Topic: 🔶 YOLOdice's 1 Billionth Bet Celebration - LTC Competition! 🔶 - page 2. (Read 717 times)

Oh, well that's OK then. I somehow thought you were accusing me of literally stealing.

I think it was these words that misled me:


but it seems I misunderstood, and you were only trying to see what the rules are. My bad.

That's already been discussed in this thread, as well as pretty much every competition - yes.

I'm only trying to see what the rules are and what your planned actions are.  I don't care about arguing with you. Good luck!

No. I am saying a whole lot of things which you failed to address, but that wasn't one of them.


I can't speak for "us guys". I have promised not to play any more while I stay in 1st place, and while there's a big enough gap to the next place. That's all.

We are not a team. We are individuals who have reached a mutually beneficial arrangement.

It appears to be a competition. And I've seen no rule against talking to your opponents to attempt to find mutually beneficial strategies.


Poker has rules against collusion and soft play. This wagering contest apparently doesn't.

Did you ever see the last 3 players in a poker tournament decide to split the top 3 prizes rather than playing until there was only one player left? Do you see at Pokerstars the "discuss a deal" button that is built into the software? I think you may not have picked the best example here.


Do you know what "stealing" means? I'm not stealing anything. I am reducing the amount that I expect to contribute to the prize pool. The money that I am attempting to avoid donating to the prize pool is already mine. In attempting to retain money that is already mine I am clearly not stealing anything.


Yolodice loses money with every LTC bet that is made during this contest. 100% of the profits go into the prize pool, and Yolodice still has to pay out rakeback and referral payments on every bet. By betting less I am actually increasing Yolodice's equity.


Ethan doesn't seem too concerned, and I'm sure he will speak up if he has a problem with this.


The guy who comes 3rd gets the same whether 1st and 2nd tie or don't tie. If 1st and 2nd have agreed to stop betting then the guy in 3rd will find it easier to overtake them and come in 1st place.


We're clearly not sharing an account. We are 2 people with 2 accounts. If we were going to combine our money in an attempt to win, we should have done that from the start rather than splitting out effort into two equal parts.


Beating two players who have bet 2k each is exactly as hard as beating one player who has bet 2k. You have to bet more than 2k to beat them in both cases.


First play currently pays 48 LTC, and you need to wager 2700 LTC to get into 1st place. The 1% house edge means that you expect to lose 27 LTC wagering that much. Doesn't that mean it's +EV to join the game right now, especially if the top players have stopped playing?

Is this a competition or a giveaway?  If it's a competition, why are two people allowed to collude just so that they don't have to continue contributing to the prize pool and try to lock in a ev+ situation?  

Edit:
(https://i.imgur.com/9h4T1cS.png)

Imagine this is a final table at a poker tournament.  How can two chipleaders who publicly declare that they will not face each other and then split the prizes equally at the end be deemed fair, let alone ethical?  

They are quite literally stealing equity away from other players in the competition and Yolodice's equity from increased betting as well.  Not only does it affect this contest, but Ethan will be less interested in hosting similar competitions in the future because of the promotion being abused.

Second Edit:
The closest player who isn't chopping is at such a disadvantage and gets screwed the most.  Even just imagining how scenarios would play out (only one has to beat them, they could shift wagering to one account to secure first place instead of even distribution) provides disincentive to play further.  And then it trickles down from there.  

Third Edit:
I can't think of any scenario where this is fair.  If the closest player (currently the third person) joins the faction, then the fourth player gets screwed, and so on.  

A new comer that may have wanted to bet big to try for first place at the last stages now has to face the entire top team.  The calculated equity will always be negated by the new equity point that the top team has to reach to secure, which means that all players would be forced to face negative expected value given the circumstances (again this is different from a traditional competition because the team could shift wagering since first place gives the most value).  If the expected equity is now negative instead of possibly positive, the new player's best outcome is just simply not go for first place anymore.

If there are two clear leaders, and they both realize that there is nothing to be gained by betting any more, they could come to a gentleman's agreement to tie and split the top two prizes. Otherwise if they fight it out one or both of them will likely bust, and a large percentage of their losses will go to the other 19 winners. It's kind of a prisoner's dilemma in that our combined EV is best if we cooperate, but our individual EVs are best if we are the only one to defect. There's also the possibility that there will be future rounds of the same kind of game, and so there is value in maintaining reputation in this round.

It's an interesting situation, because even if we agree to split, as you say, either one could make a last minute bet to 'steal' 1st place from the other. But John Locke gave me his word, and that's good enough for me:


The situation is currently complicated by the hidden psonowal83 (3959) player who took 1st place last night while I slept:

lol Cold War Strategies going on here 


Congrats both for your volume : impressive.

Hi,

we need to quickly find a solution to this: if more than one person has the same amount wagered, their prizes will be added up and then split equally between them. So if 1st and 2nd place has the same amount wagered, each of the prizes would be e.g. (8 LTC + 4 LTC) / 2. Plus the prize pool bonus.

Anyway, it does not seem to be justifiable to try to have exactly the same amount wagered as someone else, because you are just a single satoshi away from getting the higher prize. However, your opponent could react too and outbid you. Maybe it could be a nice problem for  game theory - it's not a prisoner dilemma, but still :-)

What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work?

I wonder if John is willing to share...


Also, note:


So 1st place is currently 27.5 LTC.

Yes, you are correct.