Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 118. (Read 61394 times)

He was insinuating that it was a bonus, like a deposit bonus.  The bonus on BaB was a neutral-ev (for the site) component.

At one point, I remember seeing the bankroll be minus 280 bitcoin and over minus 35% of the bankroll!



Does this mean that anyone who had offsite investment of 2 or 3 leverage lost all of their original investment?

Yet I doubt most player even try to 'win' by taking advantage of the bonus. It was the only chance and now it is gone but that doesnt mean you are going to lose every single time you play in the site. Enjoy the new bustabit anyway 

What do you mean that wasn't even closet to that? The bonus was the only chance of players to beat the house edge on long run and it was pretty interesting competing with other players for higher multiplier after every round (guessing what they will set on next).

That's not even close to what the bonus is.

With current high price of bitcoin, bonus will be really unaffective to their site, because they need to give an extra percentage for every single bet that you make which is really wasting their bankroll if it continues like this. This bonus is almost the same like faucet, the only difference is it can't be abused

Why did you removed the bonus system?!

This was the only huge difference than other 'dice' type platforms and the only way to become a winner in long run! And the only reason to play bustabit... to try being a winner over others.

cryptobust.in is not affiliated with bustabit and has not purchased a license to use our code. There is also a very credible scam accusation against them here.

If you're ever wondering whether or not a site has purchased a license, you can check if they are listed in the file at https://www.bustabit.com/license.txt.

Hey RHavar

I just visited a site named https://www.cryptobust.in/. They are letting users play with litecoins on their site. Seems a copy of your site bustabit.
On their faq page I found a link of  the topic posted by you many years ago https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bustabitcom-provably-fair-seeding-event-922898.

So is it somehow connected to you or they are false claiming it?

Just wanted to post here to say that I've had over 300 bitcoin in this site at one time and they have paid me out.

Any chance you'd disclose who those two players were? I have my suspicions, but would love to know for sure

@dragonmaster2  actually, counter-intuitively from a maths point of view it doesn't really matter about the max-bet. What really affects the house, is actually the "attempted profit" they are trying to get. As an example, if you go to bustadice.com you are able to bet 2000 btc in a single bet (and take a ~98% chance of winning 20 BTC) or 1 bitcoin @ 21x!

The reason it largely doesn't matter, is because the house edge (1%) is based on the amount you bet, rather than on what you are trying to win. So if someone bet 2000 BTC to win 20 BTC, they would be "paying" 20 BTC in expected loss to the house. And if someone bet 1 BTC to attempt to win 20, they would be "paying" 0.01 BTC in EV to have a chance to win the same amount.
 
So from the house's perspective (at least in terms of expected bankroll growth) these two factors eliminate each other, meaning you should restrict the max-profit not the max bet.


So that raises the question: If the max-bet doesn't matter, why would bustabit even restrict it at all? Why doesn't it let people bet 2000 BTC like bustadice?  And the answer to that is because as bustabit is a multiplayer game, someone winning a lot (in terms of frequency) can have a really big impact on other players, due to the stop loss for the casino (the forced cash out).  Imagine that without the max bet rule, 2 whales were betting 1300 BTC a round (at 1.01x). This means every game would have a "force point" at 1.01x .. which would ruin the game for everyone else.

So that's the logic behind the max-bet rule, even though it doesn't really affect the risk per se

Great stuff seeing here, love the design!
Maybe it's time to add new currencies 

I remember when I found out about Bustabit, like 3years ago or so. Can say the most fun game.

I think another thing to take note of is that max profit was much harder to hit in V1 as the maxBet was capped at 1 btc. So hitting 60 btc only happened roughly 1/60 times. Even assuming max profit was 0.75% instead of 3% and max profit was 20 btc, that's still 1/20 times.

With the new system, you can bet the max profit and hit it roughly 1/2 times. That's 30x higher than before, 10x higher if you assume V1 max profit was 20 btc at 0.75%. V1 was an order of magnitude safer in terms of bankroll fluctuation since kelly/double kelly were hit that much less often.

I still feel that it's not great that double kelly is possible + hit so often when there's 2 accounts used. Yesterday there were 2 sets of 2 accounts that hit double kelly repeatedly: pineappleswrl & offtheshits, xxxrip & perrrrs (all the same guy)

I feel that because max bet isn't 1 BTC but always scales with the max profit, that no matter how large the bankroll, as long as there are whales willing to repeatedly hit double kelly, the bankroll will always be at risk of large fluctuations.

Just for some background, twice the kelly isn't totally arbitrary. The kelly is the point in which your expected bankroll growth is maximized, risky any more passed that means you are over-risking funds and have less expected growth (but more expected profit). Once you get to 2x the kelly, your expected bankroll growth is 0. Anything passed that point puts you in negative expected bankroll growth (basically guaranteeing the house will bust if it's constantly being used).


At least historically on bustabit, when there was a whale playing trying to hit max profit it was almost on a single account and they were the only one. The new system is designed to allow them to do that, without affecting anyone else (i.e. a single account can't ever force everyone to cash out) -- however if there's multiple accounts aiming at max profit like we saw yesterday, it kind of backfires a little.

Honestly, I think what bustabit really needs is a bigger bankroll at the moment. 

If 0.75% is the kelly, are you not worried that double that might be too high? The bankroll just lost over 200 btc to a player running 2 accounts to repeatedly hit that combined 1.5%.

I'm not sure I understand you.  For it to be a positive for those players, it needs to fully offset the higher house edge.  Otherwise it would be a negative.

Example: a player who bets medium bets and cashes out in the 1.4-1.6x range most games would have lost around -.5% to the house edge.  If that player only lost, say, -.2% to the bonus, then they are losing more to the fixed -1% house edge than they did under the bonus system, even if they weren't aware of it.


I agree with you that most players probably weren't bonus hunting, but I was wondering how many lost more than -.5%.  Because those are the players that are helped by the flat house edge.  Obviously the guys shooting for 10x are helped by the increase, but my theory (completely assumed, no actual stats) is that there are a lot of people who cashed out under 2x who were losing less money (theoretically of course) under the old system than the new system and it's unfair to lump them into the "vast majority" just because they weren't actively bonus hunting.

But mainly I'm just curious.


I was thinking about this yesterday, and I'm not sure.  BaB was great because, like you said, there were tons of people who were indifferent to the bonus that it made it a profitable venture.  I'm not sure how many people would be attracted to a pure skill game, especially considering how poorly bitcoin poker sites are doing (although that's mostly due to their horrible marketing).

I am noob to bustabit site. Just signed up and watching each rounds ongoing and people's chat also. Please confirm that bonus you mentioned 1% will be above every crash and the max hits.
Since I am part of OneHash Now concentrating on gambling to side to invest. Hope get the better advice from the support to get the more profit than loose in gambling.

I can compute when I have the time -- but honestly, for the vast majority of gamblers removing the bonus and the 0x was the right thing to do. When I did some analysis of who was playing for bonuses, I realized there's really only a handful of people doing so. The vast majority of people are simply playing and gambling to have fun.

And of those people playing for bonuses, they were pretty much totally dominated by two bot-owners (who had several bots) that were exceedingly good at bonus play. One of which didn't have a huge bankroll, and couldn't play high-stakes and the other guy who net'd about 1.1M USD profit in a 1 year period.  I think it's fantastic that people are taking the game so seriously and doing exactly what it was designed for  -- but I think the mistake was that a 1% bonus was small enough that casual players assumed it wasn't worth worrying about.

There's definitely a lot of  potential for pvp gambling games, but I think the important thing is ensuring that people fully realize how competitive it is

The short answer to your question about investments is risk: In many cases a stable revenue stream with limited downside is preferable to a larger revenue stream with lots of variance.

The bonus was 1% of what was wagered in a round and was paid to the player(s) that cashed out last. It was paid in all games except those that crashed instantly at 0.00x. How large the multiplier actually was wasn't important, only that you cashed out last.

bustabit might see the bonus again in the future. A player-versus-player version of the game with a very small rake and a significantly higher bonus than previously could be interesting.