And that comes from the site of the owner of Bodog, so he should know a thing or two?
You don't think maybe he should be a little biased?? hehe 
Topic: Are bitcoins casinos really pointless? (Read 8468 times)
I think this is just a matter of time, before Bitcoin becomes popular for casinos.
Anyway you can spend your bitcoins and get ukash, which is used in most online casinos these days.
Anyway you can spend your bitcoins and get ukash, which is used in most online casinos these days.
Why let such nice thread die? 
I started the thread more in the angle, if there is any significant profit for the gambling site owners at this stage if bitcoin economy. Or it's mostly for fun.
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
Your problem seems to be more laziness than anything. Dooglus for instance has done a pretty good job of following the take of the biggest bitcoin gambling site, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15k BTC ahead at the moment. You can actually share in those profits too, by buying its shares.
More generally, every time some BTC game advertises as "provably fair" what it means is that you can just traverse the chain and establish for yourself, with 8 digit precision, how much it made.
In any case drugs aren't the biggest market driver. Repeating that nonsense is quickly becoming the Bitcoin equivalent of "God created the world": something stupid people say because they've heard other stupid people say it.
Listen dum dum, I'm aware of the earning of satoshi dice. You don't need Dooglus for that, since they've made their earnings spreadsheet public since they want to sell shares.
But 1 site, especially the most successful one is not enough to get the full picture of the market, right?
About the drugs, i'm not saying that because i've heard it, there are stats actually (if i remember correctly the guys from bitcoin magazine did quite the research) showing the money flow in each of the major sectors. Drugs transactions were beating all the rest by factor of 10 or so.
About the blockchain, good luck following and calculating transactions when most of them generate unique address for each new user and unlike satoshidice they are not market with dice in them....
next time think before accusing someone in lazyness and talking nonsense....
I don't think our disagreement is one of terminology. Even after you rephrased it, I still think you're wrong.
om nom nom, yummy humble pie.
Dooglus thanks for persisting I now appreciate the value of running 10 trillion simulations vs 1 million
Codemonkey also had several attempts explaining it to me but I didnt appreciate until I saw some raw stats.
What casinos should be careful of is that a large bet range coupled with a low house edge can increase amounts of rounds (and bank) required before the houses average earn smooths out.
Some gambling systems we are simulating require more than 1 trillion rounds for the casino to get its average earn matching the house edge within 10% each round.
I fired off a big simulation last night running all gambling systems but unfortunately it crashed out, 8 cpu cores at 100% and a hot room is not good
I will fire off another simulation tonight and share our results.
CodeMonkey says he may be up for releasing his simulator to the public once he has finished cleaning up the code.
That's not really true.
bitZino.com is probably fair, but not via the blockchain. The site shows its hashes only to the player, not to the world, so I've no idea how popular or profitable bitZino is.
bitZino.com is probably fair, but not via the blockchain. The site shows its hashes only to the player, not to the world, so I've no idea how popular or profitable bitZino is.
Ah ok, didn't know that.
What it offers is immediacy.
That's a very good point that I had overlooked (as I'm generally not an online gambling player, ... primarily for the reason you cited ... I try to avoid negative EV
).This was illustrated in another thread where bitcoin gaming is sometimes used as a way to get a "bridge loan". The example given was where someone wants to make a purchase but is just a little short of funds. It will take a few days either to get more funds or for an existing funds transfer to complete in order to buy more coins. So using one of the bitcoin gaming services a person can make a wager (or two) and likely win the amount that was needed.
In the worst case scenario the person loses and has to wait a few days for a funds transfer to complete, just like they would have been had they not placed the bets.
Of course for a person in financial distress, this can accelerate a downward spiral but for those simply wanting a few more coins quickly, the immediate access to winnings is something Bitcoin gaming offers that is not found anywhere else online.
I hadn't taken this view before: so bitcoin gambling fulfills the same function as traditional loaning business?
X wants to buy big TV. has 90%, will gamble what he has on a SatoshiDice with 10% winning -> if lucky, can buy TV, if not: all funds lost
vs.
X wants to buy big TV, has 90%, will take long of 10% -> can buy TV for sure, if unlucky: loss of decent life.
One could argue gambling has higher moral grounds than the traditional loaning business.
It depends. If Bitcoin never gets any bigger essentially no bitcoin buisiness is worth it. None. Not even MtGox. However nobody putting money and labor into a bitcoin enterprise is doing it for the small sums they will net today. They are doing it because what "if" bitcoin is bigger. Not a little bigger but much much much bigger. What if someday there are tens of millions of Bitcoin users. Then being an established and trusted [casino|exchange|retailer|auction house|marketplace|etc] is suddenly very much worth it.
IMHO Bitcoin will either be much bigger or a footnote in history in 3-5 years. It won't remain the status quo.
IMHO Bitcoin will either be much bigger or a footnote in history in 3-5 years. It won't remain the status quo.
I agree (who here wouldn't).
Sidenote: we're still at No. 1 of Falkvinges 4 drivers: http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/16/bitcoins-four-drivers-part-one-unlawful-trade/
More generally, every time some BTC game advertises as "provably fair" what it means is that you can just traverse the chain and establish for yourself, with 8 digit precision, how much it made.
That's not really true.
bitZino.com is probably fair, but not via the blockchain. The site shows its hashes only to the player, not to the world, so I've no idea how popular or profitable bitZino is.
Not that this is anywhere on topic, but MPOE-PR & Staring Owl seem to disagree on this:
What is the biggest driving force behind the daily volume of transactions on the major exchanges?
I would bet 1.5 yrs ago it was drugs, very specifically Silk Road drugs. Today I think gambling makes up a non-negligible part of that economy, but so do many other things now 1.5 yrs later from the drug-dominated BTC economy, and I believe the drug impact has shrunk on a %-of-btc-economy basis but likely grown by all other metrics, such as users and total USD transacted.
So what do you guys think, if you had to assign %'s to it, makes up the btc economy? Mt. Gox recently has ~25k btc traded per 24 hrs and about $12/btc so each 24 hours $300,000 USD worth of BTC are traded. What are they used for? Isn't there a Silk Road study every other week? I think I remember ~$20-$25M in sales each year, which would be about ~2M in trades per month, which would be about 22% of the BTC economy.
IMO Drugs / Silk Road (is there any other place to buy drugs?) make up about 22% of the btc economy ATM.
And when beginning to speculate upon the other 78%, I would say gambling is around 3-8%, and while someone may link me to the SatoshiDice block-chain exploder graph, let me state that they have made 15,000 btc since they have been operating. While this may generate a lot of blockchain transactions, there is only 15,000 btc worth of total loss that if you assume would be re-purchased for fresh fiat only adds 15,000 btc total worth of trades. No where near impacting daily volumes, i.e. there aren't many people winning huge and cashing out on Gox, or losing huge and always needing to buy more from Gox. (although there are a few outliers, and those outliers are hard core degenerates
What is the biggest driving force behind the daily volume of transactions on the major exchanges?
I would bet 1.5 yrs ago it was drugs, very specifically Silk Road drugs. Today I think gambling makes up a non-negligible part of that economy, but so do many other things now 1.5 yrs later from the drug-dominated BTC economy, and I believe the drug impact has shrunk on a %-of-btc-economy basis but likely grown by all other metrics, such as users and total USD transacted.
So what do you guys think, if you had to assign %'s to it, makes up the btc economy? Mt. Gox recently has ~25k btc traded per 24 hrs and about $12/btc so each 24 hours $300,000 USD worth of BTC are traded. What are they used for? Isn't there a Silk Road study every other week? I think I remember ~$20-$25M in sales each year, which would be about ~2M in trades per month, which would be about 22% of the BTC economy.
IMO Drugs / Silk Road (is there any other place to buy drugs?) make up about 22% of the btc economy ATM.
And when beginning to speculate upon the other 78%, I would say gambling is around 3-8%, and while someone may link me to the SatoshiDice block-chain exploder graph, let me state that they have made 15,000 btc since they have been operating. While this may generate a lot of blockchain transactions, there is only 15,000 btc worth of total loss that if you assume would be re-purchased for fresh fiat only adds 15,000 btc total worth of trades. No where near impacting daily volumes, i.e. there aren't many people winning huge and cashing out on Gox, or losing huge and always needing to buy more from Gox. (although there are a few outliers, and those outliers are hard core degenerates
What are the Bitcoin market drivers? Jus' for you.
Not that this is anywhere on topic, but MPOE-PR & Staring Owl seem to disagree on this:
What is the biggest driving force behind the daily volume of transactions on the major exchanges?
I would bet 1.5 yrs ago it was drugs, very specifically Silk Road drugs. Today I think gambling makes up a non-negligible part of that economy, but so do many other things now 1.5 yrs later from the drug-dominated BTC economy, and I believe the drug impact has shrunk on a %-of-btc-economy basis but likely grown by all other metrics, such as users and total USD transacted.
So what do you guys think, if you had to assign %'s to it, makes up the btc economy? Mt. Gox recently has ~25k btc traded per 24 hrs and about $12/btc so each 24 hours $300,000 USD worth of BTC are traded. What are they used for? Isn't there a Silk Road study every other week? I think I remember ~$20-$25M in sales each year, which would be about ~2M in trades per month, which would be about 22% of the BTC economy.
IMO Drugs / Silk Road (is there any other place to buy drugs?) make up about 22% of the btc economy ATM.
And when beginning to speculate upon the other 78%, I would say gambling is around 3-8%, and while someone may link me to the SatoshiDice block-chain exploder graph, let me state that they have made 15,000 btc since they have been operating. While this may generate a lot of blockchain transactions, there is only 15,000 btc worth of total loss that if you assume would be re-purchased for fresh fiat only adds 15,000 btc total worth of trades. No where near impacting daily volumes, i.e. there aren't many people winning huge and cashing out on Gox, or losing huge and always needing to buy more from Gox. (although there are a few outliers, and those outliers are hard core degenerates
What is the biggest driving force behind the daily volume of transactions on the major exchanges?
I would bet 1.5 yrs ago it was drugs, very specifically Silk Road drugs. Today I think gambling makes up a non-negligible part of that economy, but so do many other things now 1.5 yrs later from the drug-dominated BTC economy, and I believe the drug impact has shrunk on a %-of-btc-economy basis but likely grown by all other metrics, such as users and total USD transacted.
So what do you guys think, if you had to assign %'s to it, makes up the btc economy? Mt. Gox recently has ~25k btc traded per 24 hrs and about $12/btc so each 24 hours $300,000 USD worth of BTC are traded. What are they used for? Isn't there a Silk Road study every other week? I think I remember ~$20-$25M in sales each year, which would be about ~2M in trades per month, which would be about 22% of the BTC economy.
IMO Drugs / Silk Road (is there any other place to buy drugs?) make up about 22% of the btc economy ATM.
And when beginning to speculate upon the other 78%, I would say gambling is around 3-8%, and while someone may link me to the SatoshiDice block-chain exploder graph, let me state that they have made 15,000 btc since they have been operating. While this may generate a lot of blockchain transactions, there is only 15,000 btc worth of total loss that if you assume would be re-purchased for fresh fiat only adds 15,000 btc total worth of trades. No where near impacting daily volumes, i.e. there aren't many people winning huge and cashing out on Gox, or losing huge and always needing to buy more from Gox. (although there are a few outliers, and those outliers are hard core degenerates
I started the thread more in the angle, if there is any significant profit for the gambling site owners at this stage if bitcoin economy. Or it's mostly for fun.
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
Your problem seems to be more laziness than anything. Dooglus for instance has done a pretty good job of following the take of the biggest bitcoin gambling site, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15k BTC ahead at the moment. You can actually share in those profits too, by buying its shares.
More generally, every time some BTC game advertises as "provably fair" what it means is that you can just traverse the chain and establish for yourself, with 8 digit precision, how much it made.
In any case drugs aren't the biggest market driver. Repeating that nonsense is quickly becoming the Bitcoin equivalent of "God created the world": something stupid people say because they've heard other stupid people say it.
I started the thread more in the angle, if there is any significant profit for the gambling site owners at this stage if bitcoin economy. Or it's mostly for fun.
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
Hi, Staring Owl-- Obviously, I speak only for myself, but my reason for launching Kingcoin was to learn about Bitcoin, "get my feet wet" with programming Bitcoin, and introduce myself to the Bitcoin community. My profits so far are negligible. Of course, I absolutely want to create a terrific and fun experience for my users, but I see myself eventually doing something more impactful with Bitcoin.
Sanjay
I started the thread more in the angle, if there is any significant profit for the gambling site owners at this stage if bitcoin economy. Or it's mostly for fun.
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
In the spirit of transparency and honesty some of them want to set, i'm sure a lot of people will appreciate if they share their profits or at least give us idea about them.
Drugs are the biggest market driver so far, it's logical to expect gambling will be next. But I don't think that's the case here.
(If you could order hookers with bitcoins that would be second)
And that comes from the site of the owner of Bodog, so he should know a thing or two?
Two words: House edge.
No, sorry. Four words. Add two more: Provably Fair.
Most state-operated lotteries pay out in the range of 70% or less of the lotto ticket/wager revenue. I don't know the actual number for a fact, but most of these state run lotteries are audited and when you dig you can find their reported results for each jurisdiction. If you believe they aren't cheating and can trust the audited numbers, you'll probably end up with a number in the 70% range.
BitLotto pays out 99%. I do know this number to be a fact as I see the blockchain and know exactly how many tickets were purchased. I can perform the calculation to independently determine the winner, and I see the payout transaction. Thus I can conclude that player returns when playing BitLotto are 41% higher than when playing MegaMillions (99% versus 70%).
- http://www.BitLotto.com
SatoshiDICE has a 98.1% payout (before considering transaction fees) which means they keep the 1.9% house edge. Today I can go through the blockchain and verify that every single wager ever made to SatoshiDICE (ever, like all the way back to their April launch) was calculated correctly and paid out correctly. I can prove that SatoshiDICE is operating fairly.
In Vegas casinos, the most widely used gambling options (e.g., slot machines) might return maybe 96%, and most are in the 94% or 92% range. Someone needs to pay for the security cameras, fake volcanoes and free booze. They only way for a physical casino to function profitably with better odds is likely to cheat somewhere. (Or so I've read. I don't gamble much and am not tuned in to the casino industry )
The only reason SatoshiDICE isn't paying out 99% is because they aren't being squeezed by a more aggressive competitor offering a 98.9% payout. That day will come. Because with an increase in play, both SatoshiDICE and some other competitor(s) can still operate profitably on a lower house advantage without cheating (which isn't really an option as it would be exposed them and they'ld lose all credibility in a matter of days.)
bitZino doesn't publish the odds to each of their games, I don't believe. But the odds can be calculated. For blackjack most of the rule variations are ones that favor the player:
- http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations
- http://www.bitZino.com
So I can't say that bitZino games (blackjack, video poker, craps and roulette) have payouts that are higher than a Vegas casino has because I haven't seen the odds (or performed the computations myself) but I would bet that bitZino can always beat Vegas casinos due to having such low costs, on a relative basis. (Unlike bitLotto and SatoshiDICE, we don't know bitZino's revenues or profits. I'm going to conclude they are still nowhere near recovering their investment for development but like D&T mentions, they probably didn't build all that intending to profit in 2012 but instead did all that beautiful HTML5 and rock solid back-end work for the returns they could see in 2014 or later, which could be substantial.)
Another provably fair game I'm enthusiastic about is King Coin. The odds for that were just calculated (thanks doogius) to be in the 96% range. That makes me less enthusiastic about the game than I was originally, but again, those odds can be increased (which can be verified independently) and hopefully this entertaining visual game can join the stable of online gaming where provably fair gaming using Bitcoins beats any other online gaming options.
And that's what the owner of Bodog either doesn't realize (which I doubt) or wishes to not tout until he figures out a way to make some money from it. He's welcome to try. The barrier to entry for building an online casino game is not beyond what a skilled developer operating solo as as "nights and weekends" project can produce. But with it being provably fair, math gives that alternative the same credibility as what gamers used to count on ... the polished look and feel that established gaming companies provide.
There's a huge industry that has no idea that they are going to be sharing part of their lunch:
- http://www.bulletbusiness.com/mobilegambling/index.php
Thanks for the Kingcoin shout-out, Stephen. The URL for those interested is http://kingco.in.
Stephen, I plan to make the game odds better and the game more fun by introducing a jackpot slice with a very high payout. I hope that--along with compatibility on more devices!--will increase your enthusiasm for Kingcoin! I also plan to publish the odds on the site.
Sanjay
Of course. But as any gambler knows, the secret to survival is discounting the bad cases and focusing on the good cases.
Yes. We're all "about even" on our gambling careers, I'm sure.
Yes, but the 3rd one "increased" the house edge to 2.31%...
Of course. But as any gambler knows, the secret to survival is discounting the bad cases and focusing on the good cases.
Code:
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5330214, profit -77550. won -0.0145 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5338031, profit -96823. won -0.0181 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5347483, profit -123551. won -0.0231 per unit bet
[...]
I imagine what SRoulette is talking about is the "actual" house edge, ie your first martingale example "reduced" the house edge to 1.45%.
Yes, but the 3rd one "increased" the house edge to 2.31%... It's just as likely to increase it as it is to decrease it. Unless you don't run enough trials in the simulation. If the maximum bet was 3 million times the minimum bet, and you only run 1 million plays then it's pretty likely that the player will win, since he'll only bust out once every 3 million plays. That still doesn't change the house edge. Even if you only run the simulation for 10 plays the house edge is still the same.
Here's a simulation which runs 1 million spins, and uses martingale betting with a max_bet of 3 million and min_bet of 1. It runs the simulation 50 times over. In most of the 50 runs the player is up after 1 million spins, but if you watch the "over all" house edge, it gets closer and closer to 2% the longer the simulation runs:
Code:
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11457710 (avg 11.46), profit 488962. won 0.0427 per unit bet ( 0.0427 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 17008465 (avg 17.01), profit -3704311. won -0.2178 per unit bet (-0.1130 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11017225 (avg 11.02), profit 489021. won 0.0444 per unit bet (-0.0690 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13868162 (avg 13.87), profit 489052. won 0.0353 per unit bet (-0.0419 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13020328 (avg 13.02), profit 489568. won 0.0376 per unit bet (-0.0263 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10977479 (avg 10.98), profit 490197. won 0.0447 per unit bet (-0.0163 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10019905 (avg 10.02), profit 490701. won 0.0490 per unit bet (-0.0088 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13910161 (avg 13.91), profit 489703. won 0.0352 per unit bet (-0.0027 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 14831702 (avg 14.83), profit 489618. won 0.0330 per unit bet ( 0.0018 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 14752718 (avg 14.75), profit -3704070. won -0.2511 per unit bet (-0.0267 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 15026345 (avg 15.03), profit 489887. won 0.0326 per unit bet (-0.0206 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 17972262 (avg 17.97), profit 489708. won 0.0272 per unit bet (-0.0153 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 17064824 (avg 17.06), profit -3704042. won -0.2171 per unit bet (-0.0344 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10081844 (avg 10.08), profit 490436. won 0.0486 per unit bet (-0.0300 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11156499 (avg 11.16), profit 489897. won 0.0439 per unit bet (-0.0259 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 12150884 (avg 12.15), profit 489752. won 0.0403 per unit bet (-0.0221 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 12385808 (avg 12.39), profit 491262. won 0.0397 per unit bet (-0.0188 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13666944 (avg 13.67), profit -3704202. won -0.2710 per unit bet (-0.0331 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10932079 (avg 10.93), profit 490997. won 0.0449 per unit bet (-0.0297 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 16427193 (avg 16.43), profit -3704633. won -0.2255 per unit bet (-0.0417 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13367344 (avg 13.37), profit 489988. won 0.0367 per unit bet (-0.0380 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13025866 (avg 13.03), profit 490218. won 0.0376 per unit bet (-0.0347 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10847957 (avg 10.85), profit 490019. won 0.0452 per unit bet (-0.0318 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10370444 (avg 10.37), profit 489506. won 0.0472 per unit bet (-0.0292 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10868724 (avg 10.87), profit 489922. won 0.0451 per unit bet (-0.0267 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 19760611 (avg 19.76), profit 490625. won 0.0248 per unit bet (-0.0238 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 17011539 (avg 17.01), profit -3704287. won -0.2178 per unit bet (-0.0329 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 15678676 (avg 15.68), profit 490236. won 0.0313 per unit bet (-0.0302 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11410885 (avg 11.41), profit 490113. won 0.0430 per unit bet (-0.0281 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10187641 (avg 10.19), profit 490873. won 0.0482 per unit bet (-0.0261 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11926302 (avg 11.93), profit 489660. won 0.0411 per unit bet (-0.0242 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 12854024 (avg 12.85), profit 489676. won 0.0381 per unit bet (-0.0223 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 12424968 (avg 12.42), profit 490366. won 0.0395 per unit bet (-0.0206 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10389545 (avg 10.39), profit 490087. won 0.0472 per unit bet (-0.0190 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 9595018 (avg 9.60), profit 490334. won 0.0511 per unit bet (-0.0175 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10597612 (avg 10.60), profit 490320. won 0.0463 per unit bet (-0.0161 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10617003 (avg 10.62), profit 490183. won 0.0462 per unit bet (-0.0147 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 20010422 (avg 20.01), profit -7899388. won -0.3948 per unit bet (-0.0299 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 17397414 (avg 17.40), profit -3704308. won -0.2129 per unit bet (-0.0361 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11776690 (avg 11.78), profit 489688. won 0.0416 per unit bet (-0.0344 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11885588 (avg 11.89), profit 490168. won 0.0412 per unit bet (-0.0327 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13854636 (avg 13.85), profit 490610. won 0.0354 per unit bet (-0.0310 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 13588069 (avg 13.59), profit 489521. won 0.0360 per unit bet (-0.0294 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 11199192 (avg 11.20), profit 488470. won 0.0436 per unit bet (-0.0280 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10057752 (avg 10.06), profit 489814. won 0.0487 per unit bet (-0.0267 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 10454429 (avg 10.45), profit 489967. won 0.0469 per unit bet (-0.0254 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 12164250 (avg 12.16), profit 491088. won 0.0404 per unit bet (-0.0241 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 15409300 (avg 15.41), profit 489224. won 0.0317 per unit bet (-0.0227 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 14511655 (avg 14.51), profit 490205. won 0.0338 per unit bet (-0.0214 over all)
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 9878573 (avg 9.88), profit 489889. won 0.0496 per unit bet (-0.0204 over all)
Pointless ? no - I have a fair bit of fun and it gives me something to do with my bitcoins
I think the question is in reference to running a bitcoin casino, not playing at one. 
Pointless ? no - I have a fair bit of fun and it gives me something to do with my bitcoins
That's just the effect of variance, though. Martingale play increases variance. However, the classic martingale still leaves the punter ahead only one bet per cycle (or else flat broke). I don't see how this breaks the house one bet at a time.
Other martingale-related strategies like the so-called "reverse martingale" (doubling a roughly even money bet every time the punter wins rather than losing) might seriously increase the house risk of ruin, especially if the house allowed an unlimited range of bets, but why would the house allow that?
Similarly, it is possible to make martingaling considerably more difficult by only allowing bets in certain ranges. For example, a house spreading blackjack might allow bets on one table from $100-500, bets on another table from $2000-10000, etc. but not allow easy doubling because those ranges aren't allowed.
I still believe the OP is misusing the phrase "house edge," since the house edge remains constant.
Martingaling increases the odds that the player will come out ahead (generally by a small amount) in any given session, but only at the cost of the occasional enormous loss. I'd be interested in seeing a simulation that the classic martingale, if allowed, greatly increases the house risk of ruin, but it seems the house would have to allow an unrealistic range of bets for this to happen.
(Other tactics, such as the "reverse martingale," would I believe increase the house risk of ruin with a less absurd range of potential bets, but I'm just guessing on that. I guess I have never been particularly concerned with the house's risk of ruin, since I'm usually focused on my own.)
Other martingale-related strategies like the so-called "reverse martingale" (doubling a roughly even money bet every time the punter wins rather than losing) might seriously increase the house risk of ruin, especially if the house allowed an unlimited range of bets, but why would the house allow that?
Similarly, it is possible to make martingaling considerably more difficult by only allowing bets in certain ranges. For example, a house spreading blackjack might allow bets on one table from $100-500, bets on another table from $2000-10000, etc. but not allow easy doubling because those ranges aren't allowed.
I still believe the OP is misusing the phrase "house edge," since the house edge remains constant.
Martingaling increases the odds that the player will come out ahead (generally by a small amount) in any given session, but only at the cost of the occasional enormous loss. I'd be interested in seeing a simulation that the classic martingale, if allowed, greatly increases the house risk of ruin, but it seems the house would have to allow an unrealistic range of bets for this to happen.
(Other tactics, such as the "reverse martingale," would I believe increase the house risk of ruin with a less absurd range of potential bets, but I'm just guessing on that. I guess I have never been particularly concerned with the house's risk of ruin, since I'm usually focused on my own.)
It would be very interesting to see what sort of simulation you are running.
Here's a very simple simulation of martingale betting vs. flat betting:
Code:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import random
edge = 2.0 # what's the house edge?
lessthan = (1 - edge/100) / 2 # what does that represent as a 'lessthan' target (between 0 and 1)
def play(stake):
if random.random() < lessthan: return stake
return -stake
repeats = 10
plays = 1000000
min_bet = 1
max_bet = 1000
# flat betting
stake = min_bet
for repeat in range(repeats):
balance = 0
total_bet = 0
for n in range(plays):
total_bet += stake
balance += play(stake)
print "after %d flat plays, bet %7d, profit %7d. won %7.4f per unit bet" % (plays, total_bet, balance, float(balance)/total_bet)
# martingale
for repeat in range(repeats):
balance = 0
n = 0
stake = min_bet
total_bet = 0
while n < plays:
total_bet += stake
profit = play(stake)
balance += profit
if profit > 0:
stake = min_bet
else:
stake *= 2
if stake > max_bet:
stake = min_bet
n += 1
print "after %d martingale plays, bet %7d, profit %7d. won %7.4f per unit bet" % (plays, total_bet, balance, float(balance)/total_bet)
and here's some sample output:
Code:
$ python ~/Source/Python/martingale-house-edge.py
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20838. won -0.0208 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -21044. won -0.0210 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19336. won -0.0193 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19268. won -0.0193 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20994. won -0.0210 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19716. won -0.0197 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20520. won -0.0205 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19954. won -0.0200 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20046. won -0.0200 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -18202. won -0.0182 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5330214, profit -77550. won -0.0145 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5338031, profit -96823. won -0.0181 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5347483, profit -123551. won -0.0231 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5370050, profit -86658. won -0.0161 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5387133, profit -114297. won -0.0212 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5400165, profit -96079. won -0.0178 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5412402, profit -131294. won -0.0243 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5394777, profit -136873. won -0.0254 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5387980, profit -110224. won -0.0205 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5335811, profit -100759. won -0.0189 per unit bet
Notice that the flat betting has numbers much closer to 0.02 due to the lesser variance, but both the flat betting and the martingale betting give house edge numbers with a mean of 0.02. If we were to run for more than a million plays each, the numbers would get ever closer to 0.02.
Excellent post!
I imagine what SRoulette is talking about is the "actual" house edge, ie your first martingale example "reduced" the house edge to 1.45%.
It would be very interesting to see what sort of simulation you are running.
Here's a very simple simulation of martingale betting vs. flat betting:
Code:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import random
edge = 2.0 # what's the house edge?
lessthan = (1 - edge/100) / 2 # what does that represent as a 'lessthan' target (between 0 and 1)
def play(stake):
if random.random() < lessthan: return stake
return -stake
repeats = 10
plays = 1000000
min_bet = 1
max_bet = 1000
# flat betting
stake = min_bet
for repeat in range(repeats):
balance = 0
total_bet = 0
for n in range(plays):
total_bet += stake
balance += play(stake)
print "after %d flat plays, bet %7d, profit %7d. won %7.4f per unit bet" % (plays, total_bet, balance, float(balance)/total_bet)
# martingale
for repeat in range(repeats):
balance = 0
n = 0
stake = min_bet
total_bet = 0
while n < plays:
total_bet += stake
profit = play(stake)
balance += profit
if profit > 0:
stake = min_bet
else:
stake *= 2
if stake > max_bet:
stake = min_bet
n += 1
print "after %d martingale plays, bet %7d, profit %7d. won %7.4f per unit bet" % (plays, total_bet, balance, float(balance)/total_bet)
and here's some sample output:
Code:
$ python ~/Source/Python/martingale-house-edge.py
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20838. won -0.0208 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -21044. won -0.0210 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19336. won -0.0193 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19268. won -0.0193 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20994. won -0.0210 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19716. won -0.0197 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20520. won -0.0205 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -19954. won -0.0200 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -20046. won -0.0200 per unit bet
after 1000000 flat plays, bet 1000000, profit -18202. won -0.0182 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5330214, profit -77550. won -0.0145 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5338031, profit -96823. won -0.0181 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5347483, profit -123551. won -0.0231 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5370050, profit -86658. won -0.0161 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5387133, profit -114297. won -0.0212 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5400165, profit -96079. won -0.0178 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5412402, profit -131294. won -0.0243 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5394777, profit -136873. won -0.0254 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5387980, profit -110224. won -0.0205 per unit bet
after 1000000 martingale plays, bet 5335811, profit -100759. won -0.0189 per unit bet
Notice that the flat betting has numbers much closer to 0.02 due to the lesser variance, but both the flat betting and the martingale betting give house edge numbers with a mean of 0.02. If we were to run for more than a million plays each, the numbers would get ever closer to 0.02.
I'd tend to agree with SRoulette and darkmule.
I think you meant to say you agree with dooglus and darkmule. SRoulette is the one claiming that you can change the house edge by carefully sizing your bets.
Martingaling does in effect reduce the house earnings dramatically which can be argued is reducing the house percentage (forgive my poor terminology). Perhaps a better way to state this is:
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds motecarlo style can expect ~2% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds martingale style can expect ~0.05-0.01% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds motecarlo style can expect ~2% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds martingale style can expect ~0.05-0.01% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
I don't think our disagreement is one of terminology. Even after you rephrased it, I still think you're wrong.
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bets any way they like can expect 2% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
Unless perhaps you're using a weird definition of expect?
I'd tend to agree with SRoulette and darkmule.
I think you meant to say you agree with dooglus and darkmule. SRoulette is the one claiming that you can change the house edge by carefully sizing your bets.
Provably fair is a good draw for the bitcoin demographic but it means far less to gambler demographic.
That's nonsense. It's like saying "Big Tits" means a lot to the US demographic but far less to the Asian demographic. ORLY?!
This is something we discussed with dooglus but he failed to appreciate, There is a tipping point with the house edge and bet range offered where martingale systems will start to work often enough to put the house at serious risk of going bust. The house edge is not a guaranteed earn and martingaling has the effect of reducing the house edge significantly (when the simulation data is averaged out of 10'000'000 rounds).
I still fail to appreciate it.
There's no betting strategy that changes the house edge.
I'd like to see your simulation code if that's possible.
There's no betting strategy that changes the house edge.
I'd like to see your simulation code if that's possible.
That is an odd contention. Are you sure you aren't talking about risk of ruin? The house edge on any particular bet should remain constant no matter what betting strategy a punter employs.
I'd tend to agree with dooglus and darkmule. I'd need some pretty significant convincing to believe that the edge can be affected by modifying the size of your bet. It would be very interesting to see what sort of simulation you are running.
This is something we discussed with dooglus but he failed to appreciate, There is a tipping point with the house edge and bet range offered where martingale systems will start to work often enough to put the house at serious risk of going bust. The house edge is not a guaranteed earn and martingaling has the effect of reducing the house edge significantly (when the simulation data is averaged out of 10'000'000 rounds).
I still fail to appreciate it.
There's no betting strategy that changes the house edge.
I'd like to see your simulation code if that's possible.
Ive just dropped Code Monkey an email to see if he can tidy up the simulator for release, the one he has provided for me hooks into our main game engine in order to run simulations on any/all of our games, unfortunately this means it does not work as a stand alone application.
That is an odd contention. Are you sure you aren't talking about risk of ruin? The house edge on any particular bet should remain constant no matter what betting strategy a punter employs.
Martingaling does in effect reduce the house earnings dramatically which can be argued is reducing the house percentage (forgive my poor terminology). Perhaps a better way to state this is:
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds motecarlo style can expect ~2% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
A house with 2% house edge where a single player bet for 1'000'000 rounds martingale style can expect ~0.05-0.01% earnings for the entire sum of all bets.
The bigger the range of bets, the further the houses expected earn is reduced until eventually you are leaving your business vulnerable to going bust.
This is something we discussed with dooglus but he failed to appreciate, There is a tipping point with the house edge and bet range offered where martingale systems will start to work often enough to put the house at serious risk of going bust. The house edge is not a guaranteed earn and martingaling has the effect of reducing the house edge significantly (when the simulation data is averaged out of 10'000'000 rounds).
That is an odd contention. Are you sure you aren't talking about risk of ruin? The house edge on any particular bet should remain constant no matter what betting strategy a punter employs.
This is something we discussed with dooglus but he failed to appreciate, There is a tipping point with the house edge and bet range offered where martingale systems will start to work often enough to put the house at serious risk of going bust. The house edge is not a guaranteed earn and martingaling has the effect of reducing the house edge significantly (when the simulation data is averaged out of 10'000'000 rounds).
I still fail to appreciate it.
There's no betting strategy that changes the house edge.
I'd like to see your simulation code if that's possible.
The only reason SatoshiDICE isn't paying out 99% is because they aren't being squeezed by a more aggressive competitor offering a 98.9% payout. That day will come. Because with an increase in play, both SatoshiDICE and some other competitor(s) can still operate profitably on a lower house advantage without cheating (which isn't really an option as it would be exposed them and they'ld lose all credibility in a matter of days.)
Not true actually. SatoshiDICE doesn't pay out 99% because the luck/volatility of doing so is highly likely to result in periodic ruin for the house. I've worked with a few brilliant statisticians to come to this conclusion. Even at the current 98.1% house edge, there is non-trivial risk to the house. If a competitor came out with a house edge at 99%, I would not match it, I'd just wait for the site to bankrupt itself.
This is something we discussed with dooglus but he failed to appreciate, There is a tipping point with the house edge and bet range offered where martingale systems will start to work often enough to put the house at serious risk of going bust. The house edge is not a guaranteed earn and martingaling has the effect of reducing the house edge significantly (when the simulation data is averaged out of 10'000'000 rounds).
Since most Bitcoin casinos don't disclose their buffer size - how much they keep on reserve - there's a very real chance that houses will collapse if they let their volatility get too high. Players should accordingly be aware of the risk and not put too much coin into a casino on a long-term basis.
We initially used simulations to calculate what bets we can afford to run, now we use a combination of our simulation data and automatic maximum bets.
It is a configurable setting for each of our games (which Ive been ordered not to touch), each game we can afford to payout 100 successive maximum wins on maximum bets (codemonkey adjusts this setting manually for specific games to allow higher bets). This in our opinion is the only safe way to operate, if your casino cannot withstand an epic lucky streak as described you could be looking @ critical failure.
The rule of thumb, though, is that as long as a casino has the funds to ride out losses it will come out ahead in the end. There are several other ways to limit volatility, including limiting bet sizes and deposit amount or frequency. Capping individual withdrawal amounts is another - although much shittier - way of doing the same thing.
A house that's publicly listed has the significant advantage of both extra buffer (five digits in BTC for S.DICE for instance) and the ability to either borrow against the stock or outright sell it in a pinch. This arrangement really takes most of the volatility risk out of the business.
The only reason SatoshiDICE isn't paying out 99% is because they aren't being squeezed by a more aggressive competitor offering a 98.9% payout. That day will come. Because with an increase in play, both SatoshiDICE and some other competitor(s) can still operate profitably on a lower house advantage without cheating (which isn't really an option as it would be exposed them and they'ld lose all credibility in a matter of days.)
Not true actually. SatoshiDICE doesn't pay out 99% because the luck/volatility of doing so is highly likely to result in periodic ruin for the house. I've worked with a few brilliant statisticians to come to this conclusion. Even at the current 98.1% house edge, there is non-trivial risk to the house. If a competitor came out with a house edge at 99%, I would not match it, I'd just wait for the site to bankrupt itself.
Well, it's an interesting point. Volatility is dangerous to a house in inverse proportion to the house's bankroll. Since most Bitcoin casinos don't disclose their buffer size - how much they keep on reserve - there's a very real chance that houses will collapse if they let their volatility get too high. Players should accordingly be aware of the risk and not put too much coin into a casino on a long-term basis. By and large though, players don't do this with Bitcoin - which is one of the major drawbacks from a casino's standpoint to using the currency. Even solid, non-ponzi casinos will rake off profits at some point out of the expected hold on a player's deposit if it's been sitting there for 6 months or a year. But Bitcoin casinos don't tend to hold currency anywhere near that long - usually the turnover is within the same day. This means the casino has to be much more disciplined in maintaining its reserve - we keep 5x total player funds in Bitcoin or BTC-convertable coupons at all times. There have been several times in our history where if we hadn't done this, we would have had serious problems because of the high RTP of our games and the volatility that incurs.
The rule of thumb, though, is that as long as a casino has the funds to ride out losses it will come out ahead in the end. There are several other ways to limit volatility, including limiting bet sizes and deposit amount or frequency. Capping individual withdrawal amounts is another - although much shittier - way of doing the same thing.
Bottom line, no casino should be going into business offering a 99% RTP unless they have the funds to back that up. Look, a very quick sim on our system shows that if the house has a $10,000 bankroll and a 99% RTP, and is accepting bets of up to $100, they have at least a 5% chance of going bankrupt before they double their bankroll (assuming they leave the winnings in their float). We believe that the chance of bankruptcy should be 0.1% or lower; but this is because we obviously invested so much in the production of our site that it would be foolish to lose it over $10k. So players should judge for themselves whether the sites they're dealing with have anything to lose.
afore-unmentioned #1 reason why Bitcoin casinos aren't pointless - they are the ultimate Hail Mary pass for gamblers to get around a country's laws.
This is what I was thinking, they're exactly the opposite of pointless because they have the implicit ability to expose people that otherwise wouldn't have been involved to Bitcoin.
The only reason SatoshiDICE isn't paying out 99% is because they aren't being squeezed by a more aggressive competitor offering a 98.9% payout. That day will come. Because with an increase in play, both SatoshiDICE and some other competitor(s) can still operate profitably on a lower house advantage without cheating (which isn't really an option as it would be exposed them and they'ld lose all credibility in a matter of days.)
Not true actually. SatoshiDICE doesn't pay out 99% because the luck/volatility of doing so is highly likely to result in periodic ruin for the house. I've worked with a few brilliant statisticians to come to this conclusion. Even at the current 98.1% house edge, there is non-trivial risk to the house. If a competitor came out with a house edge at 99%, I would not match it, I'd just wait for the site to bankrupt itself.
I would bet that right now SealsWithClubs is #2 in the bitcoin gambling world, based on all metrics, behind Satoshi Dice.
I think this is probably true, considering the size of the captive American poker audience that can't play anywhere else. Which takes us to the - afore-unmentioned #1 reason why Bitcoin casinos aren't pointless - they are the ultimate Hail Mary pass for gamblers to get around a country's laws. Based on the number of failed hits we get from US players who can't get onto our site, versus hits from the entire rest of the world, we've estimated that if we opened to the US we'd be doing 6-7x as much business. We'd put Seals out of business in two months, max.
But if we did it, we wouldn't get to spend it on nice cars. We've already estimated that making that much money would barely cover the monthly legal bill when the federal government got interested. Also, it's hard to put a price on avoiding shower rape in federal prison. But hey, we're taking the long view. There's plenty of demand out there. IMHO Seals could do a much better job tapping into it. Buying Bitcoins to play without a proxy is nowhere near as complicated as the gymnastics US poker players are already going through to get some action.
I would bet that right now SealsWithClubs is #2 in the bitcoin gambling world, based on all metrics, behind Satoshi Dice.
I think that as a pure bitcoin poker play, we have taken the game beyond the "fun" level of sites and built it into something that is viable and extremely cool IMO, but obviously I'm horribly biased here
As a site pro and affiliate manager, I can say that the poker community response has been extremely encouraging. By using bitcoin to lower the overhead, we now offer an active poker site with extremely low rake when compared to the traditional industry. I think this cost savings and total elimination of all payment processor headaches has made us extremely competitive.
I am extremely excited to further this project in 2013, and consider it my main focus.
I think that as a pure bitcoin poker play, we have taken the game beyond the "fun" level of sites and built it into something that is viable and extremely cool IMO, but obviously I'm horribly biased here
As a site pro and affiliate manager, I can say that the poker community response has been extremely encouraging. By using bitcoin to lower the overhead, we now offer an active poker site with extremely low rake when compared to the traditional industry. I think this cost savings and total elimination of all payment processor headaches has made us extremely competitive.
I am extremely excited to further this project in 2013, and consider it my main focus.
May as well weigh in with our 2c.
Provably fair is a good draw for the bitcoin demographic but it means far less to gambler demographic.
Bitcoin gambling is always going to be a race to the lowest house edge, the winner will be which ever company can afford to run the biggest risk. The only issue we do see with this is you end up with very generic boring games (pick a number, is yours higher/lower) as the bulk of bitcoiners are chasing the best earner and not the best entertainment.
While the barrier to entry for starting a bitcoin casino is extremely low odds or success are also low.
We may or may not profit from this it has been an extremely interesting project for us to develop.
That was our attraction as well and why we created Satoshi Roulette - in one action you win or lose.
No cash in or account signup and login necessary (I personally love paying instant roulette from my phone).
I think a large factor of satoshidice's success is being integrated into the most popular bitcoin wallet blockchain.info, which I feel has a negative impact on bitcoin gambling as a whole as it shields potential gamblers from ever looking further. I emailed them after seeing they added BTCDice querying to see if they were interested in adding support for our games (specifically roulette) as our games work the same, but did not get a reply to any of my queries.
I was surprised blockchain.info added BTCDice and even more so that they kept them so long Given the multiple complaints BTCDice had: (lying about payout multipliers and house edge).
I always assumed blockchain.info owned or was partners with BTCDice and this is why they tolerated them for so long, it also could be that the 2nd game they added generated so many complaints they have become wary of adding any new games.
This is how a free market works, some people get the lucky breaks while others are simply ignored and languish regardless of their efforts and sincerity.
On our casino android betting works very well thanks to all our games using the bitcoin URI scheme.
Provably fair is a good draw for the bitcoin demographic but it means far less to gambler demographic.
Bitcoin gambling is always going to be a race to the lowest house edge, the winner will be which ever company can afford to run the biggest risk. The only issue we do see with this is you end up with very generic boring games (pick a number, is yours higher/lower) as the bulk of bitcoiners are chasing the best earner and not the best entertainment.
While the barrier to entry for starting a bitcoin casino is extremely low odds or success are also low.
We may or may not profit from this it has been an extremely interesting project for us to develop.
What it offers is immediacy.
That was our attraction as well and why we created Satoshi Roulette - in one action you win or lose.
No cash in or account signup and login necessary (I personally love paying instant roulette from my phone).
Ultimately, in my opinion after doing this for about 14 months, it's a wash. The lower overhead is great, but the revenue is far lower than we would see from mainstream processing methods. Despite services like Bitinstant, there is still a severe psychological and technical barrier to buying Bitcoins for the less technically savvy 40-65 year old audience, who are naturally an online casino's core market. Until or unless that barrier goes away, Bitcoin casinos will remain small players and Bitcoin will probably not be adopted by Bodog or other mainstream outfits.
I think a large factor of satoshidice's success is being integrated into the most popular bitcoin wallet blockchain.info, which I feel has a negative impact on bitcoin gambling as a whole as it shields potential gamblers from ever looking further. I emailed them after seeing they added BTCDice querying to see if they were interested in adding support for our games (specifically roulette) as our games work the same, but did not get a reply to any of my queries.
I was surprised blockchain.info added BTCDice and even more so that they kept them so long Given the multiple complaints BTCDice had: (lying about payout multipliers and house edge).
I always assumed blockchain.info owned or was partners with BTCDice and this is why they tolerated them for so long, it also could be that the 2nd game they added generated so many complaints they have become wary of adding any new games.
This is how a free market works, some people get the lucky breaks while others are simply ignored and languish regardless of their efforts and sincerity.
Is there a bitcoin casino with an android app?
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
On our casino android betting works very well thanks to all our games using the bitcoin URI scheme.
Is there a bitcoin casino with an android app?
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
bitzino is all html5 I believe, shouldn't that work in a mobile browser?
no peer to peer action though. I'd like to play against humans, not bots.
Is there a bitcoin casino with an android app?
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
cuz that would not be pointless... I'm sure I could get more people into bitcoin if that existed!
What it offers is immediacy.
That's a very good point that I had overlooked (as I'm generally not an online gambling player, ... primarily for the reason you cited ... I try to avoid negative EV
).This was illustrated in another thread where bitcoin gaming is sometimes used as a way to get a "bridge loan". The example given was where someone wants to make a purchase but is just a little short of funds. It will take a few days either to get more funds or for an existing funds transfer to complete in order to buy more coins. So using one of the bitcoin gaming services a person can make a wager (or two) and likely win the amount that was needed.
In the worst case scenario the person loses and has to wait a few days for a funds transfer to complete, just like they would have been had they not placed the bets.
Of course for a person in financial distress, this can accelerate a downward spiral but for those simply wanting a few more coins quickly, the immediate access to winnings is something Bitcoin gaming offers that is not found anywhere else online.
So do you have a plan on what to do in this instance? How to make it something that moves bitcoin forward.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
The plan is more innovation, and while yes I am working on ideas that is only thing I can do.
Also SR didn't move anything forward maybe how to hide from the police, they just gave a better expose to bitcoins. Companies like bitvps, bitinstant, reddit (when they accept bitcoins), Slush, operation fabulous. All these companies have moved bitcoins forward at their time, but most of these companies are old and yes 2 yrs in internet time is like 40yrs. We need innovation and quickly otherwise we could lose interest from people coming to bitcoins recently.
By that you mean infrastructure? Still one depend on the other and without the people who use said infrastructure they mean nothing. Added to that I don't think that either of those who you brought up are particularly innovative, if you are aming at projects which could that what they are supposed to do better I'm all ear though.
A Bitcoin Casino is far from pointless still, what's really pointless is yet another centralized exchange/trading service/investment scheme but on that I think we'll agree.
You also have consider the time that some of those companies were started, I mean at the time they were innovated, bitcoins was still new and not popular and took balls. I also don't think bitcoin casinos are pointless, just everyone and their mothers has one, and some are really beautiful. I just feel these talented people should be focus on something greater. I can agree with you on centralized exchange/trading service/investment scheme LOL
In terms of sunk costs and infrastructure, our casino (StrikeSapphire) was far and away the costliest and most complex casino -- or website of any kind -- ever deployed to cater to the Bitcoin market. Bitzino is a good HTML5 app but is nowhere near our level of sophistication in terms of multiplayer tables, multiple game windows, variety of games, etc. They do very well at their core competency, and I have nothing but respect for them. I have no idea whether they've recouped their costs already. But I think I'm qualified to comment on this, and I can lay out a couple of reasons why I think Calvin is interested in Bitcoin and why it's not correct to say that bitcoin casinos are pointless; and also explain why Bodog will not be adopting Bitcoin anytime soon.
For the average casino player: First of all, hashing methods for proving fairness are not actually the biggest advancement brought by Bitcoin. Strictly speaking they are not actually Bitcoin-related at all. They can be, if they're tied to the block chain; but the way Bitzino implements them is essentially the same as a GNU-licensed casino system devised under the name Fairdice back in 2004. While it's a great feature for paranoid libertarian Bitcoin types, those are not people who bring profits to a casino. In case you're wondering why no mainstream casino has ever implemented Fairdice or another "provably fair" hashing scheme -- first of all, it doesn't work in a multiplayer environment, and secondly online casinos just don't make their money from geeks. If you understand math well enough to figure out how to check that hash, you also understand it well enough to understand house edge and stay away from slot machines. It's accurate to say that the people who understand hashing schemes are not going to blow their retirement on an online casino, and another reason that's accurate is that they don't have any retirement to begin with; they're almost all under the age of 40 which is not the prime demographic for online casinos. This is the biggest problem for online casinos operating in the Bitcoin space; Bitcoiners are too young / too tech savvy to be the kind of gamblers that online casinos want.
However Bitcoin does offer one thing to the average online gambler - I mean the 40-65, gainfully employed, top-10%-net-earner who spends a few hundred to a few thousand a month on online entertainment. What it offers is immediacy. Bitcoiners who aren't habitual online gamblers in mainstream casinos take instant transactions for granted, but this is far from the norm in the e-gaming world. Most online gamblers are completely resigned to waiting at least a week for their withdrawals, and usually longer. This is an advantage that's easily understood by the mainstream audience and is probably the best selling point for Bitcoin casinos as they attempt to compete with mainstream ones. Unfortunately, the average player just says, "Bit-what?" and that's about as far as we've gotten.
For the casino: The benefits are numerous. The overhead is extremely low if you're trying to do something at a small scale. A real gaming license from Malta, the UK, Isle of Man, Antigua or Kahnawake will run around $250k when all is said and done, and all the lawyers are paid. That can secure you a (low) 4-5% credit card processing fee in and out, if you're willing to float at least $50k + 10% rolling with the card company. A cheaper gaming license may mean you're paying anywhere up to 9% to the card companies. Obviously Bitcoin lowers the bar to entry by about half a million dollars, and if you're willing to put even a fraction of that into decent software development you can put together a fairly good site. For large, existing casinos, the advantage would simply be lower fees. However, the drawbacks for big players like Bodog are also apparent. As stated above, the Bitcoin player doesn't match the average demographic for high rollers or the people who keep a casino in business. The fact that transactions are so rapid means that deposits also tend to be smaller, which means play periods are shorter, which means less churn for the house. Less churn means less drop.
Ultimately, in my opinion after doing this for about 14 months, it's a wash. The lower overhead is great, but the revenue is far lower than we would see from mainstream processing methods. Despite services like Bitinstant, there is still a severe psychological and technical barrier to buying Bitcoins for the less technically savvy 40-65 year old audience, who are naturally an online casino's core market. Until or unless that barrier goes away, Bitcoin casinos will remain small players and Bitcoin will probably not be adopted by Bodog or other mainstream outfits.
For the average casino player: First of all, hashing methods for proving fairness are not actually the biggest advancement brought by Bitcoin. Strictly speaking they are not actually Bitcoin-related at all. They can be, if they're tied to the block chain; but the way Bitzino implements them is essentially the same as a GNU-licensed casino system devised under the name Fairdice back in 2004. While it's a great feature for paranoid libertarian Bitcoin types, those are not people who bring profits to a casino. In case you're wondering why no mainstream casino has ever implemented Fairdice or another "provably fair" hashing scheme -- first of all, it doesn't work in a multiplayer environment, and secondly online casinos just don't make their money from geeks. If you understand math well enough to figure out how to check that hash, you also understand it well enough to understand house edge and stay away from slot machines. It's accurate to say that the people who understand hashing schemes are not going to blow their retirement on an online casino, and another reason that's accurate is that they don't have any retirement to begin with; they're almost all under the age of 40 which is not the prime demographic for online casinos. This is the biggest problem for online casinos operating in the Bitcoin space; Bitcoiners are too young / too tech savvy to be the kind of gamblers that online casinos want.
However Bitcoin does offer one thing to the average online gambler - I mean the 40-65, gainfully employed, top-10%-net-earner who spends a few hundred to a few thousand a month on online entertainment. What it offers is immediacy. Bitcoiners who aren't habitual online gamblers in mainstream casinos take instant transactions for granted, but this is far from the norm in the e-gaming world. Most online gamblers are completely resigned to waiting at least a week for their withdrawals, and usually longer. This is an advantage that's easily understood by the mainstream audience and is probably the best selling point for Bitcoin casinos as they attempt to compete with mainstream ones. Unfortunately, the average player just says, "Bit-what?" and that's about as far as we've gotten.
For the casino: The benefits are numerous. The overhead is extremely low if you're trying to do something at a small scale. A real gaming license from Malta, the UK, Isle of Man, Antigua or Kahnawake will run around $250k when all is said and done, and all the lawyers are paid. That can secure you a (low) 4-5% credit card processing fee in and out, if you're willing to float at least $50k + 10% rolling with the card company. A cheaper gaming license may mean you're paying anywhere up to 9% to the card companies. Obviously Bitcoin lowers the bar to entry by about half a million dollars, and if you're willing to put even a fraction of that into decent software development you can put together a fairly good site. For large, existing casinos, the advantage would simply be lower fees. However, the drawbacks for big players like Bodog are also apparent. As stated above, the Bitcoin player doesn't match the average demographic for high rollers or the people who keep a casino in business. The fact that transactions are so rapid means that deposits also tend to be smaller, which means play periods are shorter, which means less churn for the house. Less churn means less drop.
Ultimately, in my opinion after doing this for about 14 months, it's a wash. The lower overhead is great, but the revenue is far lower than we would see from mainstream processing methods. Despite services like Bitinstant, there is still a severe psychological and technical barrier to buying Bitcoins for the less technically savvy 40-65 year old audience, who are naturally an online casino's core market. Until or unless that barrier goes away, Bitcoin casinos will remain small players and Bitcoin will probably not be adopted by Bodog or other mainstream outfits.
Ideas are a dime a dozen; execution is what matters.
sometimes even execution doesn't pay off: http://www.bitmit.net/en/trade/i/8969-bitcoin-gambling-website-bitcoin-roulette-com
Why is BTC gambling any more pointless than gambling in general?
In any event, it sure beats the Ponzi scams, ripoffs and swindles that seem to typify a large part of BTC commerce at present. (At least to the extent there are legitimate gambling sites although a fair number of these also turn out to be swindles.)
In any event, it sure beats the Ponzi scams, ripoffs and swindles that seem to typify a large part of BTC commerce at present. (At least to the extent there are legitimate gambling sites although a fair number of these also turn out to be swindles.)
Not at all, good points have been made why they aren't pointless. Btw, sometimes I enjoy betting my bitcoins for fun and hope for profit.
So do you have a plan on what to do in this instance? How to make it something that moves bitcoin forward.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
The plan is more innovation, and while yes I am working on ideas that is only thing I can do.
Also SR didn't move anything forward maybe how to hide from the police, they just gave a better expose to bitcoins. Companies like bitvps, bitinstant, reddit (when they accept bitcoins), Slush, operation fabulous. All these companies have moved bitcoins forward at their time, but most of these companies are old and yes 2 yrs in internet time is like 40yrs. We need innovation and quickly otherwise we could lose interest from people coming to bitcoins recently.
So do you have a plan on what to do in this instance? How to make it something that moves bitcoin forward.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
The plan is more innovation, and while yes I am working on ideas that is only thing I can do.
Also SR didn't move anything forward maybe how to hide from the police, they just gave a better expose to bitcoins. Companies like bitvps, bitinstant, reddit (when they accept bitcoins), Slush, operation fabulous. All these companies have moved bitcoins forward at their time, but most of these companies are old and yes 2 yrs in internet time is like 40yrs. We need innovation and quickly otherwise we could lose interest from people coming to bitcoins recently.
By that you mean infrastructure? Still one depend on the other and without the people who use said infrastructure they mean nothing. Added to that I don't think that either of those who you brought up are particularly innovative, if you are aming at projects which could that what they are supposed to do better I'm all ear though.
A Bitcoin Casino is far from pointless still, what's really pointless is yet another centralized exchange/trading service/investment scheme but on that I think we'll agree.
I don't see your point.
What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
Something more than just a gambling site, something that moves bitcoin forward.
So do you have a plan on what to do in this instance? How to make it something that moves bitcoin forward.
I agree that a gambling site is not something world changing or profound but you cannot reasonably expect for every project using bitcoin to have this property. It's a small step, but no matter how small it's a step in the right direction.
And to be honest, besides SR I don't know of anything else which would be considered a game-changer, and that is more to be attributed to tor than bitcoin.
I mean who can't throw up a gambling site, look at the person that took satoshi dice and just made every game in the book. It is just getting to a point where the gambling is just becoming annoying.
Ideas are a dime a dozen; execution is what matters. I agree with you that we seem to be hitting a plateau I would just point out that things like well built gaming sites is what got us TO this plateau. Going higher will require more and more and more innovation.
And that comes from the site of the owner of Bodog, so he should know a thing or two?
Two words: House edge.
No, sorry. Four words. Add two more: Provably Fair.
Most state-operated lotteries pay out in the range of 70% or less of the lotto ticket/wager revenue. I don't know the actual number for a fact, but most of these state run lotteries are audited and when you dig you can find their reported results for each jurisdiction. If you believe they aren't cheating and can trust the audited numbers, you'll probably end up with a number in the 70% range.
BitLotto pays out 99%. I do know this number to be a fact as I see the blockchain and know exactly how many tickets were purchased. I can perform the calculation to independently determine the winner, and I see the payout transaction. Thus I can conclude that player returns when playing BitLotto are 41% higher than when playing MegaMillions (99% versus 70%).
- http://www.BitLotto.com
SatoshiDICE has a 98.1% payout (before considering transaction fees) which means they keep the 1.9% house edge. Today I can go through the blockchain and verify that every single wager ever made to SatoshiDICE (ever, like all the way back to their April launch) was calculated correctly and paid out correctly. I can prove that SatoshiDICE is operating fairly.
In Vegas casinos, the most widely used gambling options (e.g., slot machines) might return maybe 96%, and most are in the 94% or 92% range. Someone needs to pay for the security cameras, fake volcanoes and free booze. They only way for a physical casino to function profitably with better odds is likely to cheat somewhere. (Or so I've read. I don't gamble much and am not tuned in to the casino industry )
The only reason SatoshiDICE isn't paying out 99% is because they aren't being squeezed by a more aggressive competitor offering a 98.9% payout. That day will come. Because with an increase in play, both SatoshiDICE and some other competitor(s) can still operate profitably on a lower house advantage without cheating (which isn't really an option as it would be exposed them and they'ld lose all credibility in a matter of days.)
bitZino doesn't publish the odds to each of their games, I don't believe. But the odds can be calculated. For blackjack most of the rule variations are ones that favor the player:
- http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations
- http://www.bitZino.com
So I can't say that bitZino games (blackjack, video poker, craps and roulette) have payouts that are higher than a Vegas casino has because I haven't seen the odds (or performed the computations myself) but I would bet that bitZino can always beat Vegas casinos due to having such low costs, on a relative basis. (Unlike bitLotto and SatoshiDICE, we don't know bitZino's revenues or profits. I'm going to conclude they are still nowhere near recovering their investment for development but like D&T mentions, they probably didn't build all that intending to profit in 2012 but instead did all that beautiful HTML5 and rock solid back-end work for the returns they could see in 2014 or later, which could be substantial.)
Another provably fair game I'm enthusiastic about is King Coin. The odds for that were just calculated (thanks dooglus) to be in the 96% range. That makes me less enthusiastic about the game than I was originally, but again, those odds can be increased (which can be verified independently) and hopefully this entertaining visual game can join the stable of online gaming where provably fair gaming using Bitcoins beats any other online gaming options.
And that's what the owner of Bodog either doesn't realize (which I doubt) or wishes to not tout until he figures out a way to make some money from it. He's welcome to try. The barrier to entry for building an online casino game is not beyond what a skilled developer operating solo as as "nights and weekends" project can produce. But with it being provably fair, math gives that alternative the same credibility as what gamers used to count on ... the polished look and feel that established gaming companies provide.
There's a huge industry that has no idea that they are going to be sharing part of their lunch:
- http://www.bulletbusiness.com/mobilegambling/index.php
I don't see your point.
What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
Something more than just a gambling site, something that moves bitcoin forward.
Of course it pushes forward. It is a service; entertainment. It is a form of entertainment which can be paid in Bitcoins. Just because it is a service you don't see value in it, the global transaction volume for "gaming" indicates there is a demand. More places to spend bitcoins can only be bullish.
It doesn't push it forward, it only exposes people to bitcoins which is good. Something that pushes forward would be a site that takes it to that next level. Right now if you noticed the community is kinda stagnate, not a lot of innovation. I haven't seen a site around that makes me go "WOW these people are really changing the game" in a while. I just feel like gambling has been done, over and over. Clearly those people just want profits, I mean who can't throw up a gambling site, look at the person that took satoshi dice and just made every game in the book. It is just getting to a point where the gambling is just becoming annoying.
I think bitcoin casinos and gambling is pointless, I know there is market for that and I respect that. I have also seen some great sites that they have created in the bitcoin gambling community, and been like why don't they put there energy into a project that would push bitcoin forward. A casino pushes forward nor back, it is just mere profits.
Of course it pushes forward. It is a service; entertainment. It is a form of entertainment which can be paid in Bitcoins. Just because it is a service you don't see value in it, the global transaction volume for "gaming" indicates there is a demand. More places to spend bitcoins can only be bullish.
Bitcoin casinos are one of the few things I actually consider beneficial and a good use of bitcoin. I wouldn't dare to play in one, but if it comes to it run one
What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
I think bitcoin casinos and gambling is pointless, I know there is market for that and I respect that. I have also seen some great sites that they have created in the bitcoin gambling community, and been like why don't they put there energy into a project that would push bitcoin forward. A casino pushes forward nor back, it is just mere profits.
I don't see your point.What would you consider a worthwhile endeavour in contrast?
I think bitcoin casinos and gambling is pointless, I know there is market for that and I respect that. I have also seen some great sites that they have created in the bitcoin gambling community, and been like why don't they put there energy into a project that would push bitcoin forward. A casino pushes forward nor back, it is just mere profits.
It depends. If Bitcoin never gets any bigger essentially no bitcoin buisiness is worth it. None. Not even MtGox. However nobody putting money and labor into a bitcoin enterprise is doing it for the small sums they will net today. They are doing it because what "if" bitcoin is bigger. Not a little bigger but much much much bigger. What if someday there are tens of millions of Bitcoin users. Then being an established and trusted [casino|exchange|retailer|auction house|marketplace|etc] is suddenly very much worth it.
IMHO Bitcoin will either be much bigger or a footnote in history in 3-5 years. It won't remain the status quo.
IMHO Bitcoin will either be much bigger or a footnote in history in 3-5 years. It won't remain the status quo.
Most of you have probably read:
http://calvinayre.com/2012/09/03/business/bitzino-touts-provably-fair-games-but-can-bitcoin-only-casinos-succeed/
Basically it says bitcoin is too small and unreliable yet to make any online casino based just on it profitable?
Especially when most bitcoin aware people are not really gamblers.
And that comes from the site of the owner of Bodog, so he should know a thing or two?
Yet I see this section here quite active. I suppose most of them are projects just for fun?
http://calvinayre.com/2012/09/03/business/bitzino-touts-provably-fair-games-but-can-bitcoin-only-casinos-succeed/
Basically it says bitcoin is too small and unreliable yet to make any online casino based just on it profitable?
Especially when most bitcoin aware people are not really gamblers.
And that comes from the site of the owner of Bodog, so he should know a thing or two?
Yet I see this section here quite active. I suppose most of them are projects just for fun?
Jump to: