MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet - page 32.

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1011

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: NLNico on September 12, 2015, 03:31:28 AM

Based on the stats: app devs go from 61% to 50%. MP from 14.5% to 10% (and with variance instead of guaranteed.) Investors from 24.5% to 40%. So yes, should be good for investors. This is all in theory and based on stats, I agree with RHavar that it depends on other factors as well.

so it is good for investors and bad for apps huh?

edit
Ryan said: Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge, with investors continuing to take the risk. This means investors give the extra 50% of the house edge to apps

NLNico

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1295

DiceSites.com owner

Based on the stats: app devs go from 61% to 50%. MP from 14.5% to 5% (and with variance instead of guaranteed.) Investors from 24.5% to 45%. So yes, should be good for investors. This is all in theory and based on stats, I agree with RHavar that it depends on other factors as well.

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Quote from: Jungian on September 12, 2015, 02:43:02 AM

Quote from: RHavar on September 11, 2015, 06:57:29 PM

BIG UPDATE TO APP AND INVESTOR PROFIT SHARING

Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge, with investors continuing to take the risk. This means investors give the extra 50% of the house edge to apps. MoneyPot will no longer take a commission from apps, but now 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 (~50 BTC). From then on, investors will pay a 10% fee on further profits, this will be deducted upon divestment, or on a monthly basis.

I think this is a very good move!

Aye. How I see it:
App devs get more. Moneypot gets less. Investors get hmm less or more.

Jungian

legendary

Activity: 930

Merit: 1010

Quote from: RHavar on September 11, 2015, 06:57:29 PM

BIG UPDATE TO APP AND INVESTOR PROFIT SHARING

Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge, with investors continuing to take the risk. This means investors give the extra 50% of the house edge to apps. MoneyPot will no longer take a commission from apps, but now 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 (~50 BTC). From then on, investors will pay a 10% fee on further profits, this will be deducted upon divestment, or on a monthly basis.

I think this is a very good move!

Edit: I would also like a better page way to check your stats as in investor. Total investment, profit e.tc. Kinda hard to get an overview of your investments over time

BTCBinary

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

This is very useful for arbitrage trading! One wallet to manage funds is the killer app for arbitrage trading.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

Quote from: ranlo on September 11, 2015, 09:25:28 PM

What was the app/investor split before this change? Wondering if investors are getting a better deal or a worse one now.

Well, it's really just different. It'll be better or worse depending on how player bet (and win). Sometimes now investors will be getting more than they used to (small bets) and sometimes investors will be getting the same as they used to (big bets, but having to pay 10% on profits).

But all round I think it's quite positive and investors are happy with this change though. Their volatility should be considerably less now, as instead of giving a constant commission to apps and MP they only give a constant commission to apps, and MP only takes a cut on the investor profit.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

Quote from: RHavar on September 11, 2015, 06:57:29 PM

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.

What was the app/investor split before this change? Wondering if investors are getting a better deal or a worse one now.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

BIG UPDATE TO APP AND INVESTOR PROFIT SHARING

Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge, with investors continuing to take the risk. This means investors give the extra 50% of the house edge to apps. MoneyPot will no longer take a commission from apps, but now 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 (~50 BTC). From then on, investors will pay a 10% fee on further profits, this will be deducted upon divestment, or on a monthly basis.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

Quote from: ranlo on September 06, 2015, 11:31:34 PM

The interesting thing about that, though, is that I think it's all psychological.

The expected value is the same, but the risk profiles are very very different.

One way to think about it, is if I backed the first bet, I'd have a 50.5% chance of losing all 100 BTC. But if I backed the second bet (sequence), I'd have a 1 in 3463220205675693173883308162838 of losing my full 100 BTC. With the second option, the majority of the time the outcomes are going to live a lot closer to the mean than the single-bet. There's a lot of resources available online to analyze this further, I've found some really good youtube videos that explain the study of variance quite well.

If my example wasn't extreme enough, lets push it a bit further:

1 bet of 10000 BTC @ 2x with 49.5% win chance
vs
1000000 bets of 0.01 BTC @ 2x with 49.5% win chance

Assuming I had 10,000 BTC (which I don't), I'd rather start sacrificing body parts before I backed that bet. The second option, however, has me salivating just thinking about it.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 11:26:29 PM

Quote from: actmyname on September 06, 2015, 09:18:28 PM

Did you perhaps try to mean something like:

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!

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

Quote from: actmyname on September 06, 2015, 09:18:28 PM

Did you perhaps try to mean something like:

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.

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: ranlo on September 06, 2015, 08:54:29 PM

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 08:17:24 PM

Quote from: ranlo on September 06, 2015, 07:50:41 PM

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.

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?

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 08:17:24 PM

Quote from: ranlo on September 06, 2015, 07:50:41 PM

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.

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.

swogerino

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1233

Cool! I'll check this out. It looks great, and I might invest in the bankroll.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

Quote from: ranlo on September 06, 2015, 07:50:41 PM

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.

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"

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 07:44:11 PM

Quote from: Revelation Machine on September 06, 2015, 07:24:44 PM

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.

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.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 2557

Merit: 1886

Quote from: Revelation Machine on September 06, 2015, 07:24:44 PM

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.

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 =)

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Revelation Machine on September 06, 2015, 07:24:44 PM

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 04:00:59 PM

Quote from: Revelation Machine on September 06, 2015, 03:45:42 PM

"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,

.

Revelation Machine

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: RHavar on September 06, 2015, 04:00:59 PM

Quote from: Revelation Machine on September 06, 2015, 03:45:42 PM

"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.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1007

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.

Topic: MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet - page 32. (Read 77052 times)