bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game

[libertynow]

Yeah, the plan is always been to create two different versions of the game. One for people who like the pvp competitive part, and one for people who don't. But I have no problem changing depending on what people prefer and how they play =)

For the record, I hate the idea of splitting the player base since the great aspect of the game is that the people who grind the bonus% can gain an edge from the people who don't care about the bonus%.  By splitting it up, it seems like the only people playing the bonus game will be the ones who are actually competitive for the bonus which will essentially kill the game.

But I mean, I get it.  By eliminating the bonus aspect, you'll attract a clientele who aims for higher bust numbers, which have higher house edges.  

Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead.  There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play.  This new version effectively kills the entire game. 

The good news is that other websites are putting up the same bustabit version and keeping the bonus so there are potentially other places to play.  It's hard to beat Ryan's trustworthiness though. That takes time...

[1714170126]

1714170126

[1714170126]

1714170126

[1714170126]

1714170126

[1714170126]

1714170126

[1714170126]

1714170126

[actmyname]

Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead.  There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play.

Let's stop right there! If bonus hunters don't play, then is it not profitable again? This may be akin to stating, "it's a terrible move to bluff on the river: you shouldn't shove with nothing," yet if we keep that ideology, then it suddenly becomes a +ev move. If it's always terrible to bluff on the river and nobody does it, then would it not be profitable to do so? Your opponents would never think that you were bluffing!But in correspondence with bustabit, this will simply result in a sort of oscillation in the number of players.

[libertynow]

Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead.  There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play.

Let's stop right there! If bonus hunters don't play, then is it not profitable again? This may be akin to stating, "it's a terrible move to bluff on the river: you shouldn't shove with nothing," yet if we keep that ideology, then it suddenly becomes a +ev move. If it's always terrible to bluff on the river and nobody does it, then would it not be profitable to do so? Your opponents would never think that you were bluffing!But in correspondence with bustabit, this will simply result in a sort of oscillation in the number of players.

Sounds like you don't understand how bustabit works....

[actmyname]

Sounds like you don't understand how bustabit works....

Okay. If you want to explain what I'm missing then go ahead.

If you have everyone playing to be competitive then it shifts between +ev and -ev because of the bonus & people dropping out/in. I'm not sure what's wrong with that idea.I mean, you will most likely get a ton of people never cashing out but you can also consider the main issue with that strategy: a finite bankroll

[DarkDays]

Exactly. If the entire game is competitive people then it'll be dead.  There will be no way for it to be profitable and thus the bonus hunters wouldn't play.

Let's stop right there! If bonus hunters don't play, then is it not profitable again? This may be akin to stating, "it's a terrible move to bluff on the river: you shouldn't shove with nothing," yet if we keep that ideology, then it suddenly becomes a +ev move. If it's always terrible to bluff on the river and nobody does it, then would it not be profitable to do so? Your opponents would never think that you were bluffing!But in correspondence with bustabit, this will simply result in a sort of oscillation in the number of players.

No, in keeping with the poker analogy, the bonus game would be filled with people playing GTO.  You need a significant edge from the bonus to counteract the house edge on every game.  If the game is only running with people who are playing "correctly", you won't be able to get that edge enough to outrun the house edge.

[RHavar]

I guess the summary is there are two types of bustabit players:
a) Those who play casually and against the house (and generally are bonus oblivious)
b) Those who play competitively for bonuses


libertynow with his bonus bot obviously belong to group b) and greatly benefits from playing against people in group a) (to their detriment).

I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it.  One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )


--

Anyway, nothing is going to be happening soon. So no need to panic. Just playing around with stuff to do my best to make everyone happy 

[DarkDays]

  One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )

Oh, I'd play this.  Taking away the house edge makes it a completely different game, one where skilled players can still gain an edge since it's purely p2p. 

It all depends on the rake structure, though.  It's a little confusing when/how you are planning on implementing the rake.  I feel like there's probably a way to run the game where everyone "buys in" and you take a small rake off the top, but I'm unsure if many people would be interested in playing that sort of variant. 

[libertynow]

I guess the summary is there are two types of bustabit players:
a) Those who play casually and against the house (and generally are bonus oblivious)
b) Those who play competitively for bonuses


libertynow with his bonus bot obviously belong to group b) and greatly benefits from playing against people in group a) (to their detriment).

I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it.  One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )


--

Anyway, nothing is going to be happening soon. So no need to panic. Just playing around with stuff to do my best to make everyone happy 

How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake?

[RHavar]

How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake?

The 0% rake would be exclusive to the pvp version. The primary game (playing against the house) would still have a normal house edge

[DarkDays]

How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake?

The 0% rake would be exclusive to the pvp version. The primary game (playing against the house) would still have a normal house edge

I think he's asking why you would segment the population and have some players playing a game that earned you nothing.

[hopenotlate]

I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it.  One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )

A small rake is foreseen anyway not significant. Maybe Ryan is going to offer this PvP game like an addon to the main game ( traditional one).

If it was at me I wouldn't change a single aspect of the actual bustabit and still don't understand why it is going to be changed: I could be wrong but I guess it is the most successful game in bitcoin gambling industry just the way it is now.

[fiscorcle]

I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it.  One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )

A small rake is foreseen anyway not significant. Maybe Ryan is going to offer this PvP game like an addon to the main game ( traditional one).

If it was at me I wouldn't change a single aspect of the actual bustabit and still don't understand why it is going to be changed: I could be wrong but I guess it is the most successful game in bitcoin gambling industry just the way it is now.

That's my perspective as well, as the old saying goes "it if ain't broke don't fix it"

[Chillz]

Are there any cool features just like a rebate for the loss that you had and bonuses? I might be interested in this game again. I will keep an eye for this update, I hope that you will bring something cool on the site. All the best

[sinanexchange]

İ hope too longride in coinworld

[LORD money]

I think that bustabit is always the same game, it doesn't change! maybe you can add some other games

[RHavar]

I was just now made aware of another bitcoin fork (yay!) called "United Bitcoin", at the sexy domain: https://www.ub.com/


I will be taking a snapshot of all users balances at fork time, and claiming for users so I can distribute to users  (conditional upon there being trezor support for it)


Edit: This will not be possible

[TwitchySeal]

I was just now made aware of another bitcoin fork (yay!) called "United Bitcoin", at the sexy domain: https://www.ub.com/


I will be taking a snapshot of all users balances at fork time, and claiming for users so I can distribute to users  (conditional upon there being trezor support for it)

Fun Fact:
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009.  In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.

[RHavar]

Fun Fact:
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009.  In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.

Oh interesting, I didn't know that bit of history. They probably got a good deal on the domain. I wonder if the name "United Bitcoin" came after the domain (as it seems rather strange to use the word "united" when you're forking)

[RHavar]

I've spent some more time reading into "UB" and unfortunately will not be able to support it.  According to the "whitepaper" it said:

All active Bitcoin addresses will receive corresponding balances on UnitedBitcoin’s chain. Balances of inactive addresses will be collected and used to serve the community.

So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days.  However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:

The output address (receiving address) must also be listed as one of the input addresses and cannot be a totally new address

Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).

However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive.  (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).

So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/

[Panda Trump]

I've spent some more time reading into "UB" and unfortunately will not be able to support it.  According to the "whitepaper" it said:

All active Bitcoin addresses will receive corresponding balances on UnitedBitcoin’s chain. Balances of inactive addresses will be collected and used to serve the community.

So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days.  However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:

The output address (receiving address) must also be listed as one of the input addresses and cannot be a totally new address

Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).

However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive.  (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).

So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/

Just let your gamblers withdraw their Bitcoins and claim their UB at their own wallets.

Besides, I don't feel like they're missing anything if they don't claim them anyways, as it's another pointless fork. It's insane that BCH reached such a height. BTG is a weird one too and I'm kinda sure something like United Bitcoin won't be able to get further than maybe a couple percents of the current Bitcoin price.

-=-=-

You seem like a pretty reasonable Customer Support Dictator Head of Customer Success. Good communication & Clear explanation... Thumbs up!