Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 105. (Read 61171 times)

Ah, great, it really works. I just see (e.g. in Martingale script) function roundBit(bet), but editing of this function is full enough, it seems. Thanks!


Yeah, it was that issue. I just deleted the script and used the "Restore sample" button and everything works like a charm now.


Ok, thanks for the explanation, I'll try this, it looks like an useful function.


Thanks a lot for your explanation and also for all your work with bustabit, devans!

bustabit only allows betting of whole bits, so you can only bet multiples of 100 satoshis. Previously a bug in the script editor allowed invalid bets to be accepted and silently rounded. This bug has been fixed and script authors need to ensure that their bet sizes are valid.

Luckily the fix is very simple. You can use Math.round to round your wagers, so for example


would become


If you always want to round downwards or upwards, use Math.floor or Math.ceil respectively instead.


In case that's what you're using, the Martingale sample script also relied on the bug I mentioned, but has been fixed. To load the fixed Martingale script, delete it from the list of scripts, then click the orange "Restore samples" button.

Otherwise it's hard to say what the issue is without seeing the specific script. Most likely it is trying to place an invalid wager and failing.


The simulation mode lets you test a script without actually placing bets. If you enable simulation mode you will be able to choose your starting balance for the simulation. Running your script will then cause your simulated balance to increase or decrease, allowing you to see how a script would do on bustabit without risking any bits.

I'm back in game after 14 days, and I see there were some changes made on  bustabit page :

1/ Why is not possible anymore to set up "non integer" bet, let's say 3.5 bits ? It was possible before. Of course real bet was 3 bits, but if one has multiplier (in case of loss), let's say 2.5x, next bet has been calculated as 3.5 * 2.5, not 3 * 2.5 ... which was fine. Actually, it was only one great upgrade (in my eyes), comparing to bustabit v1. Anyway, why's not possible to set up bet in satoshis instead of bits, so, in my example above, 350 sats instead of 3.5 (bits) ?

2/ When I play auto-mode, in case of loss the script has been terminated, even if I have set up multiplier (in case of win and "return to the base bet", everything goes on without interruption).

3/ What is the "Simulation mode" checkbox beside the "Run script" green button ?


Thanks for the answers to my questions.

The expected median should indeed be 1.98x, but the actual median is going to vary significantly over a finite amount of games.  


That system is known as "provably fair" and contains absolutely everything you need to prove the game is fair. While i do admit it requires quite a bit of technical knowledge, it has the advantage that anyone can verify the game for everyone. So if you can find someone who understands how the maths primitives work, it should be easy to verify =)


If I was in his position, I would not do it either. If that knowledge affects your actions, I would say it's pretty unethical (as it'll either advantage/disadvantage  investors/gamblers). If that knowledge doesn't affect your actions, it's kind of pointless to know. I would definitely not want to put myself in a position where I could get influenced by it.


BTW, Daniel actually makes more money when the games are good than when the games are bad. His profit is a function of the amount wagered, and players are able to turn over a lot more when they're not getting raped.


The house edge can be 1%, but players lose 2%  .... but that doesn't mean there was cheating, it means there was variance. The provably fair system proves that the game outcomes have been decided from a probability distribution function that results in a 1% house edge. It's totally normal and expected that the games will be "good" and "bad" over a finite period of time

I'd encourage you to do the maths, or get someone to do it for you. Variance is far more of a bitch than almost everyone realizes. In the end, bustabit has done all that is possible to allow you to verify the games and the maths and check things -- the ball is really in your court on this one.

I watched a little. very few winners.

I assume he's thanking for admitting that MoneyPot was a disaster.

my posting was  regarding the moneypot disaster

What do you mean? Ryan probably doesn't want bustabit ( a long time project of his ) to be run by scammers, so he just offered around to people he trusted hence him saying ( to avoid a repeat of the moneypot disaster )

thx for admitting

good luck

I said that the players are better off without the bonus system than with it and that that statement is not in contradiction with the RTP being lower than before. The bonus system has nothing to do with the RTP. Of course a higher house edge is worse for players as a whole. But as I said, moving to a flat house edge was going to happen regardless of my decision to keep or remove the bonus system.

That being said, it is absolutely possible for most players–what Ryan called the "gambling players"–to be better off despite the RTP being lower when a large part of the wager volume was going to a small number of bonus-aware players. In other words, the return to bonus-unaware players may actually be higher than it was despite the higher house edge. However, I haven't run the numbers to confirm that and that's not the argument I'm making here.

You can't have a lower RTP AND be better off for the player.

Lower RTP = worse for the player.
Higher RTP = better for the player.

The bonus system has no impact on the Return to Player and removing it isn't responsible for less of the wager volume being returned to players–the house edge is.

The house edge and the bonus system are orthogonal and I could have removed the bonus system without changing the house edge and vice versa. But a flat house edge is required to charge investors a commission on wagers, so that change was happening either way.

With that in mind the two statements aren't contradictory at all. Return to Player is lower than before and most players are better off without the bonus system than with it.

I don't quite understand what you mean, that functionality should be working in v2 (or at least is for me?) as well as v2 having a PM system too



I'm just telling you the reality of how people played. I used to cringe every time I saw a whale getting his bonuses taken each game, and didn't care (generally it's pretty trivial to change the way you play to screw the bots) and there was a bot that primarily made it's money targeting people like that that netted something like 1M USD in a year.



I was going to leave this, but it would be a bit unfair to Daniel. First of all, I think I have too much trust issues to do what you said (hell, in all my time I never even trusted anyone to handle customer support...) but if I did, I certainly wouldn't present them as an owner -- as if they screwed up or did something wrong that would be fatal. If you care enough, you can ask any of the major casino owners -- as I shopped the offer around to everyone I was aware of that I thought would be honest and competent (although I avoided the whole "open" sale thing, to avoid a repeat of the moneypot disaster).

BTW, I think you've drastically overestimated bustabit's value. In all my time owning it, I netted about ~3000 bitcoin -- but the number I was looking at selling for was closer to a ~year's of net. Perhaps I valued it too little, but I have no regrets. Daniel is doing a fantastic job, and I've been able to do new things with my life (like I just finished living 6 months on the beach).

So I have an inherent debate disadvantage here because you have complete information and I have incomplete information.  You can look up all of the stats, both global and individual, and see exactly how the edge/bonus had affected the ecosystem.  The fact that you haven't done that could be an indicator that I'm correct, but I think it's likely that you don't want to go through the hassle just to have a friendly debate about a fraction of a percent. 

Which is obviously fair.

And I agree with you that there is a subset of "gambling players" that ARE better off.  The ones that bet a ton and waited for high multipliers were paying 1% house edge + near 1% bonus for a total of 1.x% loss per bet.  Now they only lose 1% per bet.

There are obviously players like me who are worse off.  I was winning nearly .5% per bet after the house edge and am now losing 1% per bet. 

Everyone else, though, is in the murky middle.  How much house edge were they paying?  I can't find the house edge chart for v1, but I recall it didn't get to 1% til the higher multipliers.  So the average gambler wasn't paying near 1% house edge.  The average gambler also wasn't losing near 1% to the bonus system because of the inherent nature of the game...a lot of the time you win a % of the bonus just by luck.  So even someone who was making a lot of losing bets, and not paying attention to the bonus, could have been better off under the old system.

Also, as I mentioned before, even if it's a breakeven situation, you've got a ton of money that WAS going back to the players that is now going to the house.  While that's obviously good for the house short term, it may be bad for the house long term.


I probably misspoke.  I should have said multiple...tabs?  When you opened a new room (for example, "spam"), you could access the other room(s) you were in by clicking the flag on the right side of the chat window.  And you could see how many unread comments there were in each room.


Personally, I think that's a little disingenuous.  First off, you're talking about something you created!  Secondly, you could say that about anything.  "Oh,  the cash out system is unfair because if people don't know they can cash out before it reaches their pre-set multiplier they might miss out on taking profits"  "Oh, the hosue edge is unfair because it said "Razor thin 0-1%" and unless you actually read the explanation you could think that EVERY bet was 0%".  Lastly, assuming that people are going to gamble with their money and not read about what's going on is thinking pretty lowly of your user base.  Especially when there's a giant "bonus" column for everyone to see.  While I'm positive there were people who just wanted to click buttons and buy you cars, I think that saying the majority got taken advantage of is incorrect.  You can say that they ignored it, and that might be true, but if they were getting "taken advantage of" by the bonus system (which, again, was something that you made), you'd have to say that these same people were and are being taken advantage of by the house edge.

Which obviously I don't think is true.


I agree, and I thought that you had made a new mode with a giant bonus % for v2.  Why not bust that bad boy out and see how it runs?

And before you say "Because I sold the site", I don't think anyone believes that you actually sold the site.  Personally I think you sold a small % to someone to run the site for you so that you could cash out and not have to have the constant stress.  Which, obviously, is super smart and something I would have done a long time ago.  It just doesn't make sense that you would sell the site to someone who had the money to buy the site (FMV would be north of 5000BTC) yet wouldn't/couldn't self-bankroll the site.  Paying all that money just to give up so much profit is illogical. 

It sounds like it, but it's not really. There's really two different types of "players", let's call them "advantage players" (people trying to make a profit through the bonus system) and "gambling players" (people who played bonus oblivious, just trying to gamble). Previously bustabit tried to cater to both, but now only caters to "gambling players". Previously "gambling players" might have had an effective average house edge of say 1.5% (not sure exactly, but the 0-1% house edge + 0-1% losing in pvp), while now they have a house edge of 1%.

So I'd say with a high level of confidence the "gambling players" are better off, even though significantly less wager volume is returned.

What do you mean by this? Were you ever able to open multiple chat windows? 


Yeah, it's always been. Originally it was there just for SEO purposes, but it actually works really well for helping prevent DDoS attacks too (I can explain via PM if interested)



Anyway, regarding your larger point about the bonus system -- I very much agree with you. The old system was very unique and cool, and I'd love to see it come back. However; in its previous form it was pretty unfair to casual gamblers (the vast majority who just totally ignored it, and got taken advantage of) and it should be added as an additional game play mode. Everyone who plays with it, should really understand what's happening and actively playing for the bonuses.

I just want to point out that you said this


and then you said this


Which are contradictory statements.  How are the players "better without the bonus" if "less of the wager volume is returned to players"?  Seems worse to me, not better.


The bonus removal is the main reason I don't play there much anymore, everything else is just tiny cosmetic issues.  The color palette looks washed out.  The inability to open multiple chat windows is a step backwards and you lose a little bit of the "social" aspect of the game.  The splash page is effectively worthless.  It's a bunch of tiny cosmetic things that are probably individualized.  I'm sure there are a ton of people who play who enjoy the things I don't.  

To be fair, there are also improvements.  The target profit/win chance in the bet box is an improvement, as is the total players and total amount wagered in the bottom right corner.  The deposits/withdraws as a pop up instead of having to navigate off of the main page is a large improvement.  The account dashboard/overview/stats is also a large improvement.  


But, this is just my opinion.  If the company is doing better than ever, congrats.  Obviously you wouldn't change back because you are losing a few players.  The only thing I will say is that you might want to consider long term health.  It seems like what you've done is take a zero-sum bonus system and turn it into a higher house edge.  Essentially taking money that was won by the players and taking it for the house.  This is exactly what poker sites have started doing and it's killing the industry.  I mean, you have all the stats, I don't.  You are making more money now, which is to be expected...but how is your player retention?  

I understand why players that played for the bonus are unhappy about it being removed. Nevertheless they are in the minority and the remaining players are better off without the bonus.

Besides the removal of the bonus, are there any other things you don't like about v2? If there are, I'd genuinely like to hear about them, especially considering how long you played in v1.


It's important to understand the relationship between players' losses and the wager volume. When players are lucky they are able to play more and the wager volume tends to be greater than usual. Vice versa, when players lose a lot the wager volume tends to be lower.

It's true that bustabit's volume has been low for the past two weeks, but this is explained by players being unlucky. In the same time frame, investors made a little over 70 BTC, which is nearly three times what you'd expect them to earn based on the median daily wager volume.

For the same reason it's also to be expected for the wager volume to be lower in v2 than it was in v1. Less of the wager volume is returned to players, so they are able to bet less.

This doesn't necessarily mean that bustabit is losing popularity. In fact if you disregard February–which is kind of an outlier at 100,000+ BTC wagered thanks to some crazy huge bets–then last month was bustabit v2's best month yet in terms of wager volume. If anything I'm quite optimistic about its future.

I played a ton pre-change and gave it a couple of shots post-change and it's definitely way less fun.  It's still a unique game, and I'd still play it before I played a dice site or something like that, but I really have no desire to play it a bunch like I did before. 

You are right about the wagering total.  If we compare December of last year (when the price was spiking and people were far less likely to gamble), the total daily wagered was over 300BTC every day, over 400BTC most days, and got as high as 500-700BTC some days.  In the last couple of weeks, it hasn't gotten over 250BTC once, and has gotten as low as 120BTC, 109BTC, and even 87BTC.  I know it's easy to say "Oh well there just aren't as many whales popping up", and that's fair, but you can see it game-by-game, too.  There used to be a ton of people betting over 10k/game before and now there is MAYBE one, but a lot of times a 5k or even 3k bet will be the highest wager.  I think busta has lost a lot of the serious gamblers, like myself.

As far as everyone losing, that's probably perspective.  But they did increase the house edge by more than double on a majority of the bets and more than triple on bets of people utilizing the bonus game.

For reference, I have over 42k games played and nearly 300BTC total wagered.

It seems to still be extremely popular: https://dicesites.com/bustabit  -- I'm actually not even aware of a site with more volume than that (although I wouldn't be surprised, they just don't have open stats). As for players losing in general, that's not totally unexpected in a casino -- but over the entire history players have actually performed significantly better than expected. But fortunately bustabit also gives you the option to invest in the bankroll (like I have done; which so far has paid off nicely)

TL;DR Don't deposit to your old (pre January 27) deposit address from bustabit v1 (starts with a 1) as your deposit may not be honored.

When I acquired bustabit in January every user received a new deposit address and existing deposit addresses became invalid. Although I cannot access the funds at the old addresses, I have been crediting deposits to them in the understanding that Ryan, the previous owner of bustabit, will reimburse me.

Ryan has informed me that there is a high likelihood that the v1 hot wallet has been compromised. For that reason deposits to v1 addresses may no longer be honored. Do not deposit to your old deposit address (starts with a 1) and only deposit to the address at bustabit.com/deposit (starts with a 3).

This only concerns deposits to outdated and invalid deposit addresses from v1. bustabit itself is not affected in any way. All current deposit addresses on bustabit (start with a 3) are not affected in any way.