bustabit – The original crash game

[fullhdpixel]

For rare events is made a reset to the initial bet. Doubling does not go on forever, the loss after the last unsuccessful bet is overlaps by subsequent successful ones which will go after the reset. There is a certain balance in the system of doubling bets, at some moment it ceases to work in plus and begins to increase the loss in progression.

What people also sometimes forget that each bet is actually individually separated. So, even tho it looks like there is a small chance of x1 happening twice in a row it is also as possible as anything else. There is literally a 50% chance of being x1 on each bet and not being x1 each bet. There is a gamblers fallacy that looking at odds you go and say if it happened once it is rare that it happens again but those two bets have equal chances of being x1.

I can understand why people think it is rare and I do see it rare too but it is actually not, both those bets have the same amount of chance of being x1 and have nothing to do with being back to back. Same goes for good ones too, there is a chance of x10 happening twice in a row too, so don't look at it only from the bad side.

[Lakai01]

For rare events is made a reset to the initial bet. Doubling does not go on forever, the loss after the last unsuccessful bet is overlaps by subsequent successful ones which will go after the reset. There is a certain balance in the system of doubling bets, at some moment it ceases to work in plus and begins to increase the loss in progression.

Youre not the first one to come up with a variation of martingale that you think beats the house. But even if you had unlimited funds you still can't do it. You will always lose because of house edge and max bet size. You should create a simulation and test your strategy on millions of random crashes.

Without wanting to repeat myself I dont think there is any strategy which works (in the long run) and is able to beat the house. If such a strategy would exists it would have been banned in no matter of time.
Martingale (or any variation of it) works in a perfect world where you have no house edge, unlimited funds and no max bet. In the real world it makes you bankrupt in no matter of time when you have a loss streak.

[RivAngE]

If heat.gg is not making a provably fair one (they literally stated themselves) then there is no point on playing there, it all comes down to trusting the website and why would I, I wouldn't mind playing there with provably fair games, I have nothing against anyone in the crypto world but if it is not provably fair then I am not going to really risk it.

Also, you are definitely right if there was a way to provide hash myself I wouldn't play there neither because it is way too much work to put for just a simple RPS game, if there is a way to make RPS provably fair without too much work (basically just clicking) then I would love to play there, if there is nothing well I am not playing RPS right now so I would just continue to do that until someone figures it out.

I'd rather refrain from advertising the site on devans thread, however we do have two other modes (Jackpot & Coinflip) Which are 100% Provably fair with unmined hashes from EOS blocks determining the winner.
There's a lot of complications when designing a provably fair system for RPS that's both user friendly and safe.
Like I said above, there's a way to do it however it introduces a huge window for user error and user experience is thrown out, as well as the additional learning curve of the play-style.
You can make RPS provably fair if it were house based i.e house creates games, however I feel this also takes away the unique feel of it as RPS traditionally is more known for not being a game of complete sheer randomness, and there's some minor strategies you can employ such as getting in your opponents head, conversely you could just randomly generate your choice.
Playing against the house basically just turns it into any other dice game / coinflip, where the outcome is you either double your money, draw, or break even.

That's a good explanation. I see it doesn't always make sense to go with provably fair when making a game, sometimes the benefits are fewer than the issues which this creates.

[Battareus]

For rare events is made a reset to the initial bet. Doubling does not go on forever, the loss after the last unsuccessful bet is overlaps by subsequent successful ones which will go after the reset. There is a certain balance in the system of doubling bets, at some moment it ceases to work in plus and begins to increase the loss in progression.

Youre not the first one to come up with a variation of martingale that you think beats the house. But even if you had unlimited funds you still can't do it. You will always lose because of house edge and max bet size. You should create a simulation and test your strategy on millions of random crashes.

Without wanting to repeat myself I dont think there is any strategy which works (in the long run) and is able to beat the house. If such a strategy would exists it would have been banned in no matter of time.
Martingale (or any variation of it) works in a perfect world where you have no house edge, unlimited funds and no max bet. In the real world it makes you bankrupt in no matter of time when you have a loss streak.

Why are you both talking about the limit on funds and the maximum bet when I said that there is a reset to the initial? You can repeat it 100 times "there is no pattern, there is nothing except random" or something else, all this from the reluctance to think.

[Lakai01]

Why are you both talking about the limit on funds and the maximum bet when I said that there is a reset to the initial? You can repeat it 100 times "there is no pattern, there is nothing except random" or something else, all this from the reluctance to think.

Because I think resetting is even worse than classic Martingale.
Why? Because as soon as you do this you set your (probably huge) loss in concrete. Martingale tries to recovery quickly from losses, thats why you double your investment after a loss. If you step out after a loss streak and start over your funds are definitly gone and you will need a lot of time to recover.
Do you have any long time experiences with your resetting strategy? Would be very nice to see some numbers

[Battareus]

Why are you both talking about the limit on funds and the maximum bet when I said that there is a reset to the initial? You can repeat it 100 times "there is no pattern, there is nothing except random" or something else, all this from the reluctance to think.

Because I think resetting is even worse than classic Martingale.
Why? Because as soon as you do this you set your (probably huge) loss in concrete. Martingale tries to recovery quickly from losses, thats why you double your investment after a loss. If you step out after a loss streak and start over your funds are definitly gone and you will need a lot of time to recover.
Do you have any long time experiences with your resetting strategy? Would be very nice to see some numbers

Not a problem. I will show my statistics soon maybe in a week (or won’t show if I get rich). I do reset to the initial bet after 10 steps. Until the algorithm loss 492 bits after unsuccessful 10 steps it manages to earn about 1000+ bits. I’m not sure that for a long time this is a win-win option so I have to change something all the time. One way or another, the yield chart goes up. I am sure that I will find the pattern that I will share with good people.

[Battareus]

How is it possible that the game crashes below my cash-out value at 4x 2 times in a row exactly until the script stops doubling the bet?

[GamblingSiteFinder]

How is it possible that the game crashes below my cash-out value at 4x 2 times in a row exactly until the script stops doubling the bet?

That's just some rotten luck my friend, sorry. I don't believe BaB is trying to scam you and your 74bits.

[GSpgh]

Why are you both talking about the limit on funds and the maximum bet when I said that there is a reset to the initial? You can repeat it 100 times "there is no pattern, there is nothing except random" or something else, all this from the reluctance to think.

It's the same thing. By resetting it yourself you're basically setting a max bet limit for yourself. Eventually you'll lose because you'll hit your limit without the wins that you expect.

How is it possible that the game crashes below my cash-out value at 4x 2 times in a row exactly until the script stops doubling the bet?

You've heard the asnwer so many times but you refuse to accept it: "random".

[davinchi]

Martingale and both reset strategy is not really "good" in any sense other than losing all your money. Does it really matter or do you really think it matters HOW you gamble when there is a house edge? There is really no solution that could somehow make you money.

If there was a method that you can use to make money from a casino, if there was then we would all use that method to make money and casinos would go bankrupt right away. It wouldn't be possible to sustain something like that which means people are actually thinking something impossible to happen to maybe happen with a "method" they find. So the reality is that martingale or reset or any other method would not make any money, some could be faster, some could be slower but all leads to losing all your money anyway.

[JollyGood]

How is it possible that the game crashes below my cash-out value at 4x 2 times in a row exactly until the script stops doubling the bet?

The chances of that happening must be very low but we can all be confident that there is no scam involved.

[redsun114]

You've heard the asnwer so many times but you refuse to accept it: "random".

Yeah, random is the most important part of the deal and people have been still trying to calculate how the results could be good or bad in a row.

Now what you don't realize is that when you do martingale and bet 100 satoshi for example on 2x that means if you win 5 times in a row that is 500 satoshi won and you will not realize it more often, however when you lose 5 times in a row that will go from 100 to 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 and you will lose 3300 satoshi, so 5 times in a row winning gives you 500 satoshi but your 5 times in a row lose gives you 3300 loss which is why there is really no way of not noticing the losses but it is quite easy to not see the wins.

Yeah, there are still people who check the wins as well but the results will be a "random" way of losing money in the end.

[GamblingSiteFinder]

Yeah, random is the most important part of the deal and people have been still trying to calculate how the results could be good or bad in a row.

Now what you don't realize is that when you do martingale and bet 100 satoshi for example on 2x that means if you win 5 times in a row that is 500 satoshi won and you will not realize it more often, however when you lose 5 times in a row that will go from 100 to 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 and you will lose 3300 satoshi, so 5 times in a row winning gives you 500 satoshi but your 5 times in a row lose gives you 3300 loss which is why there is really no way of not noticing the losses but it is quite easy to not see the wins.

Yeah, there are still people who check the wins as well but the results will be a "random" way of losing money in the end.

Elaborating on your comment, what makes the crash gambling concept brilliant (from the casino's perspective) is that it hones in on many of the cognitive distortions often found in gamblers:

• Attribution: Problem gamblers may believe their winnings occur as a result of their efforts and not randomly.
• Systems: Problem gamblers may believe that by learning or figuring out a certain system (a pattern of betting in a particular way), the house advantage can be overcome.
• Selective recall: Problem gamblers tend to remember their wins and forget or gloss over their losses.
• Near miss beliefs: Problem gamblers reduce the number of losing experiences in their minds by thinking they “almost” won. This justifies further attempts to win.

[source: verywellmind.com]

[Battareus]

Now definitely not an accident has happened. The game hung at a value of about 2x. Interestingly because someone had to win a large sum (there was a bet on 100,000 bits that would not play) or something else this time?
What happens if someone puts a large amount, like this 100,000 with a cashout for 1000x, the owner makes the payment or the game will freeze like this?

[RHavar]

What happens if someone puts a large amount, like this 100,000 with a cashout for 1000x, the owner makes the payment or the game will freeze like this?

There's a max-profit, which people can't attempt to win more than. So the site never really has to worry about stuff like that.

[Battareus]

What happens if someone puts a large amount, like this 100,000 with a cashout for 1000x, the owner makes the payment or the game will freeze like this?

There's a max-profit, which people can't attempt to win more than. So the site never really has to worry about stuff like that.

Ok, what happens if several players make a bet in total more than the maximum allowable win at the moment?

[RHavar]

Ok, what happens if several players make a bet in total more than the maximum allowable win at the moment?

There's also a separate max-profit per round, which applies to the sum of everyones win. If that ever gets hit, everyone gets cashed out. So it basically acts as a stop-loss for the house.

In bustabit v1 there was actually only this limit (no separate per-player one, as exists now) and it used to annoy the crap out of everyone. But now it basically never gets triggered as it more or less requires at least 2 whales playing at the same time.

[sana54210]

There is a reason why there is a "max bet", that Is calculated for being a very minimum of what could be the max bankroll, so the max bet is not like 25% of all bankroll, it is quite small (I forgot what it was but it was something like 1% or something) and that Is why you can literally have 50 people all betting max (and most of the time there are not that many people with that much money who would be willing to bet that much let alone at the same time) and you would still have a good bankroll.

There is literally almost no chance of bankrupting the bankroll because you can gamble at most the max amount and when you lose it you can't martingale it higher, so you need to keep try to win the same amount and when you do you may end up even further in loss as well.

[malevolent]

There is a reason why there is a "max bet", that Is calculated for being a very minimum of what could be the max bankroll, so the max bet is not like 25% of all bankroll, it is quite small (I forgot what it was but it was something like 1% or something) and that Is why you can literally have 50 people all betting max (and most of the time there are not that many people with that much money who would be willing to bet that much let alone at the same time) and you would still have a good bankroll.

If you had 50 people max betting (96.58 BTC bets each as of now), the game would cash out at 1.02x, because that's when bustabit would be risking exactly 1.5% of its bankroll (onsite + offsite bankroll).

What happens when the server forces people to cash out?

Under some circumstances, the server will force people to cash out.

The most common reason is that the game multiplier has gotten so large that we are risking too much of our bankroll (1.5%). If a player has won more than 1% of the bankroll, that player is also forced to cash out his winnings.

Of course that's extremely unlikely as it's pretty rare to see even one person bet more than 1 BTC at a given time.

[JollyGood]

There is a reason why there is a "max bet", that Is calculated for being a very minimum of what could be the max bankroll, so the max bet is not like 25% of all bankroll, it is quite small (I forgot what it was but it was something like 1% or something) and that Is why you can literally have 50 people all betting max (and most of the time there are not that many people with that much money who would be willing to bet that much let alone at the same time) and you would still have a good bankroll.

If you had 50 people max betting (96.58 BTC bets each as of now), the game would cash out at 1.02x, because that's when bustabit would be risking exactly 1.5% of its bankroll (onsite + offsite bankroll).

What happens when the server forces people to cash out?

Under some circumstances, the server will force people to cash out.

The most common reason is that the game multiplier has gotten so large that we are risking too much of our bankroll (1.5%). If a player has won more than 1% of the bankroll, that player is also forced to cash out his winnings.

Of course that's extremely unlikely as it's pretty rare to see even one person bet more than 1 BTC at a given time.

How do calculate those sums? Do they pop in to your head or do you use a calculator?

I thought I was fairly good at maths so would like to know the answer