool proceeds go directly to SatoshiDice?

I think I might have not been clear enough in my OP.

I am talking about a situation where, similar to mining pools, people pool their resources (in this case bitcoins instead of mining hardware) to achieve the same goal (getting a jackpot). In other words, there is an address for them to send bitcoins to, it records their address as a "shareholder", and records the amount sent divisible by 0.01 BTC as "shares". Then it proceeds to bet with those shares. If it wins *ever*, all "shareholders" in that iteration will get the amount sent to them in proportion to how many shares they own and how many shares there are total. After that, it could either keep the same shareholders on board or wipe the slate clean each jackpot.

If it took 1000 people each putting in 1 BTC to get 640 BTC, then they'd get less than 1 BTC back obviously, but that might not happen. The point of this would be to allow more people more chances of winning *something* and not depleting their wallets in the process. It probably doesn't change the probabilities of hitting a jackpot *at all*, but it does actually change the probabilities of a single person winning part of it.

TL;DR? Crowdfunded gambling.

[dooglus]

If anyone wants to do this, I'll give you an address you can send to.  I'll deduct 1.9% and send the rest back to you.

You can imagine that's the result of having your bet averaged out with millions of other bets if you like.  Either way you lose 1.9%.

So who wants in?

[Matthew N. Wright]

You can imagine that's the result of having your bet averaged out with millions of other bets if you like.  Either way you lose 1.9%.

You're predicting an outcome that isn't true for everyone (some people might win after 10 bets placed with only 10 shareholders, making them all large winners), but you're also predicting it based on a surplus of funds, assuming that people could keep betting on their own with their own money (something this pool would be designed to help with). Some people only have 0.01 BTC for example and cannot continue betting-- wouldn't allowing them to pool-bet be a better solution if they are already aware of the risks? Wouldn't the benefit in this case be that they are able to increase their probability of winning something over nothing based on the amount of bets?

Also, why didn't you answer your PM? (It wasn't about the topic of this thread btw)

[thoughtfan]

In the UK the National Lottery has a built-in feature to facilitate this called 'Syndicates' whereby families, work colleagues, sports teams etc. pool their resources to play and split the proceeds.  'The house' i.e. the amount not going out in prizes in the case of the the UK 'Lotto' is 50% (the other 50% being split as: 28%   'good causes',
12%   tax, 5% retaiers, 5%   lotto operator) and people accept they have a higher chance of being run over by a bus than to win the big prizes but people still have fun with it.  So why not with SD?  With the idea as proposed, i.e. a random pool of people who don't know one another I can see less of an attraction than if it's a gang of people who know one another and have something in common but really as far as I (as an SD stockholder) is concerned, anything that makes the game more fun and more attractive for people to have a go at is a good thing - even if our 'house edge' is miniscule in comparison.

[organofcorti]

If anyone wants to do this, I'll give you an address you can send to.  I'll deduct 1.9% and send the rest back to you.

You can imagine that's the result of having your bet averaged out with millions of other bets if you like.  Either way you lose 1.9%.

So who wants in?

If the pool made millions of bets this would be correct. But the way I read Matthew's suggestion is that the members coins would be added together for one or two or a few bets.

In that case the variance is similar to a single bettor, or as thoughtfan suggests similar to a lottery syndicate (edit: I was actually thinking of a lotto syndicate) - especially if the idea was to contribute a small amount to a syndicate for one of the least probable wins. You'll probably lose it all, but if you win, you win big. It's not much like being in a mining pool at all, really.

The only difference between betting in a syndicate and betting alone is that the minimum amount you can bet will be reduced. The downside of this is that for whoever actually places the bet there will be a possibly significant tx fee from all the tiny contributions.

[dooglus]

Also, why didn't you answer your PM? (It wasn't about the topic of this thread btw)

I did:

Sent to: Matthew N. Wright on: April 02, 2013, 06:35:32 PM »
Quote  Reply  Remove 
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on April 02, 2013, 09:50:04 AM
[deleted]

Hi Matt.

I already have you on Skype.  You've been set to "do not disturb" for the last 6 months or so, so I've not disturbed you...

I'm 'dooglus' on Skype btw.

Chris.

[Zaih]

Gamblings all relevant lol

Your just going for a higher shot at a smaller jackpot by doing that. If you're interested in that, then just shoot for a smaller jackpot with better odd's.

[Xenland]

Me and another reputable member are discussing "mining pools" for an alt satoshi dice it basically involves "mining" for the fairness of your game. There is no "more mining equals more fairness" since its all verifiable information. Well I can't discuss too much details but hey the idea is already out of the bag

[dooglus]

Gamblings all relevant lol

Your just going for a higher shot at a smaller jackpot by doing that. If you're interested in that, then just shoot for a smaller jackpot with better odd's.

So 64 people could get together and make 64 bets on "lessthan 1" and share any winnings.  Or they could each individually bet on "lessthan 64", and have pretty much the same expected return and variance without the extra counter-party risk of having to trust the pool operator.

Of course the house edge on "lessthan 1" is about 3% less than on any other bet on the site (1.843% vs. 1.9%), and that alone may make the pool worth using.

[keatonatron]

In the UK the National Lottery...

When dealing with a lottery, pooling bets does make sense, because the more you buy the higher your odds of winning are.

Pooling together lessens the payout each person gets, but increases each person's odds.

Satoshi dice is not a lottery. No matter how much money you put in, your odds are exactly the same. Pooling together would not change the payout each person gets, and not increase their odds.

It would be valid if the OP simplified it to "Hey, everyone who doesn't have enough to make the minimum bet should put their money together and then share any winnings." But for anyone who has at least 0.01btc, it's not an attractive deal.

If I gave 0.01 btc to the pool and you bet it for me, I'd get the exact same odds and payout as if I had sent that payment straight to Satoshi dice.

[dooglus]

Satoshi dice is not a lottery. No matter how much money you put in, your odds are exactly the same. Pooling together would not change the payout each person gets, and not increase their odds.

I don't think you understand the proposal.

It goes like this:

a) You have 0.01 BTC.  You bet on 'lessthan 1'.  You have a 1 in 65536 chance of winning 640 BTC.

b) You join up with 127 other people who each have 0.01 BTC.  You play 'lessthan 1' 128 times and share any winnings.  You have a 1 in 512.993 chance of winning 5 BTC (when one of your 100 plays wins), a 1 in 529433 chance of winning 10 BTC (when 2 of your plays win), and a tiny chance of winning more (when 3 or more of your plays win).

So you have a bigger chance of winning, but win less when you win; very similar to if you just played "lessthan 128", which gives you a 1 in 512 chance of winning 4.99717 BTC.

[keatonatron]

I don't think you understand the proposal.

I get it. And you yourself just explained why it isn't a good deal:

...You have a 1 in 512.993 chance of winning 5 BTC... very similar to if you just played "lessthan 128", which gives you a 1 in 512 chance of winning 4.99717 BTC.

As I said, there is a reason for it if you don't even have 0.01.

But compare pooling your 0.01 with 127 people to playing 0.01 yourself 127 times.
The first method will give you 1/127 the reward the second method will give you.

If you played with the pool 100 times, you will end up the same as playing by yourself 12700 times. And this is essentially how satoshi dice (and roullette, etc) works. The only way to win is to walk away when you are ahead. The more you play, the more your winnings will come close to 98% of your investment.

[keatonatron]

Why not just have someone develop a trading bot, could be better odds in making the money back?

I don't know how to calculate the odds for a trading bot. Depends on if it works or not 

The odds for betting are easy because they tell you right on the site!
98% betting odds means after 100 or so bets, you should have 98% of the money you started with.  After the first couple of bets you might have more or less than that, but the longer you go the closer your total balance will equal 98%. At first it's tempting to think a large number of bets will let you win more overall and the big wins will outweigh small loses, but it's actually the large number of bets that makes the percentages work.

[organofcorti]

The only way to win is to walk away when you are ahead. The more you play, the more your winnings will come close to 98% of your investment.

No. What happens if your first roll is a loss? You walk away, and you don't win. Please, nobody pay attention to this strategy.

[dooglus]

The only way to win is to walk away when you are ahead. The more you play, the more your winnings will come close to 98% of your investment.

No. What happens if your first roll is a loss? You walk away, and you don't win. Please, nobody pay attention to this strategy.

What he said is true:

1) The only way to win is to stop playing before you lose.
2) The longer you play, the closer you get to losing 1.9% of everything you risk.

I don't know that he's suggesting a strategy.  His first point isn't saying you're guaranteed a win, just that if you don't stop when you're up then you'll not be up when you stop, which is self-evident.