Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot!

[ranochigo]

why not just lower back to 100 sat reg and 1000 whitelist. that seemed to work during the pd2 days

Or just don't allow a faucet at all, until you have wagered a certain amount. Like 10btc or something.

That just completely defeat the purpose of having a faucet. Faucet allows new players to experience the site and test features without risking their actual BTC. Most of them just test it out before depositing BTC.

[1714781967]

1714781967

[1714781967]

1714781967

[MICRO]

why not just lower back to 100 sat reg and 1000 whitelist. that seemed to work during the pd2 days

That wasn't rly fair deal. Coz we (mods) get to chose who gets on that list. Its not fair , it can be subjective ...

[sickhouse]

Or you could increase support staff?

Why should they increase the amount of support staff they have so that people can leech faucet?

Because those leechers you are referring to consists of 70%+ of the community. Question, am I a faucet leecher when I have deposited 0.2+ BTC but uses faucet a lot? Also player X faucet faucet faucet 100 times, gets sick of it and deposits 0.01 or more (for example).

By faucet leechers I am referring to those who are only here for the faucet rather than to gamble and spam support emails when they can't cash out dust.

Arguments against the rest?

[snarlpill]

Maybe if you take away the faucet, have (small) weekly rebates to depositing players that have sustained losses during the week. It would have to be very small, like 1%, or I know that could get out of hand with some of the whales. But that would reward depositing players, and maybe you could handle the percentages of rebates by level.

[williamj2543]

Maybe if you take away the faucet, have (small) weekly rebates to depositing players that have sustained losses during the week. It would have to be very small, like 1%, or I know that could get out of hand with some of the whales. But that would reward depositing players, and maybe you could handle the percentages of rebates by level.

Wouldn't really make any sense. Casinos have to make money, 1% would eliminate their house edge and primedice couldn't profit anymore.

[LabKitty]

Ah please, faucet is ment to keep site alive, attract people.

[BBmmBB]

why not just lower back to 100 sat reg and 1000 whitelist. that seemed to work during the pd2 days

Or just don't allow a faucet at all, until you have wagered a certain amount. Like 10btc or something.

That just completely defeat the purpose of having a faucet. Faucet allows new players to experience the site and test features without risking their actual BTC. Most of them just test it out before depositing BTC.

like crack : the first one is free ! ;-)

[Kluge]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%. The affiliate program could easily put a high-level player with a rake-back from the affiliate he signed up under - especially if he plays with high odds (and thus would probably have much, much more in total bets from which aff cut's calculated) - could give the player a significant edge over the house.

Alternately, maybe each level gives a player an entry into a daily or weekly raffle so long as they bet at least once during the week where PD creates maybe a 1BTC daily prize. This might even be profitable for PD.

[nahtnam]

I'm pondering the removal of the faucet more seriously now, the cost of it has significantly decreased but the incredible amount of support emails that center around the faucet itself or amounts under 0.0005 from faucet bettors along with a much larger userbase has decreased the quality of the support we can offer severely. Many argue that it must be removed as it lowers the quality of the chat and community as well.

What are the thoughts of everyone and if faucet is removed what should levels be used for?

Thanks

Truthfully I agree with you.

[MICRO]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

[DiamondCardz]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

[nahtnam]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

[BBmmBB]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

[williamj2543]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

Can someone bun this guy?
EDIT: BAN this guy, not buy

[DiamondCardz]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

Wouldn't be too difficult, just declare a variable called rake_back and assign it's value to bet_amount / 20000 (for 0.005% per level rakeback) and then * level. Then just add rake_back to whatever the user's balance is in the database after the bet.

[BBmmBB]

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

Can someone buy this guy?

ot>>
i produce music...you need something? 

[Kluge]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

[nahtnam]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

Wouldn't be too difficult, just declare a variable called rake_back and assign it's value to bet_amount / 20000 (for 0.005% per level rakeback) and then * level. Then just add rake_back to whatever the user's balance is in the database after the bet.

Instead, cant you just raise the payout by a little?

[BBmmBB]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

[Kluge]

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would  some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.