bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game

[assloua]

Hah, Ryan! Maybe add an option where people can bet where they think the crashpoint will be exactly. Or maybe ranges of crashpoints.

Like: Bet 50 bit that the crash point will be between 1.00 and 1.09. If that happens you get 10x(?) your bet = 500 bits.
If you bet that it will exactly crash at 1.00, you get 99x your bet.

Would be a fun game Could go crazy on the multipliers though, as you could bet it will crash at exactly 504.94 or something, which has a probability of almost zero.

This would be quite nice to gamble on, a bit like roulette 1-18 / 19-36
and maybe bet on odd/even

[dooglus]

Hah, Ryan! Maybe add an option where people can bet where they think the crashpoint will be exactly. Or maybe ranges of crashpoints.

Like: Bet 50 bit that the crash point will be between 1.00 and 1.09. If that happens you get 10x(?) your bet = 500 bits.
If you bet that it will exactly crash at 1.00, you get 99x your bet.

Would be a fun game Could go crazy on the multipliers though, as you could bet it will crash at exactly 504.94 or something, which has a probability of almost zero.

As well as adding to the fun this would smooth the volatility for Ryan.

Currently a low crash point means almost everyone loses, and a high crash point means almost everyone wins. Your proposed change would mix up the winning and losing more.

[hopenotlate]

Hah, Ryan! Maybe add an option where people can bet where they think the crashpoint will be exactly. Or maybe ranges of crashpoints.

Like: Bet 50 bit that the crash point will be between 1.00 and 1.09. If that happens you get 10x(?) your bet = 500 bits.
If you bet that it will exactly crash at 1.00, you get 99x your bet.

Would be a fun game Could go crazy on the multipliers though, as you could bet it will crash at exactly 504.94 or something, which has a probability of almost zero.

As well as adding to the fun this would smooth the volatility for Ryan.

Currently a low crash point means almost everyone loses, and a high crash point means almost everyone wins. Your proposed change would mix up the winning and losing more.

yep true, maybe it's something Ryan should take in consideration.

What about a test period for it? 

[RHavar]

Hah, Ryan! Maybe add an option where people can bet where they think the crashpoint will be exactly. Or maybe ranges of crashpoints.

Like: Bet 50 bit that the crash point will be between 1.00 and 1.09. If that happens you get 10x(?) your bet = 500 bits.
If you bet that it will exactly crash at 1.00, you get 99x your bet.

Would be a fun game Could go crazy on the multipliers though, as you could bet it will crash at exactly 504.94 or something, which has a probability of almost zero.

It's definitely something I've considered, and has volatility benefits, but I think the primary problem is in the UI. Bustabit now at its core is quite an elegant and simple game, but with these sort of side bets it might make it quite difficult to visualize/show without being too confusing

[RHavar]

Players have won an incredible 200 bitcoin in the last four days!

So I'm going to inject another 100 BTC in the bankroll, to keep the max profit nice and fun for everyone. Good luck!

[Shogen]

Players have won an incredible 200 bitcoin in the last four days!

And it is indeed contributed only by 2 whales. realhavok's net profit went from -50 to +50 within 2 days, and whitetuxpeng's net profit went from -100 to +6 in a day.

[RHavar]

And it is indeed contributed only by 2 whales. realhavok's net profit went from -50 to +50 within 2 days, and whitetuxpeng's net profit went from -100 to +6 in a day.

Yeah, they were by far and away the biggest winners. But the games in general during this period of time have been pretty good. Like gizane and a few others have done pretty well too, (and a few others have done badly )

[Shogen]

And it is indeed contributed only by 2 whales. realhavok's net profit went from -50 to +50 within 2 days, and whitetuxpeng's net profit went from -100 to +6 in a day.

Yeah, they were by far and away the biggest winners. But the games in general during this period of time have been pretty good. Like gizane and a few others have done pretty well too, (and a few others have done badly )

Your site profit was 620 a week ago, became 510 two days ago and 440 a day ago and is now 464. But you seem to be pretty calm at it but to be honest, I can't imagine the stress you are having for running the site.

[Venusianism]

Players have won an incredible 200 bitcoin in the last four days!

And it is indeed contributed only by 2 whales. realhavok's net profit went from -50 to +50 within 2 days, and whitetuxpeng's net profit went from -100 to +6 in a day.

Lol.

"Two whales"

Why do people keep getting confused, after all the times me & the man himself, explicitly confirmed they were 1 & the same person..? The bet patterns are obvious o.O ; Again, Realhavok + Whitetuxpeng + Coin Rocketeer + Pho King + Finand -> Same player.. 9_9

See :

OMG  Just play 532 bet , Get profit 100BTC ++  awesome
How Much BTC  need to play like that ?

 

That is one lucky guy, hoarding 100 btc in that game site. Huga bankroll and balls made of steel for sure  

oh wow i was away from bustabit the last few days i completely missed this, must of been fun to watch haha, it's cool to see wins like this im sure he is one happy fella!!
And the fact he only bet 532 times and won +100btc  is truly mind boggling  

He hit TTM for almost 50 BTC right after this as well, so he's probably up at least 150 BTC. Not sure if he hit any other sites.

Sorry noob question here but what do you mean by TTM? when you look at his user history https://www.bustabit.com/user/Phoking the highest he went upto was 104+btc, he's now dropped to 61.41btc, the largest win i can see in his history is for i think 5 btc? does TTM not show on user history or what  

 It's not '1 lucky guy'. His accounts :

 Real havoc happened to that bankroll indeed..
 The Legendary Great White Tux..
 Coin Rocketeer
 Pho King
 Finand

 Tech Analysis..? [Unconfirmed]
 The Winnerer..? [Unconfirmed]

 ^It's a recurring player who plays very recklessly, w/ no real strategy, and just submits his balance to 'Lady Luck' entirely. He's openly confirmed he maintains the above-listed^ accounts, and more, which as you can see, have lost about the same as the amounts he's earned on 'Phoking', 'CoinRocketeer' & 'Finand' so it kinda balances out overall, but props to him, as apparently.. "[..] ..dispel this myth that it's possible to reliably be this lucky (e.g. from 7 to 110btc)[..]" ..it seems he actually managed to prove, so far, that it's possible to "reliably" make this kind of $20-30k comeback in less than half a day ;/

 ..Oh & btw Ryan, nice web/account/DB server xDDDDD (love teasing him ;p) :

[RHavar]

Sorry, BaB is getting hit by another DDoS (this one, interestingly most the ip's come from ec2). I've reported the offending ip addresses to AWS, and ramped up the DDoS protection  (let me know if you're having issues with that, or need me to whitelist an ip address for your bot)

[Buziss]

Players have won an incredible 200 bitcoin in the last four days!

And it is indeed contributed only by 2 whales. realhavok's net profit went from -50 to +50 within 2 days, and whitetuxpeng's net profit went from -100 to +6 in a day.

Lol.

"Two whales"

Why do people keep getting confused, after all the times me & the man himself, explicitly confirmed they were 1 & the same person..? The bet patterns are obvious o.O ; Again, Realhavok + Whitetuxpeng + Coin Rocketeer + Pho King + Finand -> Same player.. 9_9
-snip-

If so, it seems quite suspicious to me. I mean, how unlikely is it for a player to win over 200 bitcoin within a short period of time, when the max bet per game is only 1 bitcoin?

[RHavar]

If so, it seems quite suspicious to me. I mean, how unlikely is it for a player to win over 200 bitcoin within a short period of time, when the max bet per game is only 1 bitcoin?

Probably the more relevant figure is the "max profit", but yes, it's rather unlikely. The site losing ~100 btc in a day, has only happened 4 times in BaB history I believe. The last two, which were right after each other. 

[dooglus]

If so, it seems quite suspicious to me. I mean, how unlikely is it for a player to win over 200 bitcoin within a short period of time, when the max bet per game is only 1 bitcoin?

I don't think it changes the probability whether the two accounts are controlled by a single person or two different people.

Probably the more relevant figure is the "max profit", but yes, it's rather unlikely. The site losing ~100 btc in a day, has only happened 4 times in BaB history I believe. The last two, which were right after each other. 

Also more relevant is how often has the site seen the level of betting required to have such big gains or losses.

Some hand-wavy calculations:

Every time there's very heavy betting (like risking a sustained 1 BTC per round, say) it's very likely that the site is either going to win a lot or lose a lot. With the low house edge at bustabit I guess it's not far from a 50/50 win-a-lot / lose-a-lot split for the site when someone's betting heavily.

So when you have two accounts betting heavily on the same day, it's around a 25% chance that they both win a lot.

(Or if it's a 40% chance of the site ending up down when a single player bets like that, it's still a 16% chance that it happens on both accounts).

Then there's also the consideration that he probably wouldn't have even played on the 2nd account if the 1st account had busted, since he wouldn't have had the coins available to do so.

[jonsi]

"
!prob >= 2.06
Shiba: Probability of ≥2.06: 47.814538%

"

So this means in 1000 games 478 should be wins and 522 looses. This is a 44 difference (522-478=44)
In 1686 games this means that 806 (805.9 to be exact) should be wins and 880 should be looses. This is a 74 difference.

The reality:

I played 1686 consecutive games with 2.06 cashout point.
The results: 777 games won and 909 games lost. This is a 132 difference.

The difference of 132 is nearly double as it should been, 74.

This is pure matematics and probabilities. The deviation is way to big. A 10% - maxim 20% could call normal because of the variance, but nearly double?? I have made many tests with randon numbers and this is not normal.

The conclusion: I think the game it's NOT FAIR.

Edited: By the way, the last game ID thai I played is 1933142, and the first I guess is 1933142-1686.




-edited-
I had an error when recording data from game.

[jonsi]

"
!prob >= 2.06
Shiba: Probability of ≥2.06: 47.814538%

"

So this means in 1000 games 478 should be wins and 522 looses. This is a 44 difference (522-478=44)
In 1686 games this means that 806 (805.9 to be exact) should be wins and 880 should be looses. This is a 74 difference.

The reality:

I played 1686 consecutive games with 2.06 cashout point.
The results: 777 games won and 909 games lost. This is a 132 difference.

The difference of 132 is nearly double as it should been, 74.

This is pure matematics and probabilities. The deviation is way to big. A 10% - maxim 20% could call normal because of the variance, but nearly double?? I have made many tests with randon numbers and this is not normal.

The conclusion: I think the game it's NOT FAIR.

Edited: By the way, the last game ID thai I played is 1933142, and the first I guess is 1933142-1686.

I don't quite understand, you've made a net profit of 4.9 bitcoins, and never had any problems with withdrawing them, and still think it's unfair? I must be a really, really shitty scammer.

Anyway, the hash of game 1933142 was efe51340f3f8744d90d3c9ac349745a4aeddee2852eddbddcc4fee47c7d1a79c, as you probably saw on your screen. So why don't you try plug that into this 3rd party provably fair verifier:

https://jsfiddle.net/1L1uqcgv/6/embedded/result/


And you'll notice, the outcomes will have matched what you saw.

     This is because I don't gamble. I just use mathematics. The conclusion is based on probabilities. If it was a deviation by let's say 20%, I could call it normal, but a deviation of  89,18%!! It's way way way to big to call it normal.

By the way, the games were played to test a script I wrote. And I'm talking about all the games, not just one game.



-edited-
I had an error when recording data from game.

[jonsi]

Well, I just won 777 games, not 790.

So now, not only that it doesn't makes sense, but I think you should check your calculation and compare it with my bet history of my last 1686 games, bacause I had 777 wining games and 909 loosing games. I don't know zhere you come up with the 790 wining games bacause the reality is different.

-edited-
I had an error when recording data from game.

[jonsi]

Well, I just won 777 games, not 790.

So now, not only that it doesn't makes sense, but I think you should check your calculation and compare it with my bet history of my last 1686 games, bacause I had 777 wining games and 909 loosing games. I don't know zhere you come up with the 790 wining games bacause the reality is different.

That's not true. The 1686 games you're talking about is between 1931456 and 1933142  (inclusive), which means you should have won:
https://gist.github.com/RHavar/f5d1cdc76d916e15688a

Please check them all, because I guarantee you won them all, and I can guarantee there's 790 of them. I checked both the provably fair, and the database. Every single game you should have won, you won. All 790 of them.

I checked my script again and I found an error on the counting part, I have missed something. Also from the total number of games some wining games were not recorded.

I apologize that I rushed on some conclusion based on wrong data.

[jonsi]

Thank you.

I'll make sure to double and triple check before posting anything so I don't end up embarrassing myself again.

[ranlo]

"
!prob >= 2.06
Shiba: Probability of ≥2.06: 47.814538%

"

So this means in 1000 games 478 should be wins and 522 looses. This is a 44 difference (522-478=44)
In 1686 games this means that 806 (805.9 to be exact) should be wins and 880 should be looses. This is a 74 difference.

The reality:

I played 1686 consecutive games with 2.06 cashout point.
The results: 777 games won and 909 games lost. This is a 132 difference.

The difference of 132 is nearly double as it should been, 74.

This is pure matematics and probabilities. The deviation is way to big. A 10% - maxim 20% could call normal because of the variance, but nearly double?? I have made many tests with randon numbers and this is not normal.

The conclusion: I think the game it's NOT FAIR.

Edited: By the way, the last game ID thai I played is 1933142, and the first I guess is 1933142-1686.




-edited-
I had an error when recording data from game.

It takes 100 million+ rolls to get near the estimated ratio, which is all just part of statistics. Some won't accept them if they're under 1b. This is like rolling 15x, all being fails at 50%, and saying that it's clearly broken, while ignoring the people winning 50+ times in a row.

[dooglus]

The difference of 132 is nearly double as it should been, 74.

This is pure matematics and probabilities. The deviation is way to big. A 10% - maxim 20% could call normal because of the variance, but nearly double?? I have made many tests with randon numbers and this is not normal.

Could you share your tests with us? I understand that you later realised that you had somehow failed to "count" correctly, but even if you had learned to count correctly what makes you feel that you're justified in saying that a difference of 132 is "not normal"?

According to my tests, when you play 1686 times with a chance of winning of 47.814538%, you will see a difference of (losses-wins) equal to 132 or more around 8% of the time, and so for it to happen once out of one trial is entirely normal.

Here's the code for my test. I'd like to compare it with yours:

Code:

#!/usr/bin/env python

import random

win_chance = 47.814538 / 100
games = 1686
trials = 100000
results = {}

trial = 0
while trial < trials:
    c = 0
    wins = 0
    while c < games:
        if random.random() < win_chance:
            wins += 1
        c += 1

    losses = games - wins
    diff = losses - wins
    if not results.has_key(diff):
        results[diff] = 0
    results[diff] += 1
    trial += 1

keys = results.keys()
keys.sort()
sum = 0
for k in keys:
    sum += results[k]
    print k, sum * 100.0 / trials