bustabit – The original crash game

[perla]

I was wondering what could be the average game per day on Bustabit, I will just use the information to do some computation with my bet, I was planning to run an overnight bet and see what could be the outcome of it.

I am not sure the number of games per game in bustabit but one thing's for sure what are you going to do is risky you should know that in long run you will lose. But still depends on how much bankroll you have on your account.

[safari88]

I was wondering what could be the average game per day on Bustabit, I will just use the information to do some computation with my bet, I was planning to run an overnight bet and see what could be the outcome of it.

I am not sure the number of games per game in bustabit but one thing's for sure what are you going to do is risky you should know that in long run you will lose. But still depends on how much bankroll you have on your account.

i'm not really sure about that. i tried that on fortunejack before on their dicegame and do an over night run and luckily i got a good profit out of it. i think still it depends on your hash and your luck.

[xxjumperxx]

I was wondering what could be the average game per day on Bustabit, I will just use the information to do some computation with my bet, I was planning to run an overnight bet and see what could be the outcome of it.

I am not sure the number of games per game in bustabit but one thing's for sure what are you going to do is risky you should know that in long run you will lose. But still depends on how much bankroll you have on your account.

There are plenty of people that run their script and have been having success. I tried multiple times and have honestly failed over night... I get up in the morning and check my Account Balance to see its empty. =)

[malevolent]

I was wondering what could be the average game per day on Bustabit, I will just use the information to do some computation with my bet, I was planning to run an overnight bet and see what could be the outcome of it.

About ~3600-4000 games per day give or take. You can get to the number by communicating with Shiba using "!bust" or "!streak" commands as it will tell you how many days and games ago have passed since the most recent bust or streak that you chose to query.

Long term, of course, the outcome is that you'll lose money if the site doesn't go offline.

There are more interesting information to be found here if you choose to invest instead of gambling: https://dicesites.com/bustabit

[Timetwister]

TL;DR: On December 15, all remaining offsite investments will be removed and the commission rate will become dynamic based on the bankroll's size. This is currently beneficial for investors as it will lower the commission rate, but will disincentivize the bankroll becoming larger in the future. Players are not affected.


When I increased the bankroll commission to 50% of the expected profits in September 2019 I had hoped to reduce the size of the bankroll and therefore the total amount of investors' money bustabit and bustadice are responsible for. However, one year later the combined bankrolls still total more than 11,000 BTC. To more actively manage the size of the bankrolls I will be making two changes effective December 15:

First, offsite investing will be retired completely. This will immediately reduce the size of the bankrolls by more than 4,000 BTC and is also in the interest of fairness towards the majority of investors who did not have the opportunity to invest offsite. All remaining offsite investments will be eliminated and affected investors will receive an equivalent amount of dilution fee credits.

Second, bustabit and bustadice will both move to a dynamic commission model where the commission changes in real-time based on the size of the bankroll:

commission rate = bankroll / 10,000 BTC

On bustabit this means that the commission rate will be roughly the same as now or slightly lower. On bustadice these changes slash the commission by more than half, down to ~20%.

This is very disappointing. Retiring the offsite part is very bad, it reduces drastically the expected returns for those investors that have trusted in your project for a long time, before Bustabit had the impressive track record that it currently has. By simply not allowing people to add anything to the offsite portion, over time, the offsite/onsite ratio would decrease, without having to penalize those investors that helped you make this such a successful project. Increasing the fee last year was annoying enough, but this is effectively reducing expected returns by up to 2/3.

Other than not letting people increase their offsite portion, the fair way to approach this situation would have been to gradually increase the dilution fee. This should limit the bankroll's growth without harming early investors. Another more extreme approach, but that you could consider, is simply not allowing new investments at all, but I think increasing the dilution fee is the fairest method by far. I'd also expect some of that dilution fee being cashed out by investors receiving it, so that you'll also achieve your goal of limiting the bankroll's size (or you can keep the dilution fee yourself, or part of it, instead of it being distributed to all investors, that's fine too).

About making the comission variable, I think that's a mistake too, as it makes it harder to estimate which are the expected returns. And obviously, if we get over 5,000 BTC bankroll, fees would be even higher than now, on top of not even being able to keep our offsite portion.

Please reconsider this point, you can achieve the same goal without damaging previous investors. I'd suggest you to try increasing the dilution fee, so that new investments are still allowed but new investors at least pay a premium for the privilege of joining this project when it's already mature. What you are proposing here is the opposite, penalizing previous investors.

[RHavar]

This is very disappointing. Retiring the offsite part is very bad, it reduces drastically the expected returns for those investors that have trusted in your project for a long time, before Bustabit had the impressive track record that it currently has.

 If you were using the offsite system as it was designed, you can easily just bring those funds onsite for free (with the dilution fee credits).

I think the running theme of your post is that early investors should have some sort of advantage over new investors. I get where you're coming from, and I say this as someone who literally invested in the bankroll on day #1 -- that I don't think that's fair. Earlier investors have already been rewarded by with crazy returns. When they did invest there was probably a lot more risk, and there definitely was a hugely higher expected returns. I have a solid stake in the bankroll, and have quite literally withdrawn way more than I've ever put in.  I guess I see it like bitcoin, it doesn't seem reasonable for early adopters to get some extra benefit/treatment for investing in the projects infancy. The reward is literally that it's worth so much more now.

Other than not letting people increase their offsite portion, the fair way to approach this situation would have been to gradually increase the dilution fee. This should limit the bankroll's growth without harming early investors. Another more extreme approach, but that you could consider, is simply not allowing new investments at all, but I think increasing the dilution fee is the fairest method by far.

Even if you did the more extreme version ( stop all new investments) the bankroll would continue to increase by the investor profit (minus divestments). Investor profit over the last 90 days has been 533.50 BTC, which is an insane amount. That's literally like $100k/day average. I assume Daniel is in the position where the bankroll has become so big, that the only thing that happens by it increasing is increasing his liability.


But if you think of it though, it's actually a pretty clever idea. I think it'll become the standard way of doing bankroll commissions in the future. Basically Daniel is running a sort of auction, where investors are basically bidding against each other to provide the bankroll bustabit needs. (Although for the record, I don't think a linear relationship is the most optimal way to model it, and I would've pegged it against USD or something a bit more elegant than a fixed number like the largest bet in the last 3 months)

[Timetwister]

Even if you did the more extreme version ( stop all new investments) the bankroll would continue to increase by the investor profit (minus divestments). Investor profit over the last 90 days has been 533.50 BTC, which is an insane amount. That's literally like $100k/day average. I assume Daniel is in the position where the bankroll has become so big, that the only thing that happens by it increasing is increasing his liability.


But if you think of it though, it's actually a pretty clever idea. I think it'll become the standard way of doing bankroll commissions in the future. Basically Daniel is running a sort of auction, where investors are basically bidding against each other to provide the bankroll bustabit needs. (Although for the record, I don't think a linear relationship is the most optimal way to model it, and I would've pegged it against USD or something a bit more elegant than a fixed number like the largest bet in the last 3 months)

It's evident the bankroll would increase much more slowly if people were no longer allowed to increase their investment, or if there was a higher dilution fee for joining (which, as I said, I would be fine with going partially or even fully to Daniel).

People don't just let their investment accumulate, they withdraw part of their winnings to spend or invest in other places.

Removing the offsite balance is just a way to decrease expected returns for current investors while increasing it for new ones, as they end up with a higher percentage of the bankroll by investing the same amount. It doesn't even fix the supposed problem of the bankroll being too big, as the casino doesn't really have those offsite Bitcoins anyway. The casino doesn't have to worry about the offsite bankroll being stolen or whatever...

This change only makes sense to me if Daniel wants to increase his own investment in the platform, but even if that was the case this doesn't seem like the optimal way to do it.

I think the fairest and most coherent way to limit further investments is increasing the dilution fee, which is something that hasn't been tried as it's been stuck at the same percentage for a long time.

Talking about the last 90 days profits is unfair, you know that particular time frame was especially favourable to investors. Long-term expected returns are lower than that.

[RHavar]

Talking about the last 90 days profits is unfair, you know that particular time frame was especially favourable to investors. Long-term expected returns are lower than that.

Hm, I didn't try to be unfair. I just picked a reasonable sounding timeframe. I just tried a few others:

30d investor profit = 393.06 BTC = 13.10 BTC/day
90d investor profit = 533.50 BTC =  5.93 BTC/day
180d investor profit = 770.41 BTC = 4.28 BTC/day
365d investor profit = 1,992.74 BTC = 5.46 BTC/day


Even just round down to 4 BTC/day. It really doesn't change my point at all.

[Jungian]

First, offsite investing will be retired completely. This will immediately reduce the size of the bankrolls by more than 4,000 BTC and is also in the interest of fairness towards the majority of investors who did not have the opportunity to invest offsite. All remaining offsite investments will be eliminated and affected investors will receive an equivalent amount of dilution fee credits.

Second, bustabit and bustadice will both move to a dynamic commission model where the commission changes in real-time based on the size of the bankroll:

commission rate = bankroll / 10,000 BTC

On bustabit this means that the commission rate will be roughly the same as now or slightly lower. On bustadice these changes slash the commission by more than half, down to ~20%.

So it will incentive us to increase your on site liability on both sites for now. Don't you think that works against what you try to accomplish a bit?

[Mydi]

So, if bankroll is over 10.000 BTC, we have no commission at all ? That feels bad.

Also, does it applies to money loss as well or will we actually lose money with low/no opportunity to win it at all (if commission rises)

[Timetwister]

So, if bankroll is over 10.000 BTC, we have no commission at all ? That feels bad.

Also, does it applies to money loss as well or will we actually lose money with low/no opportunity to win it at all (if commission rises)

Over 10 000 BTC in theory we would be paying over 100%... At least there should be some cap on the fee, at 50% for example, that's already a very nice profit for the casino (on top of whatever they make as investors themselves)...

[RokokGudangGaram]

I was wondering what could be the average game per day on Bustabit, I will just use the information to do some computation with my bet, I was planning to run an overnight bet and see what could be the outcome of it.

About ~3600-4000 games per day give or take. You can get to the number by communicating with Shiba using "!bust" or "!streak" commands as it will tell you how many days and games ago have passed since the most recent bust or streak that you chose to query.

Long term, of course, the outcome is that you'll lose money if the site doesn't go offline.

There are more interesting information to be found here if you choose to invest instead of gambling: https://dicesites.com/bustabit

This was helpful, thank you. I guess investment is better since i'm aiming for a long term profit.

[chazley]

Can someone explain the bankroll investment changes in layman's terms? I'm confused. Preferably comparing how it works now to how it now will work.

[sceptic4u]

Good morning everyone

Long time lurker first time poster here.  Work in IT and very familiar with IGaming, Cryptos and the whole scene.  I hope you don't mind a few hard questions (I am, after all, a Sceptic4u )

I have been following this thread and also the BaB site for some time and have played and invested on the site in the past.  The site seems very successful. I'd like to invest more and take a significantly larger position but a few difficult questions come to mind:

* I notice very lax KYC and also very very lax geo ip blockage of restricted regions (for example logging in from a USA IP gets a mild warning and no geo blockage)
* Only accepting BTC deposits (which are fully traceable by Elliptic unlike XMR for example)
* Zero due diligence on new accounts with seemingly unlimited deposit limits
* Reporting insane volumes from some players who seem to cycle through massive volumes of BTC and result in little or no profit, often breaking even.  Junya5805 for example.
* Loose licensure, Curacao gaming license which is virtually meaningless (right up there with Kahnawake), no apparent attempt to get a real license from a legitimate jurisdiction
* Seemingly no concern about accepting and distributing enormous volumes of BTC that may have previously been used for illegal transactions
* Volumes much larger than similar sites (who actually enforce geo ip blocks from restricted countries, like RocketPot.io for example)

This all screams "honeypot" to me.  I hope I'm wrong but I believe this is a legitimate concern and I want to ensure my investment is legal, safe and legitimate at all times.

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Sceptic4u

[RHavar]

So, if bankroll is over 10.000 BTC, we have no commission at all ? That feels bad.

It is literally the opposite. The higher the bankroll, the higher the commission. To the point 10k BTC bankroll would mean 100% commission. So basically the size of the bankroll is capped.

This all screams "honeypot" to me.

Hm? On the one hand you're supposedly concerned about users' privacy ("honeypot", no Monero or whatever) but at the same time also criticizing that bustabit doesn't collect enough personal information. Most of your questions kind of have pretty common-sense answers though:

* Geoblocks are extremely ineffective, the average crypto user has a VPN and can switch countries in 30 seconds. It makes more sense to simply ask the person, as if a user wants to get around your restriction they will do it anyway. And the US is pretty much the most common VPN endpoint due to no-mandatory-logging laws and proximity to most online services.

* You say deposits are fully traceable and  zero due diligence is done, which either makes no sense or you know something we don't

* Of course many players break even. Many lose money too. Many make money. That's kinda how a casino works. Your example is of someone of someone breaking even is someone who made 104  BTC. 

* Obviously bustabit has way more volume than sites like rocketpot.io. I can think of several factors that virtually guarantee it. bustabit is the original, they're a clone. The tripled bustabit's house edge, so that by itself would lead the average gambler to run out of money 3x as fast (and thus wager less, and  have as much fun and less likely to come back). And the entire site makes a bunch of nonsense claims like their clone (literally using the same code) is an "exclusive game" and bullshit like "and the house gains confidence that all wins are legitimate"  which I believe is just plagiarized from bustadice's multi-party system and has absolutely zero applicability to them. So no surprise they do shit volume

Can someone explain the bankroll investment changes in layman's terms? I'm confused. Preferably comparing how it works now to how it now will work.

Currently there's a grandfathered in offsite system, it's been deprecated for a long time (still exists, but no new users can use it. Old investors can only decrease their offsite). That is fully going away, which will create a more level playing ground for all investors. Currently bustabit charges 50% commissions on profit, but Daniel is changing it to "bankroll/10000btc". So on day 1 it will be marginally less commission, but as the bankroll grows the commissions will keep going up and up and up, and virtually guarantees that bankroll will never go above 10k btc. As the bankroll goes up, returns for investors will go down, which will cause investors (at least like me) to divest. So it'll reach some equilibrium somewhere between 5k and 10k btc I imagine. (i.e. commissions between 50% and 100%). As an investor, I think of it as bad news. But I can also see why Daniel doesn't want to pay investors more than he needs to do.

[Timetwister]

Personally removing the offsite part is not that bad for me as my offsite/onsite ratio is not that much higher than the average one. Assuming that removing it would probably discourage current "leveraged" investors to stay, it's probably neutral, so OK.

However, there must be a cap on the fee, which I think should be 50%, that's already a crazy profit for the casino, especially combined with their own investment in the bankroll. To keep things easier I'd just leave the fee at 50% instead of using that new formula which would require investors to keep looking at how big the bankroll is. Also if the fee was dynamic, the max profit should be dynamic too in relation to the fee. Otherwise, imagine the extreme scenario in which the bankroll got to 9,000. Then the kelly would be very high unless the max bet is adjusted to the much lower expected value per bet for investors. The maximum profit should be 2*bankroll*(0.01*(1-fee)) so that expected bankroll growth is at least 0.

If 10,000 is the number that Devans doesn't want to reach, what I'd do in his situation is becoming more aggressive with the dilution fee, starting with 5%.

[Mydi]

So basically when we reach 10.000 btc, it's 100% loss for investors and 0% gain ?

If we get to that point :
- owner will get all the profit
- bankroll will fluctuate a bit between 10.000 btc and a bit lower when there is a swing downward and will recover to 10.000 slowly (due to a 99% commission on win). - reaching a 10k equilibrium

This also means new investors are screwing old one even more since in addition to dilution, they also increase the overall commission rate.

[wiss19]

There are always users who are trying to ruin or demolish reputations. I should not pay to much attention into these users.
If you keep feeding them, they will have the reasons to reply.

After looking through his negative feedback and following up what transpired back then. I stopped believing the crap he's posting. If he's trying to create a smear campaign against Bustabit, then he's totally wasting his time.

Yeah, obviously people who do not know how bustabit works and how provably fair system works will always try to find a way to blame the casino when they lose, they can't accept the fact that they are a gambler that ended up losing something mathematically destined to make them lose in the end. Do not try to find a way or a system that helps the casinos "cheat you out of your money" because there is none that is hidden, it is right out in the front page and you end up having that as your reason to lose, it is called house edge and that is it.

Back on wang tang, do you guys think he will continue to gamble thousands of bitcoins again and try to recoup what he has lost? Or will he be smarter about his money this time around and not make the same mistakes he did last time?

[bessenconfituur]

I had hoped to reduce the size of the bankroll and therefore the total amount of investors' money bustabit and bustadice are responsible for.

If decreasing liability for the investors money really is the main incentive here, why not discourage onsite investing and encourage offsite investing again?

Just a question, I don't know what would be the downside of making offsite investing possible again...

[devans]

Personally removing the offsite part is not that bad for me as my offsite/onsite ratio is not that much higher than the average one. Assuming that removing it would probably discourage current "leveraged" investors to stay, it's probably neutral, so OK.

However, there must be a cap on the fee, which I think should be 50%, that's already a crazy profit for the casino, especially combined with their own investment in the bankroll. To keep things easier I'd just leave the fee at 50% instead of using that new formula which would require investors to keep looking at how big the bankroll is. Also if the fee was dynamic, the max profit should be dynamic too in relation to the fee. Otherwise, imagine the extreme scenario in which the bankroll got to 9,000. Then the kelly would be very high unless the max bet is adjusted to the much lower expected value per bet for investors. The maximum profit should be 2*bankroll*(0.01*(1-fee)) so that expected bankroll growth is at least 0.

If 10,000 is the number that Devans doesn't want to reach, what I'd do in his situation is becoming more aggressive with the dilution fee, starting with 5%.

Capping the fee would defeat the purpose as it would no longer provide a disincentive to invest once the bankroll reaches 5,000 BTC.

As the commission is only charged on net profits, it doesn't affect the Kelly criterion. The optimal risk for the bankroll according to the Kelly criterion is 1% (the house edge) regardless of the commission rate.

Unfortunately the dilution fee on its own is not effective in capping the bankroll size. Since the beginning of this year, there has been a net divestment of ~750 BTC, i.e. overall investors divested 700 BTC more than they invested. Despite that, the bankroll has grown nearly 900 BTC since then.

So basically when we reach 10.000 btc, it's 100% loss for investors and 0% gain ?

If we get to that point :
- owner will get all the profit
- bankroll will fluctuate a bit between 10.000 btc and a bit lower when there is a swing downward and will recover to 10.000 slowly (due to a 99% commission on win). - reaching a 10k equilibrium

This also means new investors are screwing old one even more since in addition to dilution, they also increase the overall commission rate.

Nobody would invest money in something if they didn't stand to earn a profit, which is why the bankroll will never reach 10,000 BTC. In practice the bankroll will find an equilibrium at a much lower size where investors are content with the rate of return. For what it's worth this is already the case. All the dynamic commission does is nudge that point of equilibrium towards a smaller bankroll.

If decreasing liability for the investors money really is the main incentive here, why not discourage onsite investing and encourage offsite investing again?

Just a question, I don't know what would be the downside of making offsite investing possible again...

Having a large offsite bankroll can make the bankroll volatile. When an investor's onsite investment becomes too small to support their offsite investment they are margin-called, causing their offsite investment to be set to zero. As a result a lucky high roller might see the maximum profit collapse at the worst possible time, after they've just won a large amount.