Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: House Edge Too High?  (Read 646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
House Edge Too High?
« on: May 24, 2014, 01:17:16 PM »

Thanks Freetrade for honoring AGS.

Here is my suggestion for the DAC.  15% rake is way to high for the lotto, people won't want to play it.  On some level the whole point of a DAC is that they are way more efficient than a typical company and can compete with typical companies by doing the same things for way lower cost.  I think if you lower the cost of playing to basically just the transaction fees it will be way more fun to play and people might do it.

If someone forks it and offers better odds for players where will they play?

It's still not totally the most interesting game in the world but I think with good odds people could have fun with it.  As an AGS holder, I'll try it out and I won't dump my shares because I want DACs that reward our community to be rewarded.

Offline bytemaster

Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2014, 02:03:55 PM »
Thanks Freetrade for honoring AGS.

Here is my suggestion for the DAC.  15% rake is way to high for the lotto, people won't want to play it.  On some level the whole point of a DAC is that they are way more efficient than a typical company and can compete with typical companies by doing the same things for way lower cost.  I think if you lower the cost of playing to basically just the transaction fees it will be way more fun to play and people might do it.

If someone forks it and offers better odds for players where will they play?

It's still not totally the most interesting game in the world but I think with good odds people could have fun with it.  As an AGS holder, I'll try it out and I won't dump my shares because I want DACs that reward our community to be rewarded.

Now that he is honoring AGS I too will also look closer at it.   Remember that there are two classes of users necessary for the lotto to be successful, those who hold/buy the lotto shares for the ROI and those who play the game.  If you reduce the 'dividend' then the lotto shares have less value and thus the value of the prize is much smaller.   

15% rake is cheap compared to state lottos.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2014, 02:37:36 PM »
I think you'll want to create demand from people who want to play the game.  They'll buy the shares so they can play the game.  You don't want to create demand by appealing to people who want to make money by overcharging others to play a game that there's no reason for it to cost that much to play.  Without players it dies.

It's better odds than a state lottery but you need to compare it to other crypto gambling opportunities and there's getting to be a lot of competition.

but like you said, it's an experiment.

Offline liondani

Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2014, 02:46:31 PM »
I agree with Agent86 it will attract way more players with a lower rake...  it is better to have 1000 players with a rake of 5% than 100 with 20%... at least start with a tiny welcome rake like 2% or free  for a couple of weeks so our clients get familiar or addicted...  and then increase the rake....  how about to increase the rake 1% every month until it reaches say 20%...and that must be not a secret so that every partcular month the players have the feeling that it has "value" to play now... after one year they don't care anymore since the prizes will be very high because of allready many participants....

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk

  https://bitshares.OPENLEDGER.info/?r=GREECE  | You are in Control | BUY | SELL | SHORT | SWAP | LOAN | TRADE |  

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2014, 03:41:52 PM »
Lottos have edges of 50%.  The odds are so bad I don't know how much the % really even matters.  People play to lose for some dream. You could easily make it lower than 15% though.  If you keep the % down you're a lot more likely to get more rational people who like to gamble.  I mean, if the edge was 2% or something and I was bored I could buy up half the tickets and it is a safe bet. You're competing with dice games at that point..  Gambling itself it not irrational, it is the expected loss that makes it irrational. 

.. just my thoughts.. no real conclusion what is better, but you're a lot more likely to have a popular DAC that supports itself if the % is low..
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 03:43:26 PM by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2014, 03:16:33 PM »
You don't want to create demand by appealing to people who want to make money by overcharging others to play a game that there's no reason for it to cost that much to play.

This is a subtle insight into how the coin might play out. Given that ChanceCoin seems to be floundering on a very price competitive 1% house rake . . . we might indeed do better by offering a 10% commission to ticket sellers/processors. I think usually people choose to play a lottery for reasons other than price competitiveness . . . excitement, convenience, timing etc.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2014, 06:15:36 PM »
You don't want to create demand by appealing to people who want to make money by overcharging others to play a game that there's no reason for it to cost that much to play.

This is a subtle insight into how the coin might play out. Given that ChanceCoin seems to be floundering on a very price competitive 1% house rake . . . we might indeed do better by offering a 10% commission to ticket sellers/processors. I think usually people choose to play a lottery for reasons other than price competitiveness . . . excitement, convenience, timing etc.

If you just make it a 1% or lower house edge then ticket sellers and processors can add whatever commission they want and compete with each other.  You can't have as high an edge as a state run lotto or a physically established casino because your potential competitors have such a low barrier to entry.  Also, with gambling psychology a lower edge I think is better because people will keep playing, and you'll get your 15% (and beyond) eventually anyway.  The only reason I would see to raise the edge would be if you were hitting network capacity issues processing all the transactions.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2014, 07:02:15 PM »
If you just make it a 1% or lower house edge then ticket sellers and processors can add whatever commission they want and compete with each other.

One way to achieve this would be to drop the house edge to, let's say your 1%, and allow the ticket processor to keep up to 14% . . . this allows the ticket processor to offer 'cash back' deals to players, where part of the ticket fee is returned to the player. Ticket processors could compete on cashback percentages. A drawback is that ticket processors have a strong incentive not to share tickets (transactions) they had received (sold).
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2014, 07:25:09 PM »

I would suggest you make the DAC provide an easy way to verify tickets.

In the lottery world it is not an uncommon thing for a clerk to be given a winning ticket when being redeemed unchecked by the player.  The clerk/agent will then pocket the ticket and claim none were winners.  You could help avoid this by making the DAC readily verify winners.  Actually if you got into the lottery business in other countries, I suppose a centralized website to check results would be useful and could serve multiple purposes.  (Advertise + winning verification)

If ticket agents are given 15% to work with, how about regular internet players?  How do you discern the 2 groups and should you ?

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2014, 08:01:26 PM »
In the lottery world it is not an uncommon thing for a clerk to be given a winning ticket when being redeemed unchecked by the player.

We should be safe against this - the processors will have to return the prizes to the address the ticket was created with.

If ticket agents are given 15% to work with, how about regular internet players?  How do you discern the 2 groups and should you ?

Agents wouldn't be intermediaries, but ticket processors (miners) . . a regular player could mine his own block and keep the commission, or go to a processing(mining) pool that was offering 10% cash back.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: House Edge Too High?
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2014, 10:02:23 PM »
Agents wouldn't be intermediaries, but ticket processors (miners) . . a regular player could mine his own block and keep the commission, or go to a processing(mining) pool that was offering 10% cash back.

I do not know where the problem is FreeTrade, but there is something terribly wrong if you need 15% for the miners in order for your DAC to work…
I will stop short of accusations for something suspicious in your intent, but at least something not thought over in the general economic model.

[Edit] When I first heard about your DAC I thought you need the 15% at the beginning, just in case there are some top prizes early in the DAC’s life, and you do not want to increase the # of shares in such outcome. And expected you to lower the house cut it in due time.
 I also bought some MMC as it was the best way to get some shares. Now my MMC investment is liquidated (with only 3-4% loss). I will get the shares from the AGS and PTS in my wallets (as they are virtually free), but will definitely not bother transferring my PTS from the exchanges, as this DAC is frankly not worth it,  in the form suggested.


« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 11:00:36 PM by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

 

Google+