Topic: 🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com - page 5. (Read 119068 times)

It's a set kelly though, right? Not like a range? Cuz a rang would be dope, but I don't even know if that would mathematically work

This way each and every investors could determine the risk they want to take, right? And not be controlled by the site. Perhaps this would remove some of the limitations. Please correct me if I got what you meant wrong.


Thanks for clarifying this, I always thought that making multiple bets indeed basically increase the house-edge but it's great to have some factual information. Never thought about taking a closer look into it...

What about some kind of variable kelly option investors? Maybe the site maintains a constant kelly criterion, but investors could invest up to a certain kelly level that theyc an specify?

I think it should be fairly easy to implement a 9999x multiplier betting limit for apps. It is trivial for you to visit each app yourself and check to see if the app is actively encouraging users to circumvent the 9999x multiplier bet limit, or offering players the ability to make a single bet on the app with a >9999x bet multiplier but sending multiple bets to the MP bankroll. If a player himself decides to engage in a betting sequence, that after a series of bets, would result in a total of greater then 9999x win, then that is not the app's fault.

Whenever a player has a big win, bankroll investors (and the public) will be suspicious of cheating, and when a player has a big win while risking very little, bankroll investors (and the public) will be even more suspicious of cheating; this is regardless of the casino, be it happen at MP or one of it's competitors. When players turn a 0.001 bet into 10 BTC enough times (which will happen over a long enough period of bets), investors might decide to withdraw their money, which would result in MP being able to safely accept a lower maximum bet size, hurting the remaining bankroll investors.

A player making two sequential 100x payout bets verses a single 10,000x payout bets effectively changes a 1% HE to 1.99% HE. The difference between three sequential 100x payout bets verses a single 1,000,000x payout bet turns a 1% HE into 2.9701% HE.

The formula to calculate the effective house edge when multiple small payout bets are multiple together to make effectively one higher payout bet is as follows:
Y=1-H^N
Y= Effective house edge
H= House edge of a single bet
N= number of bets multiple together

Yes. You limit the maximum profit per bet using the Kelly criterion.

I didn't actually think about the house edge problem before, that's a very good point - of course the same point could be made about a max-profit.

Then again there have to be limits at some point, whales wiping out the bankroll is never a good thing

Well, let's look at a simpler case:

Is there any tangible difference between:

a) betting 1 BTC at 50% (1.98x)
b) betting 0.5 BTC at 50% (1.98x) twice

Both risk 1 BTC, so both have an expected profit of -0.01%.

Let's look at the possible outcomes:

a) has 50% chance of profit 0.98 BTC and 50% chance of profit -1 BTC
b) has 25% chance of profit 0.98 BTC, 25% chance of profit -1 BTC, and 50% chance of profit -0.01

So the maximum and minimum profits are the same, but b) (betting a smaller amount, more times) fills in the middle. The extreme outcomes become less likely the more you subdivide your bet, and the expected outcome becomes more likely. In the extreme, if you bet a single satoshi 100 million times (ignoring rounding), you will be very likely to have a profit very close to the expected profit of -0.01 BTC

For the players, their only hope of winning is to beat the expectation, and so their best strategy (assuming they have a fixed amount to bet, and have to bet at a certain chance of winning) is to make a single large bet.

We could plot the outcomes against the chance of them happening. Both charts would have the same "center of mass" (ie. the expected profit, -1%), but the chart where the bets were divided up more would be more pointy, with the outcomes concentrated around the expected -1% point.

Edit: I missed the end of your question:


I think the player is at a disadvantage if you limit them to 100x. They effectively pay 1% of everything they stake.

If they can bet 1 BTC at 10,000x, their expected profit is -0.01 BTC.
But if they can only bet at 100x, they have to bet 1 BTC at 100x, then 100 BTC at 100x. That second bet has an expected profit of -1% of 100 BTC, ie. -1 BTC.

The strategy "bet 1 BTC at 100x, and if I win, bet 100 BTC at 100x" has an expected profit of -0.01 BTC for the first bet, and -0.0099 for the second bet (0.99% chance of having to make the 2nd bet, and an expect profit of -1 BTC if you have to make it, for an overall expectation of -0.0099 BTC), for a total of -0.0199 BTC. That's very nearly twice as bad for the player as if you let them make a single bet.

Hey, Dooglus! You're the most qualified person I feel I can ask this to, as you also showed in the past with your analyzation of martingale at different % chances that you have a very solid grasp. My question here is... is there any tangible difference between:

10 bets at y for 10% (10x)
100 bets at 1/10y for 10% (10x)?

By its look, the total amount would be equal (meaning the same HE rule would apply in terms of EV), and the total expected reward would be equal (in case 1, we expect to hit 1/10 for 10x = 1.0, whereas the bottom we expect to hit 10% of 100 = 10 at 10x = 100x / 10 = 10x/10 = 1.0). I did remove the HE part of this calculation for ease of reading.

Not sure if I'm quite explaining the question clearly enough but hopefully I am. Basically, making the same bet, but with a smaller amount (and more bets) should result, theoretically, in the same outcome, correct? Such that let's say it were capped at 100x. Doing this:
If (win) bet wonAmount at 100x
if (lose) returntoBase

Would be the same as just betting straight at 10,000x? Or is there something I'm missing here? In #1, you'd have a 1%*1% chance, or 0.01% = 1/10,000 chance. In the second, you'd still have a 1/10,000 chance.

My bad. I missed a zero.

I was describing a reverse martinglae where you double on win, not on loss.

Using a reverse martingale it's possible to turn 1 satoshi into a million satoshis, by doubling 20 times. Since you would be 1000000x'ing your starting balance would you be attempting to break the rules? That was what I was asking.

But it sounds like the rules aren't really decided upon yet, so there's no point trying to get clarity until they are.

I do not see the point in limiting maximum multiplier to 9900x , other dice sites allow multiplier of up to 990000x (for example betking).
You probably should ask investors at what kelly they want to use its nicely implemented at new dice site.

New changes will prevent big percentage of bankroll to be won at once however it will also limit growth rate.

Lol then you might be in violation - I can't speak to that then

They are different. I'm simply asking because someone could run a game like that, and add an auto betting feature where it would cash out after x wins. People that wanted to play dust lottery could do that, and it wouldn't be circumventing the rules I think.

I mean mathematically they're equivalent, so I gotta think that they're looking at the psychological side of it. Making 10 consecutive bets like that (assuming it's a high value wager) would be harder than making one "aw fuck it" bet. Those aw fuck it bets are the ones that break the bank

I think what he means is if someone manages to multiply their balance by 1024x (or possibly anything else that exceeds their limit) doing reverse martingale , should that be considered circumventing their rules. If not, where does the line go?

hi

now I am confused or lets see

I understand max multiplier will be x9900

max profit will be 0.5% of BR

what you are describing is martingale and why should martingale be not allowed? a player cant win more than 0.5% of the BR anyway so his martingale attempt will be stopped latest when max profit is reached and MP will not accept next bet that would need to pay out more than 0.5% of BR

please correct me if I am wrong or more confused now

I agree a more detailed explanation would be very much appreciated because the discussion looks all about dust lottery and dust lottery cant work with a x9900 multiplayer anyway

edit
with martingale I mean reverse martingale = Paroli

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works but I thought the app just does whatever the user asks it to do. The user asks the app to play two 1000x bets in a row, so the app passes the requests on to MP. How is MP meant to know whether the bets were initiated by a real user or by the app itself? And why would it care?

If MP investors are happy to bankroll a 1000x bet of 100 satoshis, paying out 100k satoshis, and also to bankroll a bet of 100k satoshis paying out 1 BTC, would they really not be willing to bankroll those two bets one after the other? It seems unfair to cut off an app because one of its users got too lucky.

Suppose I start with 100 satoshis and try to repeatedly double it on 2x bets. After my 10th win in a row I will have 1024x'ed my starting bet. Will the app have its MP service cut off because it has circumvented the 1000x limit rule? I think the new rules need to be more clearly stated.

I know this is probably the last thing on y'all's mind now, but any word on v2 and rubies?

Well, first there are no more forced tips I believe I saw. Second, if you have to decide in between the first and second bets, then that's a completely different situation.  I really don't see how you see them the same at all