If you say H/c x2 in game you will be muted. (Taken from Reddit)

[Quyneax]

Your odds are not long enough to be a money sink.

 

60:40 with double pay out on under 1m.

Let's take 100 1m bets, assuming perfect average win:lose ratio.

That's 60m eaten by the loses.

80m produced from the wins.

+20m in economy.

No.

 

You assume that bets are not eaten on win, and at the same time assume that the payout is twice the bet. That means you are effectively assuming tripling on win.

 

100 separate 1m bets, 40% to double and 60% to lose, means you get on average .4 * 2m + .6 * 0m = .8m. It costs 1m to buy this result, so you lose 200k on average, per bet.

 

For the other bets jay proposed, the results are simply 74% payout (on a 10m bet, an average loss of 2.6m), 70% payout (on a 100m bet, an average loss of 30m) and the last one is 60% payout (on a 1b bet, an average loss of 400m).

[Sy_Accursed]

Your odds are not long enough to be a money sink.

 

60:40 with double pay out on under 1m.

Let's take 100 1m bets, assuming perfect average win:lose ratio.

That's 60m eaten by the loses.

80m produced from the wins.

+20m in economy.

No.

 

You assume that bets are not eaten on win, and at the same time assume that the payout is twice the bet. That means you are effectively assuming tripling on win.

 

100 separate 1m bets, 40% to double and 60% to lose, means you get on average .4 * 2m + .6 * 0m = .8m. It costs 1m to buy this result, so you lose 200k on average, per bet.

 

For the other bets jay proposed, the results are simply 74% payout (on a 10m bet, an average loss of 2.6m), 70% payout (on a 100m bet, an average loss of 30m) and the last one is 60% payout (on a 1b bet, an average loss of 400m).

 

That would be the math for YOU the individual on expected profit/lose per bet.

My math was looking at the overal ratio for the game.

 

And your other point is pure nonsense, I did not assume winning bets are not 'eaten' and the pay out is twice the bet if the prize is double bet. If you'll note my third figure is the overal economic shift accounting for only gp created from nothing.

[MotherBrainII]

I was talking about this with some people in my clan and this is what we would like to see.

 

Pure games of chance:

 

Less then 1m bet, 40 % chance to double your money 60% to lose your bet

1m - 10m, 37% chance to double, 63% chance to lose

10m-100m 35% chance to double, 65% chance to lose

100m+ 20% chance to triple, 80% chance to lose

 

 

I think a system like this would work well for risk versus reward and still remove money from the game. Not sure how tripling effects things because techincally you can lose twice before you don't make anything, IE Bet 100m lose, bet 100m lose, bet 100m win, get 300m back, earning 100m profit. Might need to rebalance that.

 

Games of skill, IE poker, black jack, etc with a smart AI, personal win %ages recorded so that people with 80%+ win percentages pay a higher take to the house. IE <80% wins 10% of winnings stays in the house, >80% wins 20% of winnings stays with house. Obviously these percentages would need to be adjusted/calculated/possibly on a curve, for things to balance out.

 

 

Seems like if they did it right this could be a really good money sink.

 

Your odds are not long enough to be a money sink.

 

60:40 with double pay out on under 1m.

Let's take 100 1m bets, assuming perfect average win:lose ratio.

That's 60m eaten by the loses.

80m produced from the wins.

+20m in economy.

 

40m *produced* by the wins. The other 40m was already there as part of the input. Quyneax is correct.

 

The amount eaten by the game in each instance should be exactly the same as what the host wins in the current games. If you were right, you could use the exact same logic to prove that hosting creates a massive loss for the host, which is obviously not the case.

[Quyneax]

That would be the math for YOU the individual on expected profit/lose per bet.

My math was looking at the overal ratio for the game.

And these are different... how? What is the overal ratio for the game but the sum of all the players?

 

Very simply put, each bet has the following structure:

1) You lose money, so you can participate.

2) A die is rolled, or equivalent.

3) Depending on the outcome of 2, you may gain money.

 

On a 60x2 game (doubling if rolling over 60, with an equal distribution from 1 to 100), the average money gain is exactly 80% of your bet.

 

The structure you describe is:

1) 100 people buy in at 1m each.

2) Dice are rolled and neatly average into 40 wins and 60 losses.

3) Enough is paid out that 20m is produced - since 100m was spent to participate, that must be 120m. 120m split amongst 40 winners, is 3m per person. They got their bet back plus twice their bet, while jay specifically said '40% chance to double your money'. The two are not equivalent.

[Kaida23]

When did this become a finite mathematics debate?

 

Brain think hurt can't...

 

:P

[jayc3399]

That would be the math for YOU the individual on expected profit/lose per bet.

My math was looking at the overal ratio for the game.

And these are different... how? What is the overal ratio for the game but the sum of all the players?

 

Very simply put, each bet has the following structure:

1) You lose money, so you can participate.

2) A die is rolled, or equivalent.

3) Depending on the outcome of 2, you may gain money.

 

On a 60x2 game (doubling if rolling over 60, with an equal distribution from 1 to 100), the average money gain is exactly 80% of your bet.

 

The structure you describe is:

1) 100 people buy in at 1m each.

2) Dice are rolled and neatly average into 40 wins and 60 losses.

3) Enough is paid out that 20m is produced - since 100m was spent to participate, that must be 120m. 120m split amongst 40 winners, is 3m per person. They got their bet back plus twice their bet, while jay specifically said '40% chance to double your money'. The two are not equivalent.

 

This makes way more sense. When you see it as creation of GP into the market you have to discount how much you put in.

 

IE) If you put in 1m and get 1m out, the profit is only 1m, where as if you lose the profit is -1m. Which means on a system of doubling you will only pay out for the 1m 40% of the time. I think if you were to say you got double back + your bet, IE 1m in get 2m winnings + 1m bet, then you could work it your way Sy, but I'm not sure on that either.

[Randox]

I too am having a bit of trouble following everyone's math. On a 60:40 payout, with 100 x 1m bets at perfect distribution, 100m is removed for each of the 100 x 1m bets, and 80m is paid out to the 40 x 2m winners, for a net loss of 20m. A winner in a double payout should be up by the total of their bet, not twice their bet; in this case 1m higher than before they placed the bet, not 2. Queyneax is right, if your getting +20m then you forgot to remove the original bets for the winners and effectively gave a triple payout.

 

As for the change to the spam filter, it's nice to see the rule once again being interpreted and enforced in a manner which makes sense, which is to combat any unnecessary spam regardless of topic. Sometimes I wonder if they don't give warning as a publicity stunt. A lot of people will/have found it quite amusing to see the hosts finally muted without warning, fair or not.

[michel555555]

There's no way for jagex to implement gambling on a purely double up basis without it being abused or unused.

Abused by people with big enough cash stacks to double up every bet

unused because there is a miniscule chance to win, a high % going to the house, or a limit to how many times you can play all to prevent people from abusing and making people just prefer to stick with gambling clans.

 

I can see it working as a jack pot system though where everyone at a "table" or world puts an amount of cash into a pot then playing a group game of chance to win all the cash with house taking a cut. Smaller the group less pay out but higher chance of winning while larger groups would be reversed.

[Gullible]

Probably just work it into sof, 2m a spin, gogogogo.

[Troacctid]

What if they implemented a player-to-player option with guaranteed fair odds? Both players put up the same ante, flip a coin, winner takes the pot?

 

Players interested in gambling with one another could still do so, but it would kill any notion of gambling as a profitable enterprise (uh, hopefully) and murder the whole abusive practice of "hosting".

[Birdd]

What if they implemented a player-to-player option with guaranteed fair odds? Both players put up the same ante, flip a coin, winner takes the pot?

 

Players interested in gambling with one another could still do so, but it would kill any notion of gambling as a profitable enterprise (uh, hopefully) and murder the whole abusive practice of "hosting".

I agree with this, except the host (NPC) takes a cut everytime as a money sink. But this makes too much sense, won't be seeing that from Jagex.

[Troacctid]

What if they implemented a player-to-player option with guaranteed fair odds? Both players put up the same ante, flip a coin, winner takes the pot?

 

Players interested in gambling with one another could still do so, but it would kill any notion of gambling as a profitable enterprise (uh, hopefully) and murder the whole abusive practice of "hosting".

I agree with this, except the host (NPC) takes a cut everytime as a money sink. But this makes too much sense, won't be seeing that from Jagex.

No host, no money sink, just direct player-to-player. Basically rat pits without the cat or the shitty quest.

[V O R K]

What if they implemented a player-to-player option with guaranteed fair odds? Both players put up the same ante, flip a coin, winner takes the pot?

 

Players interested in gambling with one another could still do so, but it would kill any notion of gambling as a profitable enterprise (uh, hopefully) and murder the whole abusive practice of "hosting".

 

Pre-EOC staking?

 

Yeah I miss it too.

[baileydafrog]

would anybody really trust odds on something jagex run? :/

[Arcley]

This all sounds rather familiar. Kingdom of Loathing (web-mmorpg) did a pvp-doubling game. It was pretty funny reading about people trying to game the system with bid doubling strategies. Some people get lucky, yeah, but for every one of those another loses it all. And house cut means that over time people lose slightly more than they win.

 

Don't think we really need to promote that kind of thing in RS though. As far as money sinks go, I'd rather see the GE made into one, like auction houses are in just about every other mmo out there.

[Fallstar]

The odds don't need to be 60:40 for it to be a money sink, they could be far lower than that. As usual, people are under estimating the gambling population on RS: it's massive, the biggest community by a large margin in the game.

 

Even 51:49 odds would act as a money sink over time, as the sheer quantity of bets will lead to the wins/losses averaging out very quickly. With 57:43 odds, WAD fc had about 1.5T at the peak of 43 hosts. Consider that there was only around 28T coins in the game at that point, (that milestone article Jagex released shows this) and that if you included other big fc's such as dragon dyce, gambling hosts acted as a multi-trillion gp sink, which was a significant part of the economy.

 

A game owned by Jagex would be far more popular, meaning you wouldn't need as big a host advantage. Personally I think a straightforward, 45-49% chance to double your bet, is the best way to go about it.

 

Same with items: you bet an item, you get a 45-49% chance of receiving 2 items. We need both an item sink and a money sink of massive magnitude to even begin fixing the economy, and this is the perfect opportunity to provide one.

 

The only issue with the item betting would be rares; over time, if people bet rares, the number of rares in the game would start to decrease again. (It is now widely accepted that people quitting does not lead to the number of rares in the game decreasing, as trade volumes of most rares haven't changed in a long time) This would cause the value of rares to increase over time, putting them even further out of reach to the average player, as well as potentially removing the higher rares from the game.

 

I'd like to have enough faith in RS players that someone capable of earning a higher rare would be intelligent enough not to bet it against the odds, and the quantity of lower rares is severely underestimated (there are at least 10K santas in the game, for example) so this wouldn't have too large of an impact. Alternatively Jagex could simply ban discontinued items from the game. The problem with this is that there are spectacularly rare non-discontinued items. For example, someone recently bought 3 sets of druidic from the GE, which took most of the druidic off the market and tripled its price. Any item of which there are less than a thousand in the game should not be able to be gambled.

[jayc3399]

The odds don't need to be 60:40 for it to be a money sink, they could be far lower than that. As usual, people are under estimating the gambling population on RS: it's massive, the biggest community by a large margin in the game.

 

Even 51:49 odds would act as a money sink over time, as the sheer quantity of bets will lead to the wins/losses averaging out very quickly. With 57:43 odds, WAD fc had about 1.5T at the peak of 43 hosts. Consider that there was only around 28T coins in the game at that point, (that milestone article Jagex released shows this) and that if you included other big fc's such as dragon dyce, gambling hosts acted as a multi-trillion gp sink, which was a significant part of the economy.

 

A game owned by Jagex would be far more popular, meaning you wouldn't need as big a host advantage. Personally I think a straightforward, 45-49% chance to double your bet, is the best way to go about it.

 

Same with items: you bet an item, you get a 45-49% chance of receiving 2 items. We need both an item sink and a money sink of massive magnitude to even begin fixing the economy, and this is the perfect opportunity to provide one.

 

The only issue with the item betting would be rares; over time, if people bet rares, the number of rares in the game would start to decrease again. (It is now widely accepted that people quitting does not lead to the number of rares in the game decreasing, as trade volumes of most rares haven't changed in a long time) This would cause the value of rares to increase over time, putting them even further out of reach to the average player, as well as potentially removing the higher rares from the game.

 

I'd like to have enough faith in RS players that someone capable of earning a higher rare would be intelligent enough not to bet it against the odds, and the quantity of lower rares is severely underestimated (there are at least 10K santas in the game, for example) so this wouldn't have too large of an impact. Alternatively Jagex could simply ban discontinued items from the game. The problem with this is that there are spectacularly rare non-discontinued items. For example, someone recently bought 3 sets of druidic from the GE, which took most of the druidic off the market and tripled its price. Any item of which there are less than a thousand in the game should not be able to be gambled.

 

This is a fantastic idea, I never even thought of items.

[Omali]

I'd like to have enough faith in RS players that someone capable of earning a higher rare would be intelligent enough not to bet it against the odds, and the quantity of lower rares is severely underestimated (there are at least 10K santas in the game, for example) so this wouldn't have too large of an impact. Alternatively Jagex could simply ban discontinued items from the game. The problem with this is that there are spectacularly rare non-discontinued items. For example, someone recently bought 3 sets of druidic from the GE, which took most of the druidic off the market and tripled its price. Any item of which there are less than a thousand in the game should not be able to be gambled.

 

This would actually be an interesting metric tool if Jagex implemented it. It'd mean an easy way to tell if something is extremely rare. Also you'd be able to tell when a new drop hit over 1,000 units.

[Saru Inc]

Wish I could post my evidence now. They finally updated it 12 hours after the mute. I got muted for telling someone "I'm a Gen in Flowers". Just staying I'm a general in an fc named Flowers. Never mentioned anything gambling related. And Boom. Muted. Such a sad day.

 

If Jagex was against gambling they could just make it against the rules and I know a lot of the community would stop because as shocking as it may be, a lot of the big gamblers have 2200+ total and don't want to get banned.

 

But instead of making it against the rules, they just say they are making their on "safe" gambling. Whatever. I'm still going to host. I have multiple accounts I can lobby on to advert for my hosting account.

 

Peace,

Vann

 

How does it feel knowing you are helping ruin the game?

 

I wish you and all your ilk were permabanned instead. The odds are always in your favor, and you are making money from kids who cannot control themselves or have an addiction.

 

Ok, so JAGEX makes all of this talk about making the game more adult-oriented. Switchable censor, quests made for people who can't devote 7 hours to the game a day, etc. (Mainly the censor, and Jagex's explicit wish to cater more to the adult people). Then they go and say "oh hey, you can't excercise personal responsibility on your own account! Its for your own good!"

 

 

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

 

 

Lastly, I guess if Jagex really wants to fix this moral morass, if anything they could make some type of institutionalized 'mini game' BUT, the emphasis is that the players would still be the 'hosts.' The ones gambling would deposit their money into a machine that the host 'owns,' the host could then select varying options, much like Staking "h/c, etc." perhaps even throw in some coupons, like deposit %15 of the money, and get 16% back if won (extra money would be taken directly from Host's bank account/gold pouch.) The game itself would then use flower seeds or WHATEVER (It would have to be a fairly open ended system) and then plant them or WHATEVER. Once the system is done it then gives the rewards accordingly.

 

Based on the relatively complex systems Jagex has created in the past, this shouldn't be *too* difficult.

 

Gambling doesn't have to go away in any way, shape or form, but the scamming aspect does.

[Saradomin_Mage]

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

Are ya serious

[Saru Inc]

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

Are ya serious

 

Absolutely. Based on this topic, you guys (not you necessarily, but overall) don't like him very much. Still, he does what he wants, he plays the game his way, and as far as I know, he doesn't scam anyone, so he still gets an enjoyable experience out of it. Runescape has the great ability, that I don't find in other MMORPGs to actually let you do what the hell you want, and I think Vann takes that in stride.

[Saradomin_Mage]

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

Are ya serious

 

Absolutely. Based on this topic, you guys (not you necessarily, but overall) don't like him very much. Still, he does what he wants, he plays the game his way, and as far as I know, he doesn't scam anyone, so he still gets an enjoyable experience out of it. Runescape has the great ability, that I don't find in other MMORPGs to actually let you do what the hell you want, and I think Vann takes that in stride.

So if what he's doing embodies the spirit of the game, why are there Jagex-created discussion topics about curbing it on the RSOF, and why is Jagex actively trying to work against it through game updates, such as dice bag removal or silent muting?

[V O R K]

I wondered the same about reefer madness. Simply because an authority says it's wrong doesn't mean it is.

[Birdd]

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

Are ya serious

 

Absolutely. Based on this topic, you guys (not you necessarily, but overall) don't like him very much. Still, he does what he wants, he plays the game his way, and as far as I know, he doesn't scam anyone, so he still gets an enjoyable experience out of it. Runescape has the great ability, that I don't find in other MMORPGs to actually let you do what the hell you want, and I think Vann takes that in stride.

So if what he's doing embodies the spirit of the game, why are there Jagex-created discussion topics about curbing it on the RSOF, and why is Jagex actively trying to work against it through game updates, such as dice bag removal or silent muting?

Not to mention he admitted to breaking multiple rules including RWT..

[Bxpprod]

Then they go and say "oh hey, you can't excercise personal responsibility on your own account! Its for your own good!"

 

Sounds like a solid majority of the democratically elected governments in the world, I don't see any difference. Apart from, you know, Jagex owning the game.

 

Also, don't talk crap about Vann, its people like him who are the spirit of the game.

 

Ha.

 

Hahahahaha.

8/10 for making me reply