Topic: bitZino - Bitcoin Casino - Blackjack, Roulette, 3 Card Poker, Slots and more! - page 31. (Read 82361 times)

I don't really know what problem you're seeing in my screenshots, since I don't know how it's meant to look.

I often don't have pages at 100% zoom.  Could that be the issue?  Try zooming in or out and see if you can reproduce the problem.

Here's how roulette currently looks at my current zoom level:



Here's craps at my current zoom level (110%):



And here's the same craps table at 100% zoom:

Thank you for taking the white-hat approach


Yeah, we've fixed that wager too. The same issue was affecting all of our "Single Rolls" wagers, and we fixed them all.


Your feedback has consistently been incredibly informed and very helpful. You're definitely an asset to the community, and an asset to anyone that listens to your feedback


Yeah, that was just a bad typo. Our simulation testing didn't catch it, because the odds were still paying out what was expected, it was just paying out for the wrong rolls. Fortunately, no one had made any real-bitcoin bets on that wager since launch.



Hm, yeah good point. We originally decided to show the hardways bets as 9.5 to 1 and 7.5 to 1 in order to contrast with the typical 9 to 1 and 7 to 1 payouts. 19 to 2 and 15 to 2 is probably more consistent with the rest of the table now though. I went ahead and updated this.

Fortunately, it's all in HTML, so it was an easy change


I did a little more looking into this, and it seems that it is generally acceptable if you're trying to create a contrast between different elements - which is definitely what we're trying to do: contrasting the table against the rest of the webpage. So, for now, I think we'll keep it as-is.


This is very strange. I have the exact same version of Chromium on linux and I can't replicate the issue in your screenshots. Is the Roulette table still doing a similar thing for you? I saw your Roulette screenshots, and I was able to replicate that and I think I fixed it: The issue was using decimals in the CSS for width and height, which Chromium rounded differently than other browsers. But, now we're not using decimals in the CSS anymore, so I can't figure out why a standards-compliant browser would be off by a few pixels in this way.


Yeah - all the payouts were always 35 for X, where X is the number of possible winning rolls. We simply converted it into "Y to X" notation completely incorrectly.

Thanks again for all your help!

I'm no expert either, but I remember reading somewhere that you should never mix serif and sans-serif fonts.


Yes:

$ lsb_release -d
Description:   Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS
$ dpkg -l chromium-browser | tail -1
ii  chromium-browser                    20.0.1132.47~r144678-0ubuntu0.12.04 Chromium browser

I'm also using XFCE4 rather than Unity as my desktop environment, in case that matters.  It seems unlikely though.

Also, did you change the odds in the last few hours?  Earlier I was getting 17 to 3 for "any seven" and now I'm getting 29 to 6.  That's a drop from 5.666 to 1 to 4.8333 to 1.  Ah, it's a 5 to 1 event.    I should have bet it more earlier when you were paying better than breakeven odds for it.  

Edit: Oh, I get it.  The bug you fixed wasn't that the payouts were wrong - it was that the quoted odds were wrong.  You were always paying out the right amount and only the odds printed on the table were incorrect.

Another comment:

It looks ugly to me to see odds written as "7.5 to 1", especially when just below I see "33 to 2".  Fractional odds are traditionally written using integers.  So instead of "7.5 to 1", we write "15 to 2".  Or write everything as "x to 1", so "33 to 2" becomes "16.5 to 1".  Mixing the two different forms looks weird.

I don't know if your table is a bitmapped image, or whether you can update the text on the fly, but maybe it would be nice to allow the user to chose fractional or decimal odds.  I think different formats are common in different countries.  Probably the easiest to understand is "8.5x" rather than "15 to 2" - just writing the multiplier that is applied when you win.

Thanks.  I was thinking after I sent the bug report that it would have been smarter to have played some 1 BTC per game throws, waited until you paid out a few 2-2 and didn't pay out some 2-1 rolls, and then complained that the 2-1 winning rolls didn't get paid out.  You would have made good on them I'm sure, and the odds would have been in my favour.  Then I thought maybe others would do the same after seeing my bug report.  I hope it didn't cause you that kind of trouble.


OK, so you don't need to see the screenshot I just made of being paid 8.75 for winning the "any craps" bet...  I played the hand before going out this morning and only just got back to screenshot it.  I expect you've fixed that one too now.


You're welcome.  It's refreshing to have my bug reports appreciated, acted upon, and rewarded.  Rather than having the site owners ban me (sapphire casino), or ask me to stop posting (btcdice).  A site that gets mad when you point out their errors rather than seeing it as an opportunity to improve isn't a site I want to be playing at.

I don't have time right now to lose the 1 BTC back to you, but hopefully soon I will...  

Edit: your post doesn't seem to explain why 2-2 was being treated as a winning roll when betting the 1-2 bet.  I guess that was just a typo, right?

Just tried it and I like the craps, but now there is another way for me to lose the bitcoins I have been trying to collect!

We do plan on adding instructions for all of our games at some point, but for now, we are focusing on attracting gamblers that already know how to play these games. However, I do think that the fact that we present all the odds in an easy-to-digest manner should at least help those that are passingly familiar with craps.


We did intentionally go with a serif font for the table. It's supposed to contrast somewhat with the rest of the site, and look a litlte more like a traditional craps table, which typically uses elegant serif fonts to display their bets. Although, I'm no typography expert, so maybe this is a faux pas.. I'm open to suggestions.

Also - are you still using Chromium on Ubuntu? All of your screenshot's table layouts look like they are off by a few pixels, which is pretty ugly. I can't seem to replicate it on my linux Chromium install though.

Those were definitely some very bad bugs. Thank you for finding them! They have now been fixed. You are truly a bug finding master, Dooglus! I have added 1 BTC to your account to thank you.

I have also credited everyone that has made prop bets double the full value of their bets +1 BTC of all real-bitcoin prop bets that they've made in order to make up for these bugs. (Fortunately, only 2 users have made these bets, and they were for micro-stakes, so I really hope the 1 BTC bonus makes up for this egregious error).

The reason we made this error is really quite silly of us. All of our prop bets pay out 35 for X, where X is the number of possible outcomes. Of course, 35 for 2 does not equal 34 to 2, which is the error that we made. Unfortunately, we spent the majority of our QA testing the more complicated multi-roll wagers.

Thank you again for spotting this Dooglus, you really have helped so much in making bitZino a better site.

I played the two "17 to 1" bets (1,2 and 5,6) some more.

5-6 and 6-5 both pay out 17.5 chips.
5-5 is a loss.

I got 2-1 again, and it was counted as a loss again.

1-1 pays out 35 chips.  It's labelled as "34 to 1", so that's right.

So the "17 to 1" bets should pay out 18 chips, but they only pay out 17.5.

So the two bugs seem to be:

 * the "1,2" 17 to 1 bet pays out on 1,2 and 2,2 rather than on 1,2 and 2,1

 * the 17 to 1 bets both pay out 33 to 2 not 17 to 1.

1.  I've read about how to play craps several times before, and played it on various sites, but each time I come back to it I've forgotten what all the bets mean.  Some basic introduction to the game would be helpful.  But I guess that's not what you do - none of your other games have 'help' pages either.

2.  My first impression was that the font used on the table clashed with the usual bitZino sans-serif font.  It looks like it may be the browser's default font, and that the CSS styling isn't working.  Or maybe that's the font you chose on purpose.

3.  I was betting the 4 "single rolls" bets on the left each spin.  I rolled 2-2 and was paid out 17.5:


Then I rolled 1-2 and again was paid out 17.5:


Finally I rolled 2-1 and lost:


Is that a bug?  It's paying 2-2 but not 2-1.  And it's paying 17.5 for a 1 unit bet when the bet is marked as "17 to 1".

Play craps on my Android mobile from anywhere, for real money.

Out standing!


[Edit: Also see Craps Trainer (Preview) for Android on Google Play:
 - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.e7systems.craps ]

We have officially launched Craps!





It took us a little longer to make than we anticipated, but I think it is well worth the wait

Like all of our game, our craps game is Provably Fair. And, it features the slick HTML5 user interface that you've come to expect from us.

Additionally, it has the best odds of any craps game that you'll play: We start by offering 3x,4x,5x odds on our Pass and Don't Pass wagers, which is somewhat standard (although, many online casinos don't even offer this). Then, moving up, you'll see that our Field bet offers 3x payment on a 12, and a non-standard 2.5x payment on a 2 (the usual is only 2x on the 2). Our Hardways bets pay 9.5 to 1 and 7.5 to 1 instead of the standard 9 to 1 and 7 to 1. The largest deviation from the norm is in our prop bets: 1,1 and 6,6 pay 34 to 1 instead of the standard 30 to 1. Our 1,2 and 5,6 bets pay 33 to 2 instead of the usual 15 to 1. Finally, our Any Seven pays 29 to 6, and our Any Craps pays 31 to 4 - these are substantially better than the standard 4 to 1 and 7 to 1.

We're also proud of the lack of confusion in our Place/Buy and Place to Lose/Lay bets. Most casinos offer a "Buy"  and "Lay" bet which are identical to the "Place" and "Place to Lose" bets, but with slightly better odds on the 4 and 10 bets, and occasionally better odds on the 5 and 9 bets. This is confusing to new players, and often results in them making sub-optimal bets. We have simply removed the confusion, and instead we simply always offer the bets odds on our Place and Lay bets.

Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Congrats on the royal! I can't believe how many royal flushes we've seen in such a short time Thanks for the reminder on 4-color decks. We will roll that out before too long.

Also, by the way, our max bet for Video Poker is 1 BTC. We have to keep it lower than our other games because it has a much higher variance. If you're interested in risk of ruin analysis, I discussed our strategy for how we choose our max bets earlier in this thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1145478

I wish I won 4 BTC then.

The max bet is 10BTC though (for blackjack, I think it's the same for video poker), so if you do get a royal flush then you're looking at 8000BTC.

No, that's +4000 credits. A credit is worth 1/1000, 1/100 or 1 bticoin, depending on what the gambler chose.

wait, is that +4000 BTC for a royal flush?

Congrats on the Royal Flush! That's the second one we've seen on our site so far

Thanks for letting me know about the display glitch, we'll make sure it's fixed for the next time you hit a royal

I wanted to bump this thread to thank Libertaad for his helpfulness for technical things outside of bitZino.

As a way to say thank you, I decided to "donate" my bitcoins to bitZino and found the following display glitch:

(I blackened out my total balance on there)

Quick update on this feature: We think we've found a good way to do it using the custom transactions feature of bitcoind version 0.7. So, we will be holding off until 0.7 is launched before launching this feature ourselves.

Along with importing private keys, we're also going to add support for 0 confirmation withdrawals. We will do this in the same way SatoshiDice does: the withdrawal will be built off the output of the deposit transaction, therefore a blockchain that doesn't contain the deposit cannot contain the withdrawal.

So far, we have had a very basic implementation for accepting bitcoin payments. Going forward, we're really excited about building more complex behavior using the power that custom transactions will provide us!

I will get to it, but I'm really pretty busy at the moment.