Topic: MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet - page 22. (Read 77137 times)

Looks like the investor profit just took a large blow. Luckily I noticed my invested value quickly plummeting and divested it all before the real damage occured. Must've been a large gambler who pulled off a lucky streak.

Sorry, you're right. I'll hold off making such a change, I didn't realize it would be so controversial. I'll continue to take the approach of temporarily-banning grievous abusers of the current system until I have a more robust long-term solution.

I'll give a bigger discussion period for any changes that would impact apps (none of which I have planned), so we can sort this stuff out before-hand. =)

This is a good point... satoshis become btcs with things like martingale. Especially those doing 10x bets.

Those minimum bet should be at all websites not only yours,without a huge group playing the income and the costs to hold such bets will be a nightmare,i dont gamble but im sure these is a must ,even 1000 satoshis is a very little ammount to play ,we can earn in doing 1 faucet or two.

Yeah it costs us more space on the database as well to do these bets but really the dust bets come with the territory because dice is like that. Is there any other restrictions,changes to income, or other pertinent details we should be aware of on the horizon? If so let's just get it out now so we can make alternate preparations and not be caught off guard and put into a position where we need to make development changes to suit your decisions. Sorry to be blunt, but really I figured our input as a first casino of Moneypot would be taken into more consideration when it has direct effects on what we provide.

I think people are forgetting how small a satoshi bet is. It quite literally something like x1000 times the EV to just process that bet in server/db costs. PocketRocketsCasino did a nice breakdown. Just today a (real) gambler was asking why the servers seem a bit laggy, and digging in I found a bot was spamming ~25-50 (i didn't count) satoshi-sized bets at once. At this point, it's really not gambling, it's just going for some vanity bets/second metric, and the end result is degraded service for everyone.  I'm having a look now at building something like a priority queue, to give first priority to larger bets, and bets from unique ips, but it's getting a bit involved. So far the only real use-case I can see for support satoshi-level bets, is that it helps encourage some gamblers fallacy-type betting.

I know pokercoin.casino is going with a split-bankroll, so they can support dust bets (and get the money from it) and only forward us the larger bets. It's probably quite an elegant solution on this issue.

@RHaver - How do you see this change affecting investors? Surely this change will decrease the number of users as there are so many players who exclusively bet 1-99 satoshi. I can see all those players moving to other sites outside of MoneyPot's network thus decreasing the the volume of bets and in turn the total volume of bitcoin flowing through MoneyPot's apps. I understand the need to decrease the load on your network, but at what cost?

Sounds like bad news for investors to me. I could be wrong though, we'll see how it pans out.

Yeah, I'm pro this as well. I think cutting down on server costs is a huge benefit to those that contribute, in that most sites offer different promos, giveaways, etc. and this means more money for doing that. It also means less downtime, which is great.

I totally support this decision. It is better to increase the minimum bet to 1bit in order to provide better experience for app user who really want to gamble. This change will only affect players who want to abuse faucet and those players do not contribute nothing to the site and in most of the cases spam chat where it is available.

If these are our only options then for now I would prefer option B, since C would require too much work. We will consider the private bankroll of small bets as you stated as well. This is not ideal for attracting smaller bankroll players regardless, I understand completely the reasoning, but it leaves the monopoly of PD again to their advantage. This doesn't mean I do not see both your's and Dean's point, but I designed all concepts for BetterBets completely from an all encompassing player viewpoint. Once Lobos returns from his absence we will weigh all options and come to a decision that is best for players and the growth of our site.

EDIT: Seems RHavar answered in pretty much the same way I did but I'll leave this anyway

RHavar limiting the bets to be 100 sat or up is actually a good idea.

I can say from experience that it actually costs a site more by allowing these bets than what they gain in wagered, players, #bets etc.

For example. 100 million bets of 1 satoshi at PRC would generate 0.0025 Bitcoin in profit for PRC with the 0.25% wagered commission.

That is around $0.60.

Any site operator will know that storing 100 million bets, the traffic of data in from the player and out to all observers as well as the processing power is far more that $0.60.

Some sites make their profit as a percentage of investors profit, usually 10%.
Even if there was 100 million satoshi bets that all lost that is still only 0.1 Bitcoin to the site operator.

Obviously the players end up wagering more because they are martingaling and so profit for the sites would be higher but trust me that from the data and amount of bets I have from these players over the past year, it is very little.

I had a few users with around 100 million bets using multiple bots and betting 1 satoshi who left once I raised the minimum to 100 sat and the site is far better for it in terms of lower cost, less slow down etc.

@steveds
The reason a site would be slower for other players is because a site can only process so many bets in a second.
Think of bets going in to a queue and the bet at the front of the queue gets processed first.
 
There should really be no delay when you see normal people betting (not using bots) as computers are fast but when you have 10 players using 10 bots all betting 1 satoshi at a time then that is 100 bets being added to the queue.

If a player tries to bet 0.01 Bitcoin manually at the same time then he has to wait on the site processing 100 bets before theirs.

could you please name this app and where I can read about the conditions for this set up? ty

Can you please not talk in third person, it's confusing to read.

There's also another solution, which is what a new MP casino is using -- a split bankroll. When the best are small, they use their own internal bankroll. And when the bets are over a threshold, they send it to MP. This might even be a good model for casinos who want to maximize the amount of bets/second they can achieve, or lower the min bet.


Well, no matter the size of the bet it takes exactly the same amount of time to process, and costs the same amount to store. So when you're auto-betting at 1 satoshi for instance, from a single faucet claim (2 bits) you can average of like 20000 bets, while someone betting reasonably would make a fraction the amount of bets and contribute a lot more to the site =)

Or what is more the problem, when people can bet dust amounts some of them abuse it. Take the case of making 20k bets from the faucet, this isn't even gambling, it's just database stuffing.


I don't really want to change peoples behavior, but that's really almost the definition of the gamblers fallacy. It really has no impact at all.

What is offer in return for this change is disadvantage to bb in both ways?  As investor these bets make no profit but at what cost to player's with bankroll small. Bjorn have point if u turn away small bettor is good for business?  What if this cost them business what be in return to casino owner? No gain for site only possible loss of activity.

How do 1satoshi bets delay other users bets? Im not getting it. Lots of user play on sites like PD or betterbets because they play these long strategies. For instance say i have a .05 balance and im playing a 10 sat base 33x 30% increase on loss strat. i get 20 or so bets before i cross the 100 sat thresh hold on a red streak. Then bets start adding up. If i have to start with a 100 sat base im gonna be betting .01 and up fast. Most people are not rich and if we are gonna play these types of strategies(knowing we are gonna have long red streaks) we need those extra 20 small bet losses. It seems like you are trying to only cater to the high rollers here. I could be wrong just my opinion

Well, all the bets prior to 100 satoshi really have absolutely no impact on the players end result (other than perhaps inducing a large delay). Although, I don't want to be the one to mess with peoples superstitions.

The way I see it, we have two main options:

a) Disallow dust bets completely  (easiest to implement)

b) Allow 1 satoshi bets, but if people make too many (e.g. than 10 in a 30 second window), their ip gets blocked for 30m or so. This is something that would curtail abuse, while allow manual betters to have really fast and responsive bets. Is that something that would be preferable?


( A third option would be to use a fancy backpressure algorithm to add delay to bets depending on how much they're abusing it, but it's kind of too complex)

I have been building up a plan to help all Moneypot apps, but I cannot execute it until volume hits a certain sustainable level on BetterBets and maintains it for a while. We are still in the start-up cost recovery stage and lower volume is adding months to that now. I do have many ways to help just cannot quite yet, this was a previous discussion with Ryan though.

hey betterbets guys

I fully understand your concerns and admit (with great pleasure) that your app is the flagship of MP apps.

as you are saying -I am losing nearly 80% volume over the past 3 weeks - wouldn't this be a reason for a discussion ( not here ) because you are not the only app with the problem of low volume problems.
I really would be interested in your opinion about the reason of this downtrend of volume.

best of luck

Dice and bustabit are very different though in terms of how a player strategizes for the most part. We have players that start at 1 satoshi and top out over 0.05 BTC during some dice strategies. Essentially by eliminating bets under 100 sats those players will move elsewhere and let's be honest I am losing nearly 80% volume over the past 3 weeks and if this trend continues by deterring players then what will the outcome be in the end game? Primedice has a monopoly over the bitcoin gaming market right now, do we give them even more of an edge or allow players of all types to be welcome here? I for one know our site is superb but by placing restrictions we essentially are allowing competition more edge on an already limited market. We offer players a weekly cut of our income (20%) another 15% in affiliates and yet still they are playing elsewhere despite offering them every +ev advantage we can afford without being negative. I think this move is unwise even if these low betting players do not amount to much income, perhaps they will be the ones spreading the word.