Topic: 🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com - page 21. (Read 119056 times)

1. because that's the right thing to do.
2. because they already stated that they will:


They wouldn't have paid out winnings over 20 BTC and so will be refunding stakes accordingly.


Can you quote them saying that?

But as per the terms, they do not suppose to accept that big bet but due to the system failure or not updated yet they have accepted it. So it is mistake, and error should be corrected if anyone betted higher than allowed bet amount whether they win or loss.

This makes sense to me if they would have paid it out.

Why would they refund anyone that didn't win?  If they won, they would have been entitled to it since the bet was accepted.  And, they said they would have paid out.

Asking 'what if' is kind of pointless.

There isn't a minimum. http://i.imgur.com/HMehCnp.gifv

Nope.

Is there any divest fee if you divest your investment in moneypot?

Ouch.


Note that this will lead to very small max bets for the "2x plus jackpot" type bets. If someone is aiming for 2x and (million)x in a siingle roll you'll have to use the (million)x to limit the bet size. If your bankroll is 1000 BTC then the max win will be 10 BTC (1% of the bankroll), and so the max bet will be just 10 bits. Seems to me that pretty much kills off the lottery/jackpot style games.


Luckily it seems this didn't happen. Nobody won more than 20 BTC since the buggy limit was put in place. Some players will have been aiming to win more than 20 BTC though, and it's not clear how to refund them.

If I had bet 1 BTC aiming to win 100 BTC and missed, what refund am I due? If I had hit, I would only have won 20 BTC, or 20% of my intended jackpot. So perhaps the bet should only have cost me 20% of what I paid, and so I should get a 0.80 BTC refund. That seems clear enough. But what about for the custom bets. If I bet 1 BTC aiming to win either 10 BTC *or* 100 BTC and hit just the 10 BTC part, do I still get the 0.80 BTC refund? That part of the bet could only even have won 20% of the intended amount, but the other part won the full amount. It's kind of confusing to think about. I hope the MoneyPot guys work out a way of refunding people that's fair to both players and investors.

Minimum for investing is 0.001, just go and register on the site, then just look for the investment tab on the account dashboard.

I completely agree on the limits. The last time I was at the casino I thought about trying a mini-martingale to see how it did, on roulette. Decided to watch for a bit instead. Saw 13 reds in a row there, which would have been far above the maximum bet they allowed there if you were doubling black. Never really considered that as being part of a purposeful limit to keep people from being able to bet large with martingale, though, but looking back on it, that does make sense. I always figured it was more about having too much money at one of the tables/risk mitigation.

I don't agree.  Casinos have many tables.  They are all the same with players and dealers.   Some are $1-$500 limits while others are $5 - $1000 and up the chain.  Sure, if the casino is full and they want to pull more money in (over the long run), they will change the limits, but always keeping to the betting ranges.  As customers leave (for a show, eating, sleeping), they then start to drop table limits and/or simply shut tables down.

My point was not that they start at a penny.  It was that there are betting ranges to stop the bet doubles after a limited number of bets.  A casino has to keep the lights on (sure), and they don't want people coming in with $100k and nickle/diming them by bet doubling starting at $5. (14+ consecutive bets).

I am not suggesting MP make this type of change.  Also, MP is able to handle more than 30 hands per hour.  

Casino Dealers makes minimum wage they get the majority of there income from tips, they do make good money however, my roommate is a dealer at a major casino so I know first hand.

It's actually more related to the cost of doing business. If you have a table with a player that is starting out at a penny, you get, let's say 30 hands per hour on average. That's a $0.30 return, while you're paying someone $15/hr for doing that. There are a lot of overheads of casinos that online sites aren't faced with. Add in things like security, other personnel, rent, etc. and it goes up. They base the minimum bets around what is worth it to them: if it's not worth the time to do a $5 hand but it is worth it for $10, they will set the min at 10.

But they can make profits they just were on the wrong end of variance and wined like babies. Fwiw I was apart of the big loses I just look at it differently but I have gambled as a living for over a decade and understand variance better  than most can.

I do agree that all investments come with some risks, but the site also needs investors to maintain a healthy bankroll amount. If investors can't make profits, naturally they will pull out the money and put in some other sites where they can make profit and site may lose a lot of investors. So site owners have to do something to retain investors, or they can come up with their own bankroll.

Ummm, what 'big risk' did the player make?
Also, if the bet isn't accepted, then it isn't cheating.  (Even a real casino has table limits (min AND max).)
They said they were going back to cover the winning bets which won over the 20BTC max since the system actually took their bets.  This is completely fair to the players.  (Only an investor could have an issue with this since it was declared no bets would be taken if the win was potentially over 20BTC).



In a way, I agree with you.  I do believe the site should work along the same lines of a real casino in that there should be limits (mins and max).  Casinos don't have 1penny min while having a 1% of casino value max.  Casinos try to limit exposure to around 8 consecutive doubling bets.   It's unlikely to lose 8 bets in a row; however, it's very very unlikely to lose 16 consecutive bets in a row. 

A real person wouldn't gamble if they started at a penny minimum bet if they walked in with $10k.  That said, it's easier to play this way if you had bots doing it for you automatically (19 bets).  Vegas must have a reason for doing it this way.  Just a thought.

As a investor on many sites I disagree with these changes to protect investors although I understand why your taking these measures. Investors should only be risking what they can afford to lose no investment is promised to win and they should be aware of that. By limiting what the investors can lose your also taking away from the players who want to go big or go home. Sure they can go big still and lose the majority of time they try but I imagine some players want the investors to feel some pain, which makes it more enjoyable to the player. A kelly option would help both players and investors  in this case.

This shows that you guys are implementing things without proper testing your scripts and that is not expected from any well-established site like money pot. Hope these things will not repeat because it is not even good for either players or investors. If player wins after taking such big risk and he get only 20 BTC means then it is considered as cheating to players. If your giving back the people who lost more in a single bet then it is a good move.

The 20btc cap was in place but setup incorrectly.  This is on us, but investors were not affected.

The system was coded to restrict bets to 20 btc max win payouts.  If someone had hit a 64 bitcoin wager, the house bankroll would only be deducted 20 bitcoin and the player would be credited 20 bitcoin.

We realize this was not what we intended and we will be changing it.

We also realize that this was unfair to any player (there were only a very short few) that had an accepted bet that showed a higher payout than 20 bitcoin. We will be reviewing all those that were affected and contact them to credit their accounts for more than their potentially lost equity.

For simplicity and ease of coding, we are heavily discussing the possibility of abandoning kelly criterion completely and implementing a straight forward 1% of bankroll max win with a mandatory minimum house edge of 0.75%.

Ok this Is how i think about the bet.
Maybe a few saw the thread from the App where the bet come from
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16844809
As You can see there Is a jackpot. Other apps like exo do there Jackpot on a other way. The needed outcome Is nearly the Same but every coder Is Doing it on its own way. I think this will be the only way to do it on this way and mp only do the normal math about the bet and think a winchance about 0,00002384185791015625% will give a payout from x.
But this will only tell the app owner the jp Is hit.

The other question should be how Is it possible to have 2 different winchances like it is on this bet, plinko Is a different Story only to say. If this Is really possible and as we can See it is i would Tell every App owner to Import it like this.
J_ please do the Same on the exo sweeper and call it Secret Jackpot .

I have already Check it and all i can say Is normaly MP "reject" a bet that Is to high.
Before the question Is coming how i Check it. I want to bet 0.5btc on a plinko custom raw with x250 on both sides but mp doesnt Place the bet.

This question has come up before when there was a large win on plinkopot.

See this post, and the following posts in the same thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13720264

It turns out that the Kelly Criterion tells us to risk up to 81% of our bankroll on that 50k bit bet. Apparently it's worth a tiny chance of losing 81% of the bankroll in order to pick up all the 50k's when the bet loses.

I came up with that 81% by plotting:


and visually finding the lowest point - very similar to in the linked post.


It does. But that 20 BTC maximum win per bet seems like a silly rule to have made. Maybe the rule changed back again since?


Right, you should never risk 100% of your bankroll on a single bet. But apparently it is sometimes optimal to risk a large percentage of it.