Topic: Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot! - page 1158. (Read 1989845 times)

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:34:41 PM

Quote from: alabamafan1 on October 12, 2014, 12:44:41 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.

the way i understand it in a Nevada slot machine by law the result is generated purely on timing of when the button is pushed whereas PD relies on a combination of generated hashes...major fundamental difference and is exploitable imo! :\

Aww, gee, I'd die in a B&M casino. I've never heard of one that sounds better than going to a Chuck E. Cheese with alcohol (though Chuck E. Cheese would be dramatically more tolerable if they served the parents alcohol...). I doubt our beloved impure BTC-taking casinos follow any NV standards, though.

I'm not implying the casinos actually follow the laws to the t ...just the idea of fairness based on timing vs. some elaborate scheme of combining hashes that can be manipulated to suit the houses needs! :\

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Kluge I do really wonder who you are in real life, you always sound very intelligent. A finance broker? A millionaire? A bitcoin millionaire? A guy with a PhD in economics? A guy who owns his own big business? A big CEO or international manager? I don't know. Maybe youre just an average joe type guy but I doubt it.

I'm an unemployable, near-penniless high school graduate with a work history of failed startups and contract work for NFPs. Seriously, I can't even get a job as a cashier at Dollar General, so all you get from me is that "minimum wage snark" but without even the minimum wage job.

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:34:41 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.

the way i understand it in a Nevada slot machine by law the result is generated purely on timing of when the button is pushed whereas PD relies on a combination of generated hashes...major fundamental difference and is exploitable imo! :\

Aww, gee, I'd die in a B&M casino. I've never heard of one that sounds better than going to a Chuck E. Cheese with alcohol (though Chuck E. Cheese would be dramatically more tolerable if they served the parents alcohol...). I doubt our beloved impure BTC-taking casinos follow any NV standards, though.

BBmmBB

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:34:41 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.

the way i understand it in a Nevada slot machine by law the result is generated purely on timing of when the button is pushed whereas PD relies on a combination of generated hashes...major fundamental difference and is exploitable imo! :\

alabamafan1

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:34:41 PM

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:34:41 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.

Kluge I do really wonder who you are in real life, you always sound very intelligent. A finance broker? A millionaire? A bitcoin millionaire? A guy with a PhD in economics? A guy who owns his own big business? A big CEO or international manager? I don't know. Maybe youre just an average joe type guy but I doubt it.

Also Kluge, don't feed the troll. He's just a really annoying (and good at it too) troll.

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

It's just a random roll with one numerical outcome. It'd just be modifying which final numbers are considered a win or loss by the server. It'd be trickier to implement this on an impure casino with hundreds of rigged non-numerical outcomes. -Like you know how you frequently might get two 7's and then an off-center 7 on a slot machine? You weren't actually close to winning the jackpot, but it's rigged to look that way and's multitudes more likely to have two 7's and an off-center 7 than three centered 7s even though it should only be, at most, 2x more likely.

BBmmBB

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: DiamondCardz on October 12, 2014, 12:13:32 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

this is where i am stumped...how are these pseudo-random games effectively calibrated? tia! :\

nahtnam

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

nahtnam.com

Quote from: nahtnam on October 12, 2014, 12:03:40 PM

Quote from: DiamondCardz on October 12, 2014, 12:01:23 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

Wouldn't be too difficult, just declare a variable called rake_back and assign it's value to bet_amount / 20000 (for 0.005% per level rakeback) and then * level. Then just add rake_back to whatever the user's balance is in the database after the bet.

Instead, cant you just raise the payout by a little?

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

Quote from: williamj2543 on October 12, 2014, 12:10:42 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Couldn't a user's level changing just trigger a check to re-calculate which number the user needs to roll under or over? Idunno how the formula looks now, but I'd guess you'd just want the server to add to the house edge multiplier variable (.99 if user wins on rolling under) .0001*UserLevel. -So if the player's level 8, say, the server'd calculate house edge for the user as .99+(.0001*8 ), where house edge is then .92% and the user needs to roll under 49.54 instead of 49.5 (if level 0) to win.

BBmmBB

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:08:32 PM

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

Can someone buy this guy?

ot>>
i produce music...you need something? Grin

DiamondCardz

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1118

Quote from: nahtnam on October 12, 2014, 12:03:40 PM

Quote from: DiamondCardz on October 12, 2014, 12:01:23 PM

Quote from: BBmmBB on October 12, 2014, 12:08:32 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

Wouldn't be too difficult, just declare a variable called rake_back and assign it's value to bet_amount / 20000 (for 0.005% per level rakeback) and then * level. Then just add rake_back to whatever the user's balance is in the database after the bet.

williamj2543

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Get ready for PrimeDice Sig Campaign!

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

Can someone bun this guy?
EDIT: BAN this guy, not buy

BBmmBB

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FAUCET IS TO BRING IN MORE SUCKERS! LOL WHEN THEY DEPOSIT THEIR OWN BTC THEN THE "REAL ODDS" KICK IN ? ;-) LOL

nahtnam

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

nahtnam.com

Quote from: DiamondCardz on October 12, 2014, 12:01:23 PM

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

Im curious. How does it work?

DiamondCardz

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1118

Not terribly imaginative, but each level could reduce house edge by .01% nominally. -Or .005%.

House edge can be only reduced individually through "rake back" . So u get that % of wagered back to ur account. Not a bad idea but it would some coding.

Actually in practice this would be quite simple. It's just basic arithmetic with variables, then crediting the BTC back to the user's account.

MICRO

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1037

CEO @ Stake.com and Primedice.com