bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game

[intrader]

How much your btc from start?
I tried in bigger amount always busted from beginning but it fine if smaller bet

I don't think I ever deposited more than 1 or 2 BTC, if that's what you're asking.

You can see my chart here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/dooglus

Amazing,you playing like a pro 

[DarkStar_]

I have a idea deposit 0.5btc for one time gambling once its double withdraw the profit and never turn back 

That's a great trick to not force yourself to be greedy. I am also doing the same thing but in my case I only start with a 0.005 BTC bankroll and every time I doubled it, say I get 0.01 btc already I'll withdraw half of it and play again with the othe half and then try to double it up again. So far it works with just minimal bets. I don't wan to bet high.

It is not trick at all. It is being conscious and smart about the way you play. Don't gamble your money away without plan and throw blind bet while expecting to win it all.

Always check the history first so you could expect whats coming in the next round if the graph hits a high multiplier expect crashing at 1.xx or 0 on the future rounds. This is only my observation when i play here.

Do you really believe that rounds have something to common are linked somehow abd  you can predict next one by seeing how the last one went?

I believe that you are wrong. If there is a large trend of low multipliets, then the next bets are more likely to be higher because although the 2 games are independent the chance of losing grows less. Think of a coin. The chance to get 2 tails in a row is (1/2 * 1/2) or 1/4. There is a similar effect at bustabit. So yes, I believe that the rounds are linked. You can't predict it, but you can get a greater chance at winning.


Edit: My statement is wrong and I have learned the error of my ways. Read below to find out why.

[Chemistry1988]

I believe that you are wrong. If there is a large trend of low multipliets, then the next bets are more likely to be higher because although the 2 games are independent the chance of losing grows less. Think of a coin. The chance to get 2 tails in a row is (1/2 * 1/2) or 1/4. There is a similar effect at bustabit. So yes, I believe that the rounds are linked. You can't predict it, but you can get a greater chance at winning.

With a fair coin, the chance to get 2 tails in a row is 1/4. Yet, given that the first flip is a tail, the chance to get 2 tails in a row is actually 1/2, exactly the same as the chance to get a head in the second flip. The simple example on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability#Example may help you understand the concept of conditional probability.

[amacar2]

Ryan, do you ever plan on reviving the bustabit subreddit at www.reddit.com/r/moneypot?
It used to have many good scripts submitted by users but now it's dead, and under the old "moneypot" name. Will you start another subreddit under /r/bustabit or just leave it as it is?

Yes we need ryan you to create another subreddit where we can discuss about different bustabit strategy and also script to use. It is for sure there is no any always profit strategy but it was always fun to try them. 

[RHavar]

Ryan, do you ever plan on reviving the bustabit subreddit at www.reddit.com/r/moneypot?
It used to have many good scripts submitted by users but now it's dead, and under the old "moneypot" name. Will you start another subreddit under /r/bustabit or just leave it as it is?

It's not ideal, but I think this thread is probably the best spot for such scripts. The subreddit never really got much traction, and was kind of abandoned

[RHavar]

Bustabit is provably fair. So even if you are the only one playing at the site, you would still be able to easily prove or disprove the rigging theory.
Ryan, CMIIW, the current provably fair system started working in game #1000000. So to verify a bet in game #N, player just need to hash the <game #N hash> N - 999999 times to see if it gives you c1cfa8e28fc38999eaa888487e443bad50a65e0b710f649affa6718cfbfada4d found on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.msg10130578#msg10130578, and to use https://jsfiddle.net/1L1uqcgv/6/embedded/result/ to verify the crashpoint.

Yup, that's right! thanks for posting this.

[DarkDays]

I believe that you are wrong. If there is a large trend of low multipliets, then the next bets are more likely to be higher because although the 2 games are independent the chance of losing grows less. Think of a coin. The chance to get 2 tails in a row is (1/2 * 1/2) or 1/4. There is a similar effect at bustabit. So yes, I believe that the rounds are linked. You can't predict it, but you can get a greater chance at winning.

I am positive that you are wrong.  In a fair random game, past incidences don't influence future events.  So saying "its very unlikely that it'll crash low four times in a row" is only true if you are talking about four FUTURE times.  Not if any of those incidences has already occurred.

Here's a better example: I flip a coin.  It lands tails three times in a row.  I get ready to flip it again.  Do you think it's more likely to land heads on this flip than tails?  Why?  The coin has no memory.

[RHavar]

Here's a better example: I flip a coin.  It lands tails three times in a row.  I get ready to flip it again.  Do you think it's more likely to land heads on this flip than tails?  Why?  The coin has no memory.

I really like the coin example, because people can look at a coin and see it has no memory of the past. What tends to really confuse people is more abstract things like "low game median". E.g. over the last 1000 games, let's say the median is bust was 1.9.  We know the median is going to trend back towards 1.97x -- so surely it's a good time to bet?

[EngiNerd]

Here's a better example: I flip a coin.  It lands tails three times in a row.  I get ready to flip it again.  Do you think it's more likely to land heads on this flip than tails?  Why?  The coin has no memory.

I really like the coin example, because people can look at a coin and see it has no memory of the past. What tends to really confuse people is more abstract things like "low game median". E.g. over the last 1000 games, let's say the median is bust was 1.9.  We know the median is going to trend back towards 1.97x -- so surely it's a good time to bet?

If they could place an infinite number of bets, knowing that it will converge to 1.97x, it seems like that would make it +EV. But going back to the coin example, if it lands on tails 100 times in a row, we know it'll be 50% heads on an infinite number of flips, but unfortunately we can't bet an infinite number of times to catch that profit :-P

[RHavar]

If they could place an infinite number of bets, knowing that it will converge to 1.97x, it seems like that would make it +EV.

It would seem that way, but it's actually just convincing illusion. The median will converge back to 1.97, but it won't really help you be +EV. As an example, imagine you flip a coin 100 times, and 90% of them land on heads.  If you keep flipping the coin, eventually the amount of heads will be 50%. But that doesn't mean that tails is any more likely to come up =)

[JackpotRacer]

this should be a good read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

[TwitchySeal]

I believe that you are wrong. If there is a large trend of low multipliets, then the next bets are more likely to be higher because although the 2 games are independent the chance of losing grows less. Think of a coin. The chance to get 2 tails in a row is (1/2 * 1/2) or 1/4. There is a similar effect at bustabit. So yes, I believe that the rounds are linked. You can't predict it, but you can get a greater chance at winning.

I am positive that you are wrong.  In a fair random game, past incidences don't influence future events.  So saying "its very unlikely that it'll crash low four times in a row" is only true if you are talking about four FUTURE times.  Not if any of those incidences has already occurred.

Here's a better example: I flip a coin.  It lands tails three times in a row.  I get ready to flip it again.  Do you think it's more likely to land heads on this flip than tails?  Why?  The coin has no memory.

Tails is a favorite till I see what's on the other side.

[kahir]

is there a guide to the commands that can be used in the chat on bustabit

[hopenotlate]

is there a guide to the commands that can be used in the chat on bustabit

If you type !help in chatbox the ever faithful friend shiba will post following link


https://github.com/moneypot/shiba/wiki


Have a look there and you will find out everything 

[EngiNerd]

If they could place an infinite number of bets, knowing that it will converge to 1.97x, it seems like that would make it +EV.

It would seem that way, but it's actually just convincing illusion. The median will converge back to 1.97, but it won't really help you be +EV. As an example, imagine you flip a coin 100 times, and 90% of them land on heads.  If you keep flipping the coin, eventually the amount of heads will be 50%. But that doesn't mean that tails is any more likely to come up =)

Exactly, a very convincing illusion. The human mind is very alert to patterns and is incredibly susceptible to the "well it's due" fallacy :-P

[ndnh]

Here's a better example: I flip a coin.  It lands tails three times in a row.  I get ready to flip it again.  Do you think it's more likely to land heads on this flip than tails?  Why?  The coin has no memory.

I really like the coin example, because people can look at a coin and see it has no memory of the past. What tends to really confuse people is more abstract things like "low game median". E.g. over the last 1000 games, let's say the median is bust was 1.9.  We know the median is going to trend back towards 1.97x -- so surely it's a good time to bet?

If they could place an infinite number of bets, knowing that it will converge to 1.97x, it seems like that would make it +EV. But going back to the coin example, if it lands on tails 100 times in a row, we know it'll be 50% heads on an infinite number of flips, but unfortunately we can't bet an infinite number of times to catch that profit :-P

I don't see the illusion.. I believe the past events should be entirely discarded. So whether it was 1.9 or 2.1 or a 100, it shouldn't matter.

If there are two 1% house edge sites with same bankroll at the point, one with -1% (past) actual return on wagered and another with 2% actual return, and you are to invest in one of them, I wouldn't see any difference between the two.
But depending on how we think, we are like to prefer one over the other.


Edit: which turns out to be exactly the same as what RHaver said just in a different way.
Eventually the number of past events will be so small when compared to infinity that the past events doesn't matter.

[EngiNerd]

Edit: which turns out to be exactly the same as what RHaver said just in a different way.
Eventually the number of past events will be so small when compared to infinity that the past events doesn't matter.

^ Exactly, and that's what helps me when I think about it. Doesn't matter whether it's 1 past event or 1,000,000 past events...they're equally small when compared to infinity 

I think the lure of trying to beat or anticipate the game will always be strong enough to fool some people into thinking they know what's coming next...

[dooglus]

I don't see the illusion.. I believe the past events should be entirely discarded. So whether it was 1.9 or 2.1 or a 100, it shouldn't matter.

Well, you're right that they should be discarded and that they don't matter. But it's easy to see why people think it does matter:

1) so far we've seen 1 head and 9 tails
2) we know that in the long run we will see roughly the same number of each
3) so therefore we must be 'due' to see more heads than tails

1 and 2 are true, and naively step 3 seems like a natural consequence of 1 and 2. That is where the error happens. Step 2 happens in spite of step 1, because "in the long run" the difference in step 1 becomes insignificant. There's no tendency to reduce the difference, only to make it not matter.

If there are two 1% house edge sites with same bankroll at the point, one with -1% (past) actual return on wagered and another with 2% actual return, and you are to invest in one of them, I wouldn't see any difference between the two.

You need to take into account that one of the sites may be cheating its investors. If everything else was the same I think it would make sense to invest with the more profitable one, since they are less likely to be cheating their investors. But this (much like Twitchy's comment that maybe the coin has tails on both sides) is kind of beside the point. For the purposes of this discuss we should assume a fair coin, and a fair gambling site.

[RHavar]

There are appears to be (quite literally) a classroom of kids trying to push a phishing site: event - bustabit . com.  It's obviously not legitimate, and if you enter your bustabit password there you'll probably lose your account. One person has already lost 0.2 BTC Instead of completely censoring the domain, in chat it gets suffixed with "[NOTE: SCAM SITE!!!!]"  so people get an awareness of the fact there's phising sites out there (as I can't control if they email or send PMs on bitcointalk or what ever).

[NLNico]

There are appears to be (quite literally) a classroom of kids trying to push a phishing site: event - bustabit . com.  It's obviously not legitimate, and if you enter your bustabit password there you'll probably lose your account. One person has already lost 0.2 BTC Instead of completely censoring the domain, in chat it gets suffixed with "[NOTE: SCAM SITE!!!!]"  so people get an awareness of the fact there's phising sites out there (as I can't control if they email or send PMs on bitcointalk or what ever).

Seems related to this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1487419.0

Code:

PING bot-bitdice.me (193.200.241.136) 56(84) bytes of data.
PING event-bustabit.com (193.200.241.136) 56(84) bytes of data.