Topic: bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game - page 145. (Read 293938 times)
It is a bummer that some people resort to threats and harassment and ruin nice things
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
You are right that the same problem occurs on other games with respect to investors, but the investors know it, and the games are provably fair at least towards players.
So here the last player to cash out doesn't get other players funds? In other words, the outcome of a round for a player is only dependant on his/her own action and not other players actions?
Ok I stand corrected then, thank you for the precisions! This looks good then (unless this "little bonus" is playing any significant part to place the game within the 0-1% edge).
please buy this site, it seems as if ure interested
Look like he is really interested that is why he is enquiring before bid.
It will be another great pick on binaryfate portfolio if he buy this.
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
You are right that the same problem occurs on other games with respect to investors, but the investors know it, and the games are provably fair at least towards players.
So here the last player to cash out doesn't get other players funds? In other words, the outcome of a round for a player is only dependant on his/her own action and not other players actions?
Ok I stand corrected then, thank you for the precisions! This looks good then (unless this "little bonus" is playing any significant part to place the game within the 0-1% edge).
please buy this site, it seems as if ure interested
why u guys selling the site?
BECAUSE THEY ARE WAY OUT OF THEIR LEAGUE ! ?
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
it doesn't say "provable fair" ! lol
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
You're right that that is the goal, but it's not all that important.
Everyone who cashed out before the crashpoint gets paid their stake times the multiplier when they cashed out. So if the house was to cheat and make sure they're the last to cash out, they wouldn't be making you lose.
The only caveat to that is that the last player to cash out gets the bonus, which is 1% of the total staked on that round. (It's not quite that simple, because you don't want a player making dust bets to be able to scoop the whole bonus, so the amount each player is eligible to win is scaled down in proportion to the size of their bet in comparison to the size of the biggest bet that round, with the rest of the bonus pool being awarded to the next player in reverse cashout order). So the best the house could do is win that extra 1% each round.
Skillful players will aim to win the bonus, and only play when they have a positive expectation. If the house was cheating in the manner you describe, it would no longer be possible for skillful players to have a positive expectation, and the house edge would then be between 1% and 2% for them.
In short I don't think this is a very good way for the house to cheat. They'd be better off just making the game crash early more often than it should. We currently have to trust that they don't do that.
now i'm glad dmf lost here
That's correct, the house knows exactly when the game crashes (provably so). And in theory I could run house bots to scoop up the bonus pool reliably, which would appear to other players as an -1% house edge.
However, this would be an extremely stupid way to cheat, because there are player who care and monitor the bonuses, and chalk the rest as variance. If I started stealing players bonuses, they would see right away that they aren't making the bonuses they hoped to (in terms of EV) and either leave because they couldn't make the results they wanted, or think something is fishy.
A smarter way to cheat would be to pick a worse distribution of crash point then I advertise -- but you'll have to take me for my word that I'm not a psychopath who wants to rip you off. A while back Dooglus was complaining that the site isn't provably fair, so I updated the terminology to say: 'provably predetermined', and when cautious people complained that the guarantees I was offering weren't good enough -- I used to point them in dice.ninja's direction and tell them that was more provably fair than my site, and look how that turned out...
However, this would be an extremely stupid way to cheat, because there are player who care and monitor the bonuses, and chalk the rest as variance. If I started stealing players bonuses, they would see right away that they aren't making the bonuses they hoped to (in terms of EV) and either leave because they couldn't make the results they wanted, or think something is fishy.
A smarter way to cheat would be to pick a worse distribution of crash point then I advertise -- but you'll have to take me for my word that I'm not a psychopath who wants to rip you off. A while back Dooglus was complaining that the site isn't provably fair, so I updated the terminology to say: 'provably predetermined', and when cautious people complained that the guarantees I was offering weren't good enough -- I used to point them in dice.ninja's direction and tell them that was more provably fair than my site, and look how that turned out...
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
You are right that the same problem occurs on other games with respect to investors, but the investors know it, and the games are provably fair at least towards players.
So here the last player to cash out doesn't get other players funds? In other words, the outcome of a round for a player is only dependant on his/her own action and not other players actions?
Ok I stand corrected then, thank you for the precisions! This looks good then (unless this "little bonus" is playing any significant part to place the game within the 0-1% edge).
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
You are right that the same problem occurs on other games with respect to investors, but the investors know it, and the games are provably fair at least towards players.
So here the last player to cash out doesn't get other players funds? In other words, the outcome of a round for a player is only dependant on his/her own action and not other players actions?
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
You are right that the same problem occurs on other games with respect to investors, but the investors know it, and the games are provably fair at least towards players.
So here the last player to cash out doesn't get other players funds? In other words, the outcome of a round for a player is only dependant on his/her own action and not other players actions?
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
The site can't be invested it, so the owner would essentially be winning his own funds.
Other than that, the site is like every other gambling site, the owners could cheat but need to be trusted not to.
Do I get it right that the goal is to be the last player to cash out right before the game "crash"?
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
What would prevent the site owner to play himself, since he knows the gameCrashAmount and could act as a lucky winning player (effectively a shill)?
If that is possible, then the game is only "provably not changing results", but not provably fair.
The owner could win abritrary high gains (possibly choosing to remain within a realistic variance).
Maybe I misunderstood how the game works... Please comment.
why u guys selling the site?
Deleted too stupid ! ?
Unless you have some weird crush on the current site owner STFU and leave this thread. You can't fud someone selling their gambling site this isn't a coin, reject.
i just tried this out, and its pretty awesome. very addictive! quite fun 
i like it!
good job!
Saltybrains
www.allcoincasino.com
i like it!good job!
Saltybrains
www.allcoincasino.com
I would recommend removing the FAQ answer where you suggest investing in dice.ninja.
Thanks yeah, references to dice.ninja have been removed.
why u guys selling the site?
BECAUSE THEY ARE WAY OUT OF THEIR LEAGUE ! ?
why u guys selling the site?
I would recommend removing the FAQ answer where you suggest investing in dice.ninja.
i know right
I would recommend removing the FAQ answer where you suggest investing in dice.ninja.
Jump to: