🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com - page 64.

hua_hui

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1016

Quote from: WEBcreator on July 27, 2016, 09:48:13 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 09:09:58 AM

Quote from: Naoko on July 27, 2016, 09:05:59 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 27, 2016, 08:34:35 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

the answer s here

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366689.msg15721444#msg15721444

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question

I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all?

How can mp stops it if the app won't send them the bets? The app owner can choose if they want to send bets to mp or not, its just the matter of coding

Stopping the feature wont stop an apps from offering the game with their own bankroll. They could easily split themselves up from moneypot and do it however the answer for your question has been listed as well in accoin's post

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

This is not an issue whatsoever, if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C.

So there is still a good chance that if an apps do it, it might turns out to be good for MP as well. It might offer more gambler to try out the site which of course benefit the other apps as well

It is good that MP acknowledge and keep a lookout for any potential problems. It is great that the MP is ready to deal with such issues, but be careful when changing the T&C. There are some people that may pick on MP to accuse them of 'cheating' as when it is good for them, they never do anything but when it is bad for them, they turned the rules to continue to benefit them.

WEBcreator

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 09:09:58 AM

Quote from: Naoko on July 27, 2016, 09:05:59 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 27, 2016, 08:34:35 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

the answer s here

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366689.msg15721444#msg15721444

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question

I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all?

How can mp stops it if the app won't send them the bets? The app owner can choose if they want to send bets to mp or not, its just the matter of coding

Stopping the feature wont stop an apps from offering the game with their own bankroll. They could easily split themselves up from moneypot and do it however the answer for your question has been listed as well in accoin's post

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

This is not an issue whatsoever, if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C.

So there is still a good chance that if an apps do it, it might turns out to be good for MP as well. It might offer more gambler to try out the site which of course benefit the other apps as well

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: Naoko on July 27, 2016, 09:05:59 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 27, 2016, 08:34:35 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366689.msg15721444#msg15721444

but why to wait for it to happen that is my question
[/url]
I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all?

How can mp stops it if the app won't send them the bets? The app owner can choose if they want to send bets to mp or not, its just the matter of coding

edit
sorry posted in quote

the answer s here
[url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366689.msg15721444#msg15721444

Naoko

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 08:41:19 AM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 27, 2016, 08:34:35 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all?

How can mp stops it if the app won't send them the bets? The app owner can choose if they want to send bets to mp or not, its just the matter of coding

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 27, 2016, 08:34:35 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all?

AcoinL.L.C

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets.

retrocoingames

hero member

Activity: 491

Merit: 500

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: retrocoingames on July 26, 2016, 10:40:36 PM

So I just invested a small amount in the bankroll

Not sure if this has been answered already or not but can you change the kelly of the investment or is it all 1x?

It is all 1x here. Other places offer leverage ... I've been happy here, more or less.

Ok thanks for clarifying that.

I will be spreading some btc across a range of these invest sites to see how they go and minimize my downside if some collapse.

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: cazkooo on July 27, 2016, 02:18:39 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 02:06:46 AM

Quote from: cazkooo on July 27, 2016, 01:50:30 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though

thanks for another sig posting

Moneypot's BR is very large but never large enough = the larger the better

are you saying that a casino like BB giving away 80% of their profit should not have their own BR?

no need for you to answer because I know the answer already and I saw your sig

an answer from BB would be acceptable because they know better

You are as stupid as you used to be , thankyou for the laugh anyway. You should take a look at their previous offer for 40 spots of rubies stakeholder in exchange for their profit . If they are using their own bankroll, they will not be getting anything from volume so they cant guarantee monthly profit for their stakeholders. As of now, they are down by 42 btc, by using your stupid logic they wont be able to give some monthly profit for their stakeholder if they are using their own bankroll which means they are not getting anything from volume generated for moneypot

thnx for confirming that yo are the BB owner (rofl)

Xanidas

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Quote from: cazkooo on July 27, 2016, 01:50:30 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though

AFAIK it is 80% of mothly profit will be paid to the investors for 1 year (or until it covers the invested money)

yes currently not possible for them to have their own bankroll as of now but once they are done paying the RBIES investors then it is possible that they can cover atleast half of the bets on BB

cazkooo

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1013

Quote from: JackpotRacer on July 27, 2016, 02:06:46 AM

Quote from: cazkooo on July 27, 2016, 01:50:30 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though

thanks for another sig posting

Moneypot's BR is very large but never large enough = the larger the better

are you saying that a casino like BB giving away 80% of their profit should not have their own BR?

no need for you to answer because I know the answer already and I saw your sig

an answer from BB would be acceptable because they know better

You are as stupid as you used to be , thankyou for the laugh anyway. You should take a look at their previous offer for 40 spots of rubies stakeholder in exchange for their profit . If they are using their own bankroll, they will not be getting anything from volume so they cant guarantee monthly profit for their stakeholders. As of now, they are down by 42 btc, by using your stupid logic they wont be able to give some monthly profit for their stakeholder if they are using their own bankroll which means they are not getting anything from volume generated for moneypot

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: cazkooo on July 27, 2016, 01:50:30 AM

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though

thanks for another sig posting

Moneypot's BR is very large but never large enough = the larger the better

are you saying that a casino like BB giving away 80% of their profit should not have their own BR?

no need for you to answer because I know the answer already and I saw your sig

an answer from BB would be acceptable because they know better

cazkooo

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

The current bankroll of moneypot is very large and it is enough to support highroller if they feel like wanting to go big from the start of the game. Betterbets are giving away around 80% of their profit from volume to the rubies stakeholder monthly, regardless if there casino is losing or making money so if they are switching to their own bankroll then it is not possible for them to do this again

Ps Im not sure if it is 80% or all of it though

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Quote from: DarkStar_ on July 26, 2016, 09:01:14 PM

Quote from: ranlo on July 26, 2016, 08:22:18 PM

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

We can't take into consideration anything but the 1 BTC bet, which stands on its own. The rest is all situational and you don't know what happened: they could have busted on run #1 (site a wins, MP wins), they could have tripled up first (site a loses, MP wins), they could make it and stop (site a loses, MP loses). Because of this conditional setup, you can only take into consideration a single bet: the one that would have been on MP regardless.

If someone goes to BetKing and bets 1 (lose), 2 (lose), 4 (lose), 8 (lose) and then stops and comes to MP and bets 16, should MP have said "no bro, you were on BetKing before and they got all your losses to this point so you can no longer play here?" That's essentially the same scenario, just a bit more of a hassle on the player's part.

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: DarkStar_ on July 26, 2016, 09:01:14 PM

Quote from: ranlo on July 26, 2016, 08:22:18 PM

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

thanks for pointing this out and 100% correct but investors should understand that all bets are +EV and that it was at the end of the day (year) counts. it looks that many investors or players don't know what +EV means and that variances are there and always will be.

Deuceisgood

full member

Activity: 227

Merit: 100

Quote from: AcoinL.L.C on July 26, 2016, 09:18:18 PM

if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...

Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ...

Deuceisgood

full member

Activity: 227

Merit: 100

Quote from: retrocoingames on July 26, 2016, 10:40:36 PM

So I just invested a small amount in the bankroll

Not sure if this has been answered already or not but can you change the kelly of the investment or is it all 1x?

It is all 1x here. Other places offer leverage ... I've been happy here, more or less.

retrocoingames

hero member

Activity: 491

Merit: 500

So I just invested a small amount in the bankroll

Not sure if this has been answered already or not but can you change the kelly of the investment or is it all 1x?

AcoinL.L.C

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Deuceisgood on July 26, 2016, 09:13:23 PM

Quote from: ranlo on July 26, 2016, 08:22:18 PM

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc ...

There seems to be some confusion, so I will simplify:

As a bankroll investor I've been under the impression that I get a piece of EVERY BET. If in fact app owners have an opportunity to cherry pick bet flow, in any way, that should be disclosed clearly. Irregardless of whether you believe that benefits, disadvantages, or is otherwise neutral for bankroll investors.

*I'm a happy investor, fully get that app owners need certain accommodations, and know that nobody has been short-changed or misled. Still as MP grows and evolves, things will not always be so simple. I'm suggesting that if bankroll investors are not underwriting every bet, that should be disclosed.

I am not confused at all, I think you are misunderstanding the situation. This is not an issue whatsoever, if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C. We make money when volume flows through MoneyPot, just like bankroll investors Wink

And you are receiving a piece of every bet that flows through MoneyPot, even if apps did only kick back certain bets to MoneyPot, MoneyPot would not be handling the rest of their bets.

Deuceisgood

full member

Activity: 227

Merit: 100

Quote from: ranlo on July 26, 2016, 08:22:18 PM

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc ...

There seems to be some confusion, so I will simplify:

As a bankroll investor I've been under the impression that I get a piece of EVERY BET. If in fact app owners have an opportunity to cherry pick bet flow, in any way, that should be disclosed clearly. Irregardless of whether you believe that benefits, disadvantages, or is otherwise neutral for bankroll investors.

*I'm a happy investor, fully get that app owners need certain accommodations, and know that nobody has been short-changed or misled. Still as MP grows and evolves, things will not always be so simple. I'm suggesting that if bankroll investors are not underwriting every bet, that should be disclosed.

DarkStar_

legendary

Activity: 2772

Merit: 3282

Quote from: ranlo on July 26, 2016, 08:22:18 PM

A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc is no different than a player coming and having their first roll be 1btc. Both are exactly the same. The user's previous bets have zero impact on the future bets. What people are describing here is a pure sign of gambler's fallacy. If it's +EV, it is whether or not there are bets before or after that one. It's pure math.

No, both aren't exactly the same. Assuming the player is martingaling with a 2x multiplier on loss, they would have a total of 1.023BTC wagered before having the system up the bet to 1.024BTC. A total of 2.047BTC would be wagered, assuming he kept losing until the 1 BTC bet. With 2BTC wagered, the house edge paid would be higher, and should increase the investor's chance of profit. For an investor's point of view, the martingaling person would have paid 0.004BTC to make those bets, while a straight 1 BTC bet would have only paid 0.002BTC to the investors (assuming the house edge is 1%)

Topic: 🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com - page 64. (Read 119056 times)