Topic: MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet - page 31. (Read 77137 times)
This is very useful for arbitrage trading! One wallet to manage funds is the killer app for arbitrage trading.
BIG UPDATE TO APP AND INVESTOR PROFIT SHARING
Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge. Investors will take all that risk, and give 50% of the house edge to apps. MoneyPot will take a 10% commission on all investor profit (but not on app-profit).
If apps place a bet that would put investors (after giving the commissions) at greater than 1x kelly risk the investors will give apps a reduced commission to limit themselves to a kelly. For this reason, we recommend apps limit bets to a half kelly for predictable earnings. If there is demand, we can create a setting in the admin panel for apps to reject any bet that exceeds this risk.
The 10% investor profit commission will kick in once the investor profits, reach their previous high levels. From then on, investors will pay a 10% fee on further profits, this will be deducted upon divestment , or on a monthly basis.
Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge. Investors will take all that risk, and give 50% of the house edge to apps. MoneyPot will take a 10% commission on all investor profit (but not on app-profit).
If apps place a bet that would put investors (after giving the commissions) at greater than 1x kelly risk the investors will give apps a reduced commission to limit themselves to a kelly. For this reason, we recommend apps limit bets to a half kelly for predictable earnings. If there is demand, we can create a setting in the admin panel for apps to reject any bet that exceeds this risk.
The 10% investor profit commission will kick in once the investor profits, reach their previous high levels. From then on, investors will pay a 10% fee on further profits, this will be deducted upon divestment , or on a monthly basis.
What was the app/investor split before this change? Wondering if investors are getting a better deal or a worse one now.
Did you perhaps try to mean something like:
Betting 0.1x on 1BTC and 10x on 0.01 BTC or something like that?
Betting 0.1x on 1BTC and 10x on 0.01 BTC or something like that?
Ahh, I think that's what he's asking. Investors will definitely make a lot more on a small large bet, then lots of little bets. The reason for this is simple though, take an extreme example:
1 bet of 100 BTC @ 2x with 49.5% win chance
vs
100 bets of 1 BTC @ 2x with 49.5% win chance
they both have the same EV for investors (+1 btc) but in terms of risk profile, they're in different leagues. Ask me to back the first bet, and I'd wince and refuse. Ask me to back the latter sequence, and I'd have trouble concealing my boner.
So I think it's makes a lot of sense the way it is now. The more you risk, the more you need to be compensated to take it.
The interesting thing about that, though, is that I think it's all psychological. I need to drag Dooglus into this -- his math never ceases to amaze me and he runs scenarios to help better understand.
Because let's say we're doing the first one. You either win 100 BTC or you lose 100 BTC. 49.5% means you have a better chance of losing.
The second one is, assuming we just use a dumbed down math, going to result in a net-zero (nothing lost, nothing gained). In the investor's side, though, it would end up with a loss due to commissions.
I'm going to be honest... I'm not 100% sure what a great solution would be. I wonder if Dooglus would look things over and give his input, because he could definitely put to rest feelings one way or the other (he's proven me wrong on numerous occasions, so it's definitely possible that he could do the same here as well).
In any case, thanks for taking the time to discuss things, look at stuff, etc. instead of just blowing everyone off!
While I can kind of see where you're coming from, you're looking at it the wrong way. Take, for example:
Max win 10 BTC.
1 player is betting 1 BTC at 10x for max win
1 player is betting 0.01 BTC at 10x (1/100 max win)
Both are essentially going for the same thing, at the same risk to investors (person 1 can lose once, person 2 can lose 3x) but both are, relatively, an equivalent bet.
Max win 10 BTC.
1 player is betting 1 BTC at 10x for max win
1 player is betting 0.01 BTC at 10x (1/100 max win)
Both are essentially going for the same thing, at the same risk to investors (person 1 can lose once, person 2 can lose 3x) but both are, relatively, an equivalent bet.
Hmm, I don't understand your example? The risk to the investors on the first one is 100x as much. For instance, imagine you had a 1% house edge, and a 100 BTC bankroll. Taking the first bet would be absolutely insane (hugely negative expected bankroll growth), while the second bet is a great deal!
Or put another way, if you had a 100 BTC bankroll you'd probably want a 10% house edge to even consider the first bet. But you'd happily take the second bet even if it had a 0.1% house edge. This is exactly how MoneyPot works, investors are rewarded proportional to their risk in such a way that ensures every bet they accept is "kelly compliant"
Consider this my "was up all night" math, lol. I was looking at it like:
100 bets at 0.01 BTC/10x is 1.0 BTC at 10x, when it's not. Not sure why that's how it clicked, though, as it's an obvious error.
Did you perhaps try to mean something like:
Betting 0.1x on 1BTC and 10x on 0.01 BTC or something like that?
While I can kind of see where you're coming from, you're looking at it the wrong way. Take, for example:
Max win 10 BTC.
1 player is betting 1 BTC at 10x for max win
1 player is betting 0.01 BTC at 10x (1/100 max win)
Both are essentially going for the same thing, at the same risk to investors (person 1 can lose once, person 2 can lose 3x) but both are, relatively, an equivalent bet.
Max win 10 BTC.
1 player is betting 1 BTC at 10x for max win
1 player is betting 0.01 BTC at 10x (1/100 max win)
Both are essentially going for the same thing, at the same risk to investors (person 1 can lose once, person 2 can lose 3x) but both are, relatively, an equivalent bet.
Hmm, I don't understand your example? The risk to the investors on the first one is 100x as much. For instance, imagine you had a 1% house edge, and a 100 BTC bankroll. Taking the first bet would be absolutely insane (hugely negative expected bankroll growth), while the second bet is a great deal!
Or put another way, if you had a 100 BTC bankroll you'd probably want a 10% house edge to even consider the first bet. But you'd happily take the second bet even if it had a 0.1% house edge. This is exactly how MoneyPot works, investors are rewarded proportional to their risk in such a way that ensures every bet they accept is "kelly compliant"
Consider this my "was up all night" math, lol. I was looking at it like:
100 bets at 0.01 BTC/10x is 1.0 BTC at 10x, when it's not. Not sure why that's how it clicked, though, as it's an obvious error.
Cool! I'll check this out. It looks great, and I might invest in the bankroll.
Well, to be fair, I didn't say that the app developers were getting a great deal (they are) or that the investors were getting a shit deal (I wouldn't classify it like that), I first asked for clarification and then said that I was shocked by the figures. And I stand by that, I am shocked by it. If you had asked me to guess, I just would have assumed that the two sides (developers and bankrollers) were splitting the profits made.
Obviously the people who are bankrolling the sites are doing so intentionally and with a full understanding of profit splitting system in place so everything is clearly fair but, yes, it is quite shocking to see the actual numbers.
Obviously the people who are bankrolling the sites are doing so intentionally and with a full understanding of profit splitting system in place so everything is clearly fair but, yes, it is quite shocking to see the actual numbers.
Fair point. One thing worth noting, is that there's no rule in place like: "App Developers make x3 as much as investors", but rather investors share is proportional to the risk taken. For instance if someone is going for max-profit, then investors make 100% (and apps 0%), which app developers routinely complain about =) But if someone is going for a very small win compared to the max-win, the bets constitute very little risk to the investors so I think it makes sense to give that extra money to app-developers.
What I'll do is do is create a dedicated thread for the investing side of MoneyPot, so we can keep the conversation going there as I'm totally open to changing the system, but just getting tired of hearing complaints from both sides in something that is inherently zero-sum =)
While I can kind of see where you're coming from, you're looking at it the wrong way. Take, for example:
Max win 10 BTC.
1 player is betting 1 BTC at 10x for max win
1 player is betting 0.01 BTC at 10x (1/100 max win)
Both are essentially going for the same thing, at the same risk to investors (person 1 can lose once, person 2 can lose 3x) but both are, relatively, an equivalent bet.
"Risk" is, of course, referring to the variance involved in gambling. Paying money to build a site isn't risk, it's an investment and paying out bonuses and rakeback once a site is successful is obv 0 risk. You must admit that it's pretty shocking that the people funding the site (which is what allows you to take so many bets) are making 10% of what the people owning the site are making while absorbing 100% of the risk.
I don't think that's fair. They're both risks, just of very different sorts. Personally I feel like the investors are getting it pretty good as they don't have to also put their time and energy into it. But if you feel like the app developers are getting a great deal, I'd invite you to be part of it. Or if you feel like investors are getting a shit deal, I'd encourage you to divest or not invest at all.
Anyway, speaking of investor risks, it looks like gamblers have won around ~28 BTC more than expected. This is money that would normally be in investors pockets. This is the very risk that investors are being paid for =). So if you really want to compare, I think it's more fair to compare 38.4 BTC (expected investor earnings) against the ~93.5 BTC (guaranteed app earnings) and say based on current betting patterns apps are making ~3x as much as investors.
Also, unfortunately, I don't think anyone has really made much money off the platform yet (be it me, investors or apps), and I think it'll be a lot more productive growing our community, getting our volume up and bringing people from fiat gambling, then getting into bitch fights over the scraps.
Well, to be fair, I didn't say that the app developers were getting a great deal (they are) or that the investors were getting a shit deal (I wouldn't classify it like that), I first asked for clarification and then said that I was shocked by the figures. And I stand by that, I am shocked by it. If you had asked me to guess, I just would have assumed that the two sides (developers and bankrollers) were splitting the profits made.
Obviously the people who are bankrolling the sites are doing so intentionally and with a full understanding of profit splitting system in place so everything is clearly fair but, yes, it is quite shocking to see the actual numbers.
I do agree with you on this. It wasn't until I actually followed the whales that I realized we were much more disadvantaged (as investors) than I originally thought. Which also explains why both times we got back to the same profit level, I was lower and lower in the negatives.
I'm hoping that as more people join it will kick back up. Right now I'm very cautiously watching, myself,
. "Risk" is, of course, referring to the variance involved in gambling. Paying money to build a site isn't risk, it's an investment and paying out bonuses and rakeback once a site is successful is obv 0 risk. You must admit that it's pretty shocking that the people funding the site (which is what allows you to take so many bets) are making 10% of what the people owning the site are making while absorbing 100% of the risk.
I don't think that's fair. They're both risks, just of very different sorts. Personally I feel like the investors are getting it pretty good as they don't have to also put their time and energy into it. But if you feel like the app developers are getting a great deal, I'd invite you to be part of it. Or if you feel like investors are getting a shit deal, I'd encourage you to divest or not invest at all.
Anyway, speaking of investor risks, it looks like gamblers have won around ~28 BTC more than expected. This is money that would normally be in investors pockets. This is the very risk that investors are being paid for =). So if you really want to compare, I think it's more fair to compare 38.4 BTC (expected investor earnings) against the ~93.5 BTC (guaranteed app earnings) and say based on current betting patterns apps are making ~3x as much as investors.
Also, unfortunately, I don't think anyone has really made much money off the platform yet (be it me, investors or apps), and I think it'll be a lot more productive growing our community, getting our volume up and bringing people from fiat gambling, then getting into bitch fights over the scraps.
Well, to be fair, I didn't say that the app developers were getting a great deal (they are) or that the investors were getting a shit deal (I wouldn't classify it like that), I first asked for clarification and then said that I was shocked by the figures. And I stand by that, I am shocked by it. If you had asked me to guess, I just would have assumed that the two sides (developers and bankrollers) were splitting the profits made.
Obviously the people who are bankrolling the sites are doing so intentionally and with a full understanding of profit splitting system in place so everything is clearly fair but, yes, it is quite shocking to see the actual numbers.
At the end of the day, I think the tl;dr is if you find value in investing, do it. If you don't, don't. You wouldn't go to Walmart corporate and complain about their low dividends, or go to (insert other company here) and complain because their stocks don't have as much value as you think they should. You just wouldn't invest.
"Risk" is, of course, referring to the variance involved in gambling. Paying money to build a site isn't risk, it's an investment and paying out bonuses and rakeback once a site is successful is obv 0 risk. You must admit that it's pretty shocking that the people funding the site (which is what allows you to take so many bets) are making 10% of what the people owning the site are making while absorbing 100% of the risk.
I don't think that's fair. They're both risks, just of very different sorts. Personally I feel like the investors are getting it pretty good as they don't have to also put their time and energy into it. But if you feel like the app developers are getting a great deal, I'd invite you to be part of it. Or if you feel like investors are getting a shit deal, I'd encourage you to divest or not invest at all.
Anyway, speaking of investor risks, it looks like gamblers have won around ~28 BTC more than expected. This is money that would normally be in investors pockets. This is the very risk that investors are being paid for =). So if you really want to compare, I think it's more fair to compare 38.4 BTC (expected investor earnings) against the ~93.5 BTC (guaranteed app earnings) and say based on current betting patterns apps are making ~3x as much as investors.
Also, unfortunately, I don't think anyone has really made much money off the platform yet (be it me, investors or apps), and I think it'll be a lot more productive growing our community, getting our volume up and bringing people from fiat gambling, then getting into bitch fights over the scraps.
If I came off as being aggressive, it wasn't my intention, I am just stating that that in order to launch a successful business often great risks are involved. Both with time spent and financially to give investors something worth putting money into. This was our risk, as of course investors have theirs as well. Either way, Rhavar you are correct let's get the word spread and build a big community so everyone can be happy with their roles in this company
Paying money to build a site isn't risk, it's an investment
Pretty funny word here. As a matter of fact, building a gambling site is risk. The risk would be that no one will be playing at your site which means you are losing money just to build the site already.
But if you feel like the app developers are getting a great deal, I'd invite you to be part of it.
Nice words there, Id like to see this as well but trust me it is not that easy as you guys imagine
Another thing is that, please keep in mind that the volume is pretty low at the moment so yeah the variance is pretty much killing the investor right now, it wont be like this case if the volume is bigger
It's really a tricky balance of splitting profit between app developers (who do all the work) and investors (who take all the risk). As it stands right now, app developers have made a 93.136 BTC in profits and 9.02 has gone to investors.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that the app developers, who are taking zero risk, have made 10x as much as the people who fund the bankroll?
In our case, our risk was close to 30k usd at launch and then another 8k usd so far in 3.5 months of promotions and bonuses. I can safely assure you that we have taken great risks to deliver a business worthy of the Bitcoin casino market. I cannot speak for other site/app owners but this is our current risk level.
"Risk" is, of course, referring to the variance involved in gambling. Paying money to build a site isn't risk, it's an investment and paying out bonuses and rakeback once a site is successful is obv 0 risk. You must admit that it's pretty shocking that the people funding the site (which is what allows you to take so many bets) are making 10% of what the people owning the site are making while absorbing 100% of the risk.
I recently opened account here
Welcome to Moneypot!
I recently opened account here
edit: to give a concrete example, at BitDice you would get 4x bigger edge based on these calculations, but the bankroll is also more than 4x bigger.. so if the wagered amount is the same, you probably make more at MP.
Although another interesting point is, that if the bankroll of MP gets bigger, not only you get diluted but the house edge for investors will most likely go down unless players start playing higher stakes too.
Although another interesting point is, that if the bankroll of MP gets bigger, not only you get diluted but the house edge for investors will most likely go down unless players start playing higher stakes too.
I often get asked about what is the "best" casino investment available. And last time I compared the stats alone, it seemed like bitdice.me was hands down a better investment. But I do kind of feel that people who want to know the best investment are asking the wrong question, the better question is "Is this investment worth it?" and if it is, investing only a small fraction of their total investing bankroll. An investor who diversifies over a bunch of good investments will out-perform (as measured by expected bankroll growth) an investor who goes all-in on great investments (...which funnily enough takes us back the kelly).
Yes, that is true.
I think even after they change it to 0.2% of every roll, they would be still 1st, or at worst 2nd.
Moneypot is #4th on my list.
It's really a tricky balance of splitting profit between app developers (who do all the work) and investors (who take all the risk). As it stands right now, app developers have made a 93.136 BTC in profits and 9.02 has gone to investors.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that the app developers, who are taking zero risk, have made 10x as much as the people who fund the bankroll?
In our case, our risk was close to 30k usd at launch and then another 8k usd so far in 3.5 months of promotions and bonuses. I can safely assure you that we have taken great risks to deliver a business worthy of the Bitcoin casino market. I cannot speak for other site/app owners but this is our current risk level.
It's really a tricky balance of splitting profit between app developers (who do all the work) and investors (who take all the risk). As it stands right now, app developers have made a 93.136 BTC in profits and 9.02 has gone to investors.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that the app developers, who are taking zero risk, have made 10x as much as the people who fund the bankroll?
I made a page with all relevant apps and overall statistics of MoneyPot. Should be useful for investors and maybe players.
http://dicesites.com/moneypot - updates every 15 minutes
If there is any error in the statistics, please tell me(!)
Ps, mobile version is broken.
Ps2, I hope Ryan doesn't mind me making all these stats transparent :X
http://dicesites.com/moneypot - updates every 15 minutes
If there is any error in the statistics, please tell me(!)
Ps, mobile version is broken.
Ps2, I hope Ryan doesn't mind me making all these stats transparent :X
Nah, looks great! I didn't publish it very widely, so not sure if you've seen (or using it) but there's an API: https://www.moneypot.com/full-stats.json that gets the combined stats in a single hit and also contains a rather interesting field: app_comissions which is the amount of money I've given to apps as risk-free commissions.
edit: to give a concrete example, at BitDice you would get 4x bigger edge based on these calculations, but the bankroll is also more than 4x bigger.. so if the wagered amount is the same, you probably make more at MP.
Although another interesting point is, that if the bankroll of MP gets bigger, not only you get diluted but the house edge for investors will most likely go down unless players start playing higher stakes too.
Although another interesting point is, that if the bankroll of MP gets bigger, not only you get diluted but the house edge for investors will most likely go down unless players start playing higher stakes too.
I often get asked about what is the "best" casino investment available. And last time I compared the stats alone, it seemed like bitdice.me was hands down a better investment. But I do kind of feel that people who want to know the best investment are asking the wrong question, the better question is "Is this investment worth it?" and if it is, investing only a small fraction of their total investing bankroll. An investor who diversifies over a bunch of good investments will out-perform (as measured by expected bankroll growth) an investor who goes all-in on great investments (...which funnily enough takes us back the kelly).
Jump to: