My ideas for running a jackpot.

Funding the jackpot:
Dooglus adds 1k to a staking account and 100% of his stakes go to jackpot balance.
Players have the option to supply 1/2 of their invested stake to jackpot. Default to No. (Benefit for doing this below)
Players have the option to simply donate to the jackpot.
/Tip Last command includes jackpot always.

Determine winner:
Player rolls 99.9999 is solid. (If I was worried about you brute-forcing a winning seed and playing under a fake account to win, I wouldn't play at your site. I see that as a non-issue.)
When a player rolls 99.9999 a 'Congratulations' message can appear in chat and possibly a special color for the Bet Results tabs.
When a player rolls 99.9999 they are credited with (both daily and weekly) jackpot points equal to wagered amount, but no rewards are given yet.

Winner Payout:
Each day, 1% of the jackpot is split between all players with jackpot (daily) bonus points in proportion to their amount as a percentage of the sum of all qualifying points.
Daily jackpot bonus points are reset to 0.

Each week, 10% of the jackpot is split between all players with jackpot (week) bonus points in proportion to their amount as a percentage of the sum of all qualifying points.
Weekly jackpot bonus points are reset to 0.

(I think this will allow the jackpot to grow nicely.)

Incentive for player to donate 1/2 stakes:
Players that donate 1/2 their staked income get a x2 multiplier on jackpot points they earn. (Up to a maximum of amount invested)

ok the folks pooing everyones thoughts, what would you suggest in place of it?

Lets keep it positive!

Thanks for taking the time.


100% of my stakes? I don't like that idea one little bit! Do you mean the jackpot account's stakes go to the jackpot account? That seems reasonable.


When you say "players", you mean "investors", right? Because they're the only ones who benefit from staking. Note that most weeks, for most investors, their return from staking is bigger than their return from players losing. You can see this from the fact that the site has staked 200k, but only won 100k from players - staking is twice as big as gambling profits. So it sounds like you're asking investors to give up 33% of their expected income if I've understood correctly.


I'd like to have 00.0000 count as well. I don't want to bias the jackpot in favour of people who only like to bet 'hi'. I'd also make it that your bet has to be a winning bet to qualify, so it's still only 1 in a million that counts. If someone rolls 99.9999 while betting 'lo', the site could comment on the fact in chat, but not award any thing. Or maybe award 10% of the points they would have got if they rolled correctly, as a booby prize.


I think it will grow towards a limit, and pretty much stay there. We can consider the inflow to be roughly constant, and the outflow to be 17% per week (seven 1% daily payout, and one 10% weekly payout). So the pot will reach a point where the weekly inflow is equal to 17% of the pot. Or in other words the pot will grow to be 6 times the size of the weekly inflow.


Again, I'm guessing you mean 'investors' when you say 'players' here. I think it's good to make some kind of incentive for investors to contribute to the pot, but I don't think this works. If I'm an investor with 10k invested, I'm making quite a lot from staking. I don't want to give half of it up just to get double jackpot points. Instead I can move 10 CLAMs to a new account, invest it, and set just that account to give up half its staking rewards. Then bet on that account and get double jackpot points. In doing so I've managed to keep almost all my staking rewards and still get double jackpot points.


I don't understand. Whether or not the points are reset each week, the weekly payout is always going to be 10% of the pot as I understood the proposal. Taking 10% out each week will limit its growth, of course - but I don't see how the points affect it.


I don't think we can make things +EV for everyone. Somebody has to pay for the jackpot. Adding a jackpot is increasing the player's expectation, and so it has to reduce someone else's expectation. But I agree that asking investors to give up half their staking income for improved jackpot payoffs is unlikely to be well received.

Yes, you're right. It should be more visible, or people won't even know about it.


Yes. The lottery could have a house edge greater than 1%, with the extra going to fund the jackpot.


1) Investors don't want bigger bets, they want lots of small bets (assuming the total volume is the same). Bigger bets means bigger variance. Lots of small bets summing to the same amount gives the same expectation, but with a much lower variance. When the odds are in your favour, you don't want too much variance.

2) Tiger suggested having the "points" given out according to the size of the bet. That seems reasonable. Someone hitting the jackpot number while making a tiny bet will get a tiny number of points. That's a good point though - what if only one person hits the 99.9999 or whatever one day, and does it betting just 1 satoshi? Even though he only gets a tiny number of points, he still has all the points awarded that day. Does he still get the full 1% daily payout? If the pot is 1000 CLAMs, that's a 10 CLAM payout for a 1 satoshi bet...


Thanks for them.

LOL

I see my profit dropped a bit

How about if we just let players make multiple bets at the same time?

For example, put 99% of their stake at 49.5%, and the other 1% at 0.0001%. The payout on the 49.5% part will be only slightly lower than normal, but there's a tiny chance of them 'hitting the jackpot'.

We don't need a separate jackpot pool, it's a regular bet, with a regular 1% house edge, and so the investors will bankroll it just like they bankroll every other bet.

In other news, luther went a little crazy:

fucking site
http://prntscr.com/7fsev4
donation xCSVHcZUMsRkjc8DPtkL2ATUg5vJghZMwb

I've been thinking for a while about having a way for players to make arbitrary numbers of bets at a time on a single roll, for example:

  90% of stake at 49.5% (50.5000 - 99.9999)
  9% of stake at 10% (90.0000 - 99.9999) -- note the range overlaps the previous bet - rolling 95 makes both the these bets win
  0.9% of stake at 1% (30.0000 - 30.9999) -- note it's a mid-range bet
  0.1% of stake at 0.001% (0.0000 - 0.0009)

Currently a bet is defined by 3 things: (stake, chance, hi) - ie. the amount to bet, the chance of winning, and whether to bet hi or lo.

The idea is that a bet evolves to become (stake, [(share, chance, hi), ...]) - ie. the amount to bet, and a list of (share, chance, from) triples, where the shares sum to 100%, and each 'from' is the low end of the target range; ranges can 'wrap around', so (10, 20, 90) means to bet 10% of the stake at 20% chance, where rolling 90-99.9999 or 0-9.9999 wins.

That allows this 'jackpot' style bet, where 99% goes to the main bet and 1% goes to a very low change, high multiplier bet. It also allows more of the "slot machine" style bet, where you have a range of different possible payouts with increasing payouts having decreasing chances of happening.

The tricky part is in deciding how to present this to the player. It's far too much for most people to want to have to look at or think about. I'm guessing we start with a few preset bets of this type - maybe just the 'jackpot' one, and later add a 'bet editor' page to allow those who want to to define their own custom bets.

fucking deb
okey i stop play gambling in your site


http://prntscr.com/7g3h5w

I have been around the site for a long time and can assure you ppl have won and lost, you simply had bad luck.
You can never win against any house edge in the long term.