Question about moon3d.io

[StackGambler]

Hey guys, I've played a bit on Moon3D and I have some questions about the house edge and advertised odds.

The house edge of Moon3D is advertised as 1.5%, which means the median bust should be 1.985x (1.975x accounting for the social multiplier).

Let's examine bustabit, which has an advertised house edge of 1% and an expected median of 1.98x.

Median over last 1000 games: 1.98x (expected)
Median over last 2000 games: 1.93x (below expected)
Median over last 5000 games: 1.96x (below expected)
Median over last 10000 games: 1.96x (below expected)
Median over last 20000 games: 1.97x (below expected)
Median over last 40000 games: 1.98x (expected)
Median over last 100000 games: 1.98x (expected)

As you can see, above ~40,000 games or so, the median converges towards the expected median of 1.98x. We can presume that 40,000 is a fair number of games to backtest in order to view the expected median and eliminate variance. Obviously, the more you backtest, the more variance is eliminated, and the true median will approach the expected median asymptotically. If, beyond 100,000 games, the expected median is not the same as the true median, it's either that the odds are being advertised incorrectly, or that a 1 in several trillion event is unfolding before our eyes. Usually the former.

Now on Moon3D:

Expected median: 1.975x

Median over last 100,000 games: 1.94x

This suggests that the actual house edge is over 3% higher than what is advertised. To the Moon3D team, I'm just wondering why there's such a large discrepancy... hopefully someone can enlighten me. Thanks!

PS. Also there's the fact that bustabit allows for the median to be checked in the chat but as far as I can tell this feature is not available on Moon3D, and you need to download and run the code to do the same.

[1715291345]

1715291345

[1715291345]

1715291345

[rijaljun]

I think you have ever opened thread regarding issue on Moon3D previously and now you opened a new one with the different case. I'm not really familiar with this one but If this is true, this means the team has been cheating their users and has made the game unfair. Gambling is not a thing you can always calculate anyway and it needs a clear explaination. Perhaps Moon3D will be here soon to explain what has happened.

Or... just leave it and move to other sites which are really provably fair.

[davis196]

I really doubt that the moon3d team will answer your quesitons.
By the way,what tool are you using for backtesting?Are you using VPS server to run the backtest 24/7?
I would never trust and deposit any coins into a website called moon3d.io
The name look suspicious to me.

[StackGambler]

I think you have ever opened thread regarding issue on Moon3D previously and now you opened a new one with the different case. I'm not really familiar with this one but If this is true, this means the team has been cheating their users and has made the game unfair. Gambling is not a thing you can always calculate anyway and it needs a clear explaination. Perhaps Moon3D will be here soon to explain what has happened.

Or... just leave it and move to other sites which are really provably fair.

Yes, the previous issue was where they were faking bankroll statistics. Soon after I made the post, they stopped faking the stats, so I marked it as resolved. This is a different issue altogether, and a lot more serious at that.

I really doubt that the moon3d team will answer your quesitons.
By the way,what tool are you using for backtesting?Are you using VPS server to run the backtest 24/7?
I would never trust and deposit any coins into a website called moon3d.io
The name look suspicious to me.

You first install node.js, then use their given jsfiddle code and the latest game hash from their site to run a backtest. The last 100,000 games have a median of 1.94x using their own verifying code. This is far off from the fair expected median.

Just to be completely transparent, I really like Moon3D: I'm only posting this question because I'm genuinely curious and I don't want any fellow players in the community to get scammed or misled.

[Haunebu]

I don't think you will find any solutions to the problem that you mentioned in this board op. I recommend contacting their support team again and again to clear your doubts or shift this topic to the scam accusation board in the worst case scenario op.

[traderethereum]

My suggestion is if you have a problem with the new site, you can complain with the admin and ask them to solve your problem and if they cannot solve, then I think that is time to moves to the other websites.
If they cannot solve, that means, they are not serious with their site, and I guess that they don't want to solve every problem that the gambler might face in the future.
When we want to attract more player to come, we need to be ready for every problem that might occur to the member, and we need to fix every problem so there will be no complaining from them.

[Ailmand]

Try contacting their support and developer to answer your query about their site. I doubt if any people here in the forum could answer your question, only the team can clarify your concerns. If you don't trust their site, there are still a lot of good and reputable gambling sites out there.

[nauane]

This is a common problem where gambling sites shows lower house edge but at the back end the house edge is more than the displayed value. I think OP should contact the support regarding this probelm but i doubt they will provide any help. Better to stick to old trusted sites rather than trying out new ones.

[Genemind]

No one could answer that question for you here unless there's someone who has experienced the exact thing as you do.
They have their support team for you to reach out so you better report such thing to them. I hope you could find the best solution for that matter.

[RHavar]

Do you have the code that's used to convert a hash into a game result? From that it should be pretty easy to compute the house edge. I couldn't find it on their website.


They are clearly not a good actor. They have a history of software-piracy, faking stats, not caring about their reputation, etc.


I took a look at their seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133118.0


and it's done in a way that proves nothing. Hard to say if it's intentional, or incompetence. But considering all they copied bustabit's seeding event and then removed the part gives me pause.  For the seeding event to make sense, you have to commit to a hash chain and how to interpret the hash chain. Or it's all for nothing.

--

So I guess, why even bother with them? There's like a dozen legitimate bitcoin casinos that run a fair business well, why screw around on the one that's nothing-but-red-flags.

[xvids]

Do you have the code that's used to convert a hash into a game result? From that it should be pretty easy to compute the house edge. I couldn't find it on their website.


They are clearly not a good actor. They have a history of software-piracy, faking stats, not caring about their reputation, etc.


I took a look at their seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133118.0


and it's done in a way that proves nothing. Hard to say if it's intentional, or incompetence. But considering all they copied bustabit's seeding event and then removed the part gives me pause.  For the seeding event to make sense, you have to commit to a hash chain and how to interpret the hash chain. Or it's all for nothing.

--

So I guess, why even bother with them? There's like a dozen legitimate bitcoin casinos that run a fair business well, why screw around on the one that's nothing-but-red-flags.

Then this site should not be trusted they already faced so many negative issue so it is enough reason to stay out on their site,
Beside there are so many trusted sites that you could play don't even bother spending money or your time to those untrusted site like this.

[rijaljun]

I think you have ever opened thread regarding issue on Moon3D previously and now you opened a new one with the different case. I'm not really familiar with this one but If this is true, this means the team has been cheating their users and has made the game unfair. Gambling is not a thing you can always calculate anyway and it needs a clear explaination. Perhaps Moon3D will be here soon to explain what has happened.

Or... just leave it and move to other sites which are really provably fair.

Yes, the previous issue was where they were faking bankroll statistics. Soon after I made the post, they stopped faking the stats, so I marked it as resolved. This is a different issue altogether, and a lot more serious at that.

If there are some negative issues about this why do you always want their clarification and not just creating scam accusation or bad reputation thread against them. You shouldn't use their service anymore. Is it not enough yet for you to play with them?

-snip-

Then this site should not be trusted they already faced so many negative issue so it is enough reason to stay out on their site,
Beside there are so many trusted sites that you could play don't even bother spending money or your time to those untrusted site like this.

That's a simplest idea for everyone. It's easy to say scam or give a red-flag then move to other website but I think OP wants a clarification from the team first before moving out from that website.

[milewilda]

So I guess, why even bother with them? There's like a dozen legitimate bitcoin casinos that run a fair business well, why screw around on the one that's nothing-but-red-flags.

On point!

I wont bother and stressing myself out to play on a site which do already have those issues.Even if its not still proven yet those already signifies red flags even on the simpliest thing like faking
stats which already shows incompetence and affecting their trust issues.Just simply stick to the good ones and you saved your time and avoiding some headaches.

[kxu1005]

Preface: Please note I might be flagged here on Bitcointalk as a new site operator trying my best to create healthy arguments with the OGs/incumbents, apologies if I have made any false impressions to any of you in the past but again I have been trying my best to address any questions/concerns/issues -- then was welcomed by the community here by getting flagged

I really doubt that the moon3d team will answer your quesitons.
By the way,what tool are you using for backtesting?Are you using VPS server to run the backtest 24/7?
I would never trust and deposit any coins into a website called moon3d.io
The name look suspicious to me.

Why do you doubt it? Why would you never trust it, just because of the name?!?!

Contrary to your doubt(s), will address it here.

@StackGambler @Haunebu @rijaljun @traderethereum @Ailmand @nauane @Genemind @RHavar @xvids @milewilda

First off, there's been a mention of our history(!) but do search us on Bitcointalk (or online) and tell us if there exists any red flag we have ignored (if so then will address). Not just the piracy topic that multiple salty folks bring up over and over again, but even just ANY support-related (e.g. deposit, withdraw) issues. On the flipside of our history, I can only see 1. prompt Customer Support via Discord (please join and check) and Email; and 2. happy users hanging out with us in the game, sharing time and fun

And to such strong words (e.g. "nothing-but-red-flags", "nothing", "software-piracy", "not caring about their reputation"), at this point it's clear that one is exaggerating + making assumptions + speaking untruthful words to "tarnish our reputation" (although claimed otherwise in a separate post) by abusing one's authority here. Does our Seeding Event actually prove absolutely nothing?! Really?! Is that true to say at all?! Apologies if I was assuming the post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained at this point in time for such a post, but the meat's there.

Regarding the house edge, please note multiple things: 1. we have the 1% Round Bonus which the current BaB does not have; 2. we have a 1% Referee Bonus; 3. we in fact have a different Round Bonus mechanism that can help users technically beat our house edge entirely(!). For instance, it has not been uncommon to see a bonus of 100%+ (e.g. meaning if you cash out at 2x, it's actually equivalent to cashing out at 3x+) in which case the player would in fact end up beating the edge.

Example: https://i.imgur.com/F4bkqYp.png

Also I'm surprised no one brought this up but @StackGambler why is "Expected median: 1.975x"?!?!

If your expected median is 1.975x, then:
50% chance, crash point > 1.975x => +97.5% in profit (assuming that's your cashout point)
50% chance, crash point < 1.975x => -100% in profit

Expected value = 50% * (+97.5%) + 50% * (-100%) = -1.25%
House edge = -1 * (Expected value) = 1.25%

So the fact that you got a median of 1.94x for Moon3D means:
50% chance, crash point > 1.94x => +94% in profit
50% chance, crash point < 1.94x => -100% in profit

Expected value = 50% * (+94%) + 50% * (-100%) = -3%
House edge = -1 * (Expected value) = 3% (WITHOUT the 1% Round Bonus + 1% Ref Bonus)

Hence you can see your claim "This suggests that the actual house edge is over 3% higher than what is advertised." isn't accurate(!!!!).

All in all though, as others have suggested, please DM me if any of you want more information, as some details here and there do require some subtleties, thank you!

[RHavar]

And to such strong words (e.g. "nothing-but-red-flags", "nothing", "software-piracy", "not caring about their reputation"), at this point it's clear that one is exaggerating + making assumptions + speaking untruthful words to "tarnish our reputation" (although claimed otherwise in a separate post) by abusing one's authority here. Does our Seeding Event actually prove absolutely nothing?! Really?! Is that true to say at all?! Apologies if I was assuming the post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained at this point in time for such a post, but the meat's there.

Yes, I could be more diplomatic. Yes, I could tone down the hyperbole. But each time you just ignore my (legitimate!) point, to emphasis how thin your skin is.  I'm not sure it's a good look.

Your seeding event was done by literally copying bustabit's, but then removed important guarantees. So was this a mistake, incompetence or was this intentional? Are you planning on fixing it, or remedying it?


The whole point of the seeding event is to prove your have committed to a set of rolls, from a fair-distribution and proof you didn't grind it.  If you commit to a hash-chain, but not an interpretation of it, we have no way of knowing if you grinded an interpretation or not. So at that point, there was basically no extra guarantees by even doing a seeding event.

[kxu1005]

And to such strong words (e.g. "nothing-but-red-flags", "nothing", "software-piracy", "not caring about their reputation"), at this point it's clear that one is exaggerating + making assumptions + speaking untruthful words to "tarnish our reputation" (although claimed otherwise in a separate post) by abusing one's authority here. Does our Seeding Event actually prove absolutely nothing?! Really?! Is that true to say at all?! Apologies if I was assuming the post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained at this point in time for such a post, but the meat's there.

Yes, I could be more diplomatic. Yes, I could tone down the hyperbole. But each time you just ignore my (legitimate!) point, to emphasis how thin your skin is.  I'm not sure it's a good look.

Your seeding event was done by literally copying bustabit's, but then removed important guarantees. So was this a mistake, incompetence or was this intentional? Are you planning on fixing it, or remedying it?


The whole point of the seeding event is to prove your have committed to a set of rolls, from a fair-distribution and proof you didn't grind it.  If you commit to a hash-chain, but not an interpretation of it, we have no way of knowing if you grinded an interpretation or not. So at that point, there was basically no extra guarantees by even doing a seeding event.

Oh I don't believe I ignored you... have I? And yes really appreciate your admission

Well you can say "Your seeding event was done by literally copying bustabit's" for all other sites out there, as BaB's was the first no (if you want to push for a point)? But at the same time, did we "literally" copy, or have we benchmarked? Imprecise language no?

On the note of language, I'm actually not certain what you mean by "interpretation"? Look Dear Respectable @RHavar, definitely willing to remedy if necessary but unfair for us if you don't specify what you mean + make assumptions + strong/enticing language + troll -- while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right? I assume you mean interpretation to check if we know what we're talking about, is that it?

[RHavar]

On the note of language, I'm actually not certain what you mean by "interpretation"? Look Dear Respectable @RHavar, definitely willing to remedy if necessary but unfair for us if you don't specify what you mean + make assumptions + strong/enticing language + troll -- while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right? I assume you mean interpretation to check if we know what we're talking about, is that it?

So for reference, here's your seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133118.0


and here's the part that makes it useless:

and use the hashes to determine the crash point in a provably fair manner.

Now, for comparison here's bustabit's original seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0

Now, notice how it says how it uses the hash. (i.e. provides code in the format of "crashPointFromHash").

--

So in summary, bustabit seeding event  proves the *GAME RESULTS* are fair. While yours proves the *GAME HASHES* are.

see the difference?

while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right?

P.S.  I'd not worry too much about the trust system. It's not a huge amount better than a glorified guestbook (although a lot more complex, i'm not entirely sure how it all works actually but some of the most trusted people are just people who have done a lot of little deals with a lot of other trusted members etc.) .

[kxu1005]

So in summary, bustabit seeding event  proves the *GAME RESULTS* are fair. While yours proves the *GAME HASHES* are.

see the difference?

while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right?

P.S.  I'd not worry too much about the trust system. It's not a huge amount better than a glorified guestbook (although a lot more complex, i'm not entirely sure how it all works actually but some of the most trusted people are just people who have done a lot of little deals with a lot of other trusted members etc.) .

Right I do see the difference. Thanks for clarifying. Well again at this point in time, I presumed the Seeding Event post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained -- meaning one could just go to our jsfiddle on site (from our FAQ popup) to retrieve that piece of information.

And yes, we're not hiding anything, why would you say "I couldn't find it [jsfiddle] on their website." to make it sound like we're hiding our jsfiddle/code? You didn't look closely then!

More precisely it seems you brought the issue up, as a Seeding Event (from your definition) should prove the fairness of *GAME RESULTS* and *GAME HASHES* in the same post, whereas my assumption/definition has been that it's the main objective of a Seeding Event post to prove the fairness of the *GAME HASHES* (and all addenda are extra), as the community here is already an accustomed one. Hence this argument. Is this reasonable to say?

[StackGambler]

Thanks for the reply!

So, you're saying that if one makes use of the referral bonus and the round bonus, they can overcome the house edge, but if they don't, the house edge can be up to 3%. The maximum house edge is 3% but the edge on your site is advertised as 1.5%. On EtherCrash, where the maximum house edge is 1% but the edge can be lowered due to the bonus, the edge is advertised as "less than 1%". I suggest you change the edge on your site to "less than 3%" instead of "1.5%", because the latter is very misleading (since it assumes all players refer themselves to an alternate account and also make use of the round bonus, which isn't feasible).

[RHavar]

Right I do see the difference. Thanks for clarifying. Well again at this point in time, I presumed the Seeding Event post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained -- meaning one could just go to our jsfiddle on site (from our FAQ popup) to retrieve that piece of information.

It doesn't need to be self-contained, but people need to be sure the methodology was decided before the seed was found. (otherwise you can change the methodology of interpreting a hash, if you didn't like how it looks).

And yes, we're not hiding anything, why would you say "I couldn't find it [jsfiddle] on their website." to make it sound like we're hiding our jsfiddle/code? You didn't look closely then!

You're 100% right. Somehow I didn't realize the "help" had a drop-down. (I actually clicked it to try, but i never noticed the drop down). But I did a really bad job at looking, so I'll give you that. The jsfiddle link is quite obvious in hindsight.

More precisely it seems you brought the issue up, as a Seeding Event (from your definition) should prove the fairness of *GAME RESULTS* and *GAME HASHES* in the same post, whereas my assumption/definition has been that it's the main objective of a Seeding Event post to prove the fairness of the *GAME HASHES* (and all addenda are extra), as the community here is already an accustomed one. Hence this argument. Is this reasonable to say?

People only care the games are fair, and the hash chain is used to do that. You did prove you didn't grind, the hashchain (since you did the seeding event otherwise correctly) and you're also not doing anything weird (it's just BaB's v1, with a few constants changed) to convert a hash into a game result. So personally I am reasonably convinced the game seeding was done fairly, but I'm not sure it's done well enough to say it's provably fair (maybe "probably fair" is more appropriate?)