Topic: MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet - page 44. (Read 77137 times)

The profit dropped from 40 think I even saw 50,000,000 bits a few days ago to 5,688,745 bits! Who is winning ALL these coins and what is their strategy? Luckily I have been slowly divesting as the profits dropped. Any insight into this?

Tagging this thread to follow updates!

A hastily generated investor profit chart, I was asked for:



Sorry about not having scale on the "profit" line, but it's late and I need some sleep =)

I'll probably never be able to settle on something that everyone likes, but at least I should make sure everyone understands fully exactly what they're getting in bed with

I am not sure if I understand your point here. are you talking now about an interactive calc in general
or regarding the multiplayer game option to find something that would be fair for all parties?

I'll create an interactive calculator with some sliders to allow you to control the variables and show the breakdown between MoneyPot, Investors and Apps. Ultimately though, it's all trade-offs and do think I have something that is fair for all parties.

we are talking about a multiplayer table and the nature of a multiplayer table is that there will be many matched bets and I agree that therefore  investors have no risk with those matched bets but IMO they and MP as the matchmaker deserve to get xx% from app HE %. sure thing that the % could and should be discussed and agreed on. and in case I am wrong (though don't think so)
and investors don't deserve a % of the app HE but MP deserves it IMO

Let's agree in that a good balance for all parties app/casinos, investors, and Moneypot is the best. Casino income is obviously important not just for our pockets but growth as well, and with no app/casino growth then none of this reaches the level I'd like to see it at. I pay utmost respect to your team and investors just understand that it takes money to make it as well. Either way stay positive everyone and we'll find a good happy medium to allow for happiness in all aspects.

a multiplayer table will always have some balanced and not 100% balanced bets. IMO the agreed %
should also apply in case of a full balanced bet = (e.g. 50% on black, 50% on red)
and it should compensate the investors for taking risks and MP as a matchmaker. all sides should be satisfied and IMO it could be achieved with maths and common sense.

this is a genuine opinion of an app owner

Ah sorry, I misunderstood.  I'm used to app developers telling me they want more, not less =)

Right now, investors make proportional to what they risk, so for instance if you place a perfectly balance bet, where investors are not involved (they have zero risk) they will make zero commissions. It's not obvious to me if they "deserve" 5% of the HE for a bet that they didn't even back, but it is obvious that (some) app developers would prefer they didn't get a cut, and it's obvious that investors would prefer it =)

sorry maybe we misunderstood each other. I said I would not have a problem to give to investors and/MP the 5% of the HE or any other agreed percentage of HE

I don't agree that it would be unfair for the app owner in contrary I think it would be fair for
all parties = app owner, investors and MP

That's correct, you don't and won't have to. That's why I wrote: "is rather unfair for the app"

to be frank and if I understood the example you gave for a multiplayer game I would not have a problem to give 5% of my 1% HE to Investors and/or MP for every matched wager. and as we mentioned in slack we would see it as fair enough for an app owner, investors and MP to try to find a fair formula for this special case. it could well be that the 5% mentioned before is the right number but anyway this could be taken as a starter for a discussion.

It's a good idea, but doesn't quite work. Taking the extreme examples:

A gambler aims to win 1% of the bankroll, doing a bet with a 1% house edge.  If we gave the app a 5% of the house edge, this would make the risk exceed the kelly for the investor, which is something we've promised investors we wouldn't allow. So the only real solution would be to have the limits lower, to adjust for this. But in fact, this is something the app already has control of. It can self-impose it's own limits, that would guarantee commissions.

and taking the other end of the extreme, say we have a multiplayer roulette game where the app has collected 10 BTC of bets on black, and 9.99 BTC of bets on red. The absolute worst case for investors is losing 0.01 BTC, but to give them 5% of the entire games house edge is rather unfair for the app.

Betterbets.io site is up but I can't enable the app can u fix plz?

What about adding a minimum (just for example, 5%) and a maximum (just for example, 95%) limit on the investors' share of the house edge?
So in the first scenario, the investors will get 5% of the house edge, ie +0.05% EV in a 1% HE site, no matter how small the bet is.
And in the second scenario, you and the app developer will share a fixed 0.05% of a huge bet.

Well, you'll be getting closer to 0.4585% which leaves something like 0.083% for the investors. While are investors are indeed taking all the risk, it is a little amount of risk so it seems natural they are getting little reward.

And in this scenario, even though the investors aren't making much they're better off than if you didn't bet at all.

To be honest, it's an extremely hard balancing act deciding on the split. Right now I have investors telling me they make very little for the majority of bets, while baring the risk (all true). And I  app-devs telling me that when they have the big whales they making very little from their high bets as all the money goes to investors (also true).

I'm up for suggestions, but I think the split now is quite fair and the best I've been able to come up with so far =)

LOL, it is kind of funny.

What if I start an app, with a max bet of 0.25BTC (for say 1% edge), so I will be getting around 0.5% of every bet, and Moneypot will be getting the same, and the investors get nothing but bear all risks?
Isn't that way too skewed

Thanks for putting that together NLNico, I didn't take out a calculator to double-check it, but it like you nailed it =). When I get the time (or more importantly, energy) I'll make a calculator on MoneyPot for people to play around with their own figures.

One other interesting property is the amount investors make isn't zero-sum. Normally investors always make (or lose) the same amount of money, and it's just divided between the investors according to their stake. But here, if the bankroll increases and gamblers aren't proportionately betting more, the absolute amount investors make decrease. And conversely, if the bankroll decreases and gamblers aren't proportionally betting less, the absolute amount investors make increases. It helps reduce the problem of idle capital to some extent

But at the moment, I'm a lot more focused on the gambling side of things and improving the functionality and security rather than encouraging investing. I know everyone tells me they want a giant bankroll, and be able to offer hundreds of bitcoins a bet, but the level of sophistication and perseveration of some of the attacks against moneypot has given me a bit of pause, and desire to move slowly and harden things up.

Since people seem confused about the investments I will give my view on it. Just because I like transparency and want people to understand it.

Normally we calculate the max_profit like this on sites where we know the house_edge, kelly and bankroll:

max_profit = house_edge * kelly * bankroll



We can use the same for MP and change max_profit to bet_size, then calculate the house_edge for the investors instead:

house_edge = bet_size / (kelly * bankroll)

(kelly is always 1, bankroll is atm BTC304 and bet_size is whatever the player bets)

For a BTC2.5 bet: 2.5/(1*304) = 0.00822368421 (= 0.82% HE)
For a BTC1.1 bet: 1.1/(1*304) = 0.00361842105 (= 0.36% HE)
For a BTC0.3 bet: 0.3/(1*304) = 0.0009868421 (= 0.0986% HE)
For a BTC0.05 bet: 0.05/(1*304) = 0.00016447368 (= 0.0164% HE)
For a BTC0.001 bet: 0.001/(1*304) = 0.00000328947 (= 0.00032894736% HE)



Now the HE for the app+MP is simply "the rest" (app gets 50% and MP gets 50% of "the rest".) This depends on how much house edge the site gives to the players and is pretty simply:

commission=site_house_edge - investor_house_edge
app_profit = commission / 2 (same for MP_profit - the commission is equally divided by app + MP)


0.1% HE site
The first 2 bets are simply too big for 0.1% HE sites. The third bet is just small enough, the commission and app_profit will be:
For a BTC0.3 bet: 0.1 - 0.0986 = 0.0014% HE and 0.0007% each
For a BTC0.05 bet: 0.1 - 0.0164 = 0.0836% HE and 0.0418% each
For a BTC0.001 bet: 0.1 - 0.00032894736 = 0.09967105264% HE and 0.04983552632% each (pretty close to 50% of the house edge heh )


1% HE site
For a BTC2.5 bet: 1 - 0.82 = 0.18% HE and 0.09% each
For a BTC1.1 bet: 1 - 0.36 = 0.64% HE and 0.32% each
For a BTC0.3 bet: 1 - 0.0986 = 0.90% HE and 0.45% each (already getting close to 50% of HE each )
For a BTC0.05 bet: 1 - 0.0164 = 0.98% HE and 0.48% each
For a BTC0.001 bet: 1 - 0.00032894736 = 0.999% HE and 0.499% each



A few random notes:
- The "commission"/HE that app+MP earn are guaranteed, so risk-free. The investor's HE not.
- One could say most wagered and profits come from bigger players, so profits can look better for investors than you might expect.
- The investor is always EV+ based on 1x kelly.
- Obviously we can assume the "commission" on average is more than on other invest-sites (even though it depends on bet-size.) However to calculate how much profit the investors can expect, you always still have to consider the bankroll too. At MP you will get a pretty big share of the BR/action - so even with the relative high commission there is a very decent chance you could still earn more than other sites if the wagered amounts are the same. I am planning to make good estimations of this based of the info on the MP site and list them real-time on my site. But this is a slightly complicated calculation.
- If I made a mistake or if my whole explanation is wrong, please correct me