Topic: bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game - page 142. (Read 293938 times)

I'm not sure.

Are you including your own bet with that?

If the top bet is 100k, you should bet 100k too, meaning you get a little over 2% of the pot if you cash out just after the other 100k player.

I think it's optimal to match the highest bet.

Thank you! My only other question is to clarify the equations your calculator uses.

Can you use 25,000 wager with 1.21x multiplier, plug it into a formula and show me how the calculator gives the player a 81.675% probability of winning. Also plug it into equations that show House Expected Return of 45.8125 and House Margin of 0.18325%?

Again we'll wait for Eric to chime in.

I think 0x is the approximation for him to fund bonus pool. 1x is possible when the random number is ~0.995 or higher due to m(r) formula.

Oh, is there a difference between 0x and 1x crashes? I was under the impression it was the same thing and used interchangeably.

Thank you for your responses. I understand how to play profitably. I'm just trying to optimize.

1. I believe all bonuses are paid out for each game.  If there is leftover after cashed out players are paid, the uncashed out players will be paid.  0x does not pay bonus but 1x does.
2 and 3 I cannot answer as I have not looked at the code nor am I qualified to calculate
4. The multiplier is 1/(1-rand()), subsequently adjusted for 1% house edge
5. see 2 and 3.

If you are looking to play +EV, you should be looking to take more than your share in bonus.  You should:

1. Look for games where the top bet is not disproportional compared to overall pot.  If pot is 120k and top bet is 100k, the most in bonus you can get is 1.2% of your wager, which will not likely cover the house edge since you contribute 1% of that bonus.  If the pot is 800k and top bet is 100k, it's a game worth playing as the possible bonus is 8%.
2. For games worth playing (see 1), cash out as soon as you are in the bonus money.  As the game progresses, if the total wagered amount players above you plus your own wager is smaller than the largest bet, that means you are in the money for full bonus, and should cash out immediately.  Example: You bet 15k. Max bet in pot is 50k.  Game progressed to point where 3 players with 500, 10k, 20k other than you have not cashed out.  Cash out immediately since you are in the money for bonus and staying longer does not increase your EV.
3. Take into account that for +EV, your extra bonuses won will need to cover your losing games as well.  Not easy.

In the old days when max wager was set at 100k, there were easily games which had 8%-10% bonus.  Good times no more.  Way she goes. 

In re: question 1, I believe the only time a bonus is not paid to someone is if the game crashes at 0.

This game has been fun but is confusing. I'm hoping someone can answer the following questions.

1. What is an example where no one collects a bonus and it carried over to next game?
2. The strategy guide states the house expected return is "1% * playersInGame * tableAmount". I'm confused why the number of players in the game matters for the House_EV? Can someone elaborate/clarify?
3. In the FAQ, a 2nd house EV formula is listed as "1 % * (intendedCashOut - roomAmount) * (roomAmount / intendedCashOut)". Why are there 2 House_EV formulas?
4. In the chat, it was stated the the multiplier is calculated by using a random number from 0 to 1 in the formula m(r)=(99+r)/(100*r). Is this true?
5. Using the below variables, how would you represent Player EV ignoring the bonus profit?

P_EV = Player EV
r_AW = roomAmountWagered
p_AW = playerAmountWagered
p_M = playerMultiplier

P_EV =

See how high you can fly before it hits the overhead power lines?

It's like poetry. Or something.

t was like playing a kite ..
i've done to try

Please don't feed the troll. We've been over this many many times.

Nobody knows how to get the same hash by changing the input. That's the whole point.

The ideal cryptographic hash function has four main properties:

* it is easy to compute the hash value for any given message

* it is infeasible to generate a message that has a given hash

* it is infeasible to modify a message without changing the hash

* it is infeasible to find two different messages with the same hash.

If you click 'ignore', you won't see his messages. You'll only get to see his nonsense if someone else quotes it. If enough of us do it, there won't be anyone left to quote it.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

For all practical intents and purposes, you can not.

COPACABANA ?

http://cs323822.vk.me/v323822776/a056/MeydgmD5QVs.jpg

Do you have any plans if the auction is not succesful?

Eric, how is the auction going? Is the plan still to sell the site?

ok i got back in and checked it out and the hash checked out to be accurate for the game i checked!

> my guess the trust relies on variables of the crash amount and seed combinations...?

>could you not come to the same hash result by simply shifting variables?  :\

^ i'm i making sense? tia

I FIND IT A CURIOSITY THAT NOW WHEN I'M ATTEMPTING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO VERIFY THE HASHES I GET SHUT OUT OF THE SITE!

LMFAO!!!

 


NICE WORK!

I forgot to add a third one: the lack of 2FA.

Hi, I'm user "Steve" on MoneyPot, steven (149317) on just-dice, steve
(2995) on dicebitco.in and Steve (2474) on dice.ninja.

Saying that I "reviewed it fully" is going too far. I have looked
at the game logic in the server, the server-client communication
and some other parts here or there. I haven't looked at UI or
for example any code that is handling funds and user balances
which I would deem important though.


Yep that was me.


Because I'm already at it, I can address it for all interested parties: the buyer and the users.

• The buyer should review the code himself anyway. I don't think
  Eric intentionally left any backdoors in the code so that he can hack
  it after selling as he would expose himself now to the same risk. The
  codebase is straightforward and not too large so a review of the
  critical parts shouldn't be too difficult.

From the users perspective there are two things I'm aware of that can
be improved

• Real provably fair numbers (whatever that means). This was
  discussed earlier in this thread. dooglus proposed a scheme that
  allows the server to prove that it does not pick crash points at will. Mixing
  some random data into it (like the hash of a block in the future)
  guarantees that the site owner cannot influence the distribution.
• I haven't complained to Eric about this yet because it doesn't
  concern me, but I just opened an issue on github. When logging in
  the user password is sent encrypted but unhashed to the server, which
  means that the server can potentially harvest user passwords and try
  to log into other sites. The database itself stores hashed passwords. I use
  unique passwords anyway, but I think this should be resolved for the sake
  of other users.

This!!!