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

[Fallstar]

Vann wasn't a gold farmer, even if he did sell gold.

 

Gold farmers refers to bots/people (typically chinese) being paid to camp something that is easily accessible and typically quite low gp/hr, e.g. green dragons.

[Bxpprod]

Can we also have a poll on other in-game rules? ;).

 

No but seriously - what's the big deal with flowers? So long as they have and support gambling in the game, why combat another form of it? Did people complain this much when people simply gambled at the duel arena? I realize that people can get scammed from flower hosts, but like every other area of the game, that's up to the common sense of the participant.

 

Ha.

 

Hahahahahhahahaha.

 

Common sense? Good grief.

The comparison to DA though is unfair, given that "the game" acts as a 3rd party. Yes, you can still be scammed (VLS/summoning/whatever) but it takes the added risk out of the situation and for the most part relies on you not being a dumbshit BEFORE the fight.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Can we also have a poll on other in-game rules? ;).

 

No but seriously - what's the big deal with flowers? So long as they have and support gambling in the game, why combat another form of it? Did people complain this much when people simply gambled at the duel arena? I realize that people can get scammed from flower hosts, but like every other area of the game, that's up to the common sense of the participant. If people want to be retards and trade 8B to a random with a rank in a FC, then that's their risk. Just like if I lend armor or weapons to a friend - that's my risk. Jagex needs to stop treating its users like 12 year olds already.

I agree completely that people aren't forced into gambling and really, it's their own responsibility for accepting that risk. It's not as simple as that, though.

 

The problems come with its inherent links to RWT and scamming. The latter especially is something Jagex can fix relatively easily by providing in game mechanisms which guarantee the stake on each side and the odds on the bet itself, and I am guessing that's really what they refer to when they say "safe gambling".

 

RWT is a far greater problem which I won't have the arrogance to suggest I understand completely. There's a lot of information about RWT which is quite hazy in my opinion.

[Fallstar]

Can we also have a poll on other in-game rules? ;).

 

No but seriously - what's the big deal with flowers? So long as they have and support gambling in the game, why combat another form of it? Did people complain this much when people simply gambled at the duel arena? I realize that people can get scammed from flower hosts, but like every other area of the game, that's up to the common sense of the participant.

 

Ha.

 

Hahahahahhahahaha.

 

Common sense? Good grief.

The comparison to DA though is unfair, given that "the game" acts as a 3rd party. Yes, you can still be scammed (VLS/summoning/whatever) but it takes the added risk out of the situation and for the most part relies on you not being a dumbshit BEFORE the fight.

 

1. Rule switches - easy to spot & your fault if you get scammed.

 

However, there are numerous alternative bugs with the DA. Weapon smuggling, the ability to stop your opponent from attacking back, and the ability to have a friend heal you and boost your stats with butterfly jars being three such methods from the last couple of months. There have been hundreds over the years.

 

Not to mention ddosing, which is something anyone who uses SwiftIrc and stakes for a long time will have to deal with.

 

Player - player gambling in any of the really big clans was far safer than staking will ever be. Unfortunately they're mostly all gone now, so things are much riskier. Apple is the only clan I'd trust these days. And I'm not ranked there so that's not a plug.

[Veiva]

I want them to introduce gambling into the game so there's a glitch some time later that gives 100% chance of winning so people complain a lot more about how gambling hurts RS :mad:.

 

On a side note, I'm against gambling in RS outside of "skill based" activities (then it's not so much gambling as it is competing, hmm).

[stonewall337]

[hide=Long Quote]

Vann, if you are such a legitimate and trustworthy host, how come you owe me 1b?

 

And to add to that. A quote from you on the RWT banned thread.

 

"I will admit in dicings hay-day I partook in selling gold. Making max cash+ daily in Mew2 and seeing my friends do it and get away with it I thought "why not". I thought I had sound reasons to sell.. Most went to tuition, but I did make two "big" purchases (custom desktop and iPad)."

 

And a quote from earlier in this thread.

"Please tell me why I deserve the mute? I don't spam and I don't use offensive language. Therefore I have broken no rules.

 

As for being banned. I have done nothing to constitute a ban(scamming/rwt/botting) so don't tell me I deserve a ban when you don't know me"

 

Nice contradiction Vann. Saying you've never rwt yet you have admitted previously to rwt.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[/hide]

 

To clarify, I meant I'm not actively breaking any rules. As for that post on the other thread, I haven't sold gp since 2011. It was a means to an end as you see I paid off university debts with it and got a computer/iPad for class. Since selling I have regretted doing it and have been against rwt since then. I agree the impact of rwt on runescape is bad and where a lot of the front men for rwt are hosts, they only constitute a small portion of gp sales.

 

 

 

How quickly a position changes, and how easily people find a way to justify. It's brilliant.

 

I'll be honest. I don't and never have sold RSGP, but I would in a second if it meant I could go to college for another semester without having to sit out to earn money. I have no ethical compunctions against doing so, and I've written several articles on why I believe that current U.S courts would uphold the ownership of game accounts/characters/gear/money in games were a case to be brought before them. Likewise, I've consulted a lawyer who'se been a gamer since before I was born (and im in my 20's) and who actually has a paper on the subject published in a law journal- and she agrees with my position.

 

Now, going even more particular and addressing the "OMG gold selling so bad". It's a game, and I honestly think there is a line everyone would cross to get something in real life, were it to require giving up something against the TOS. For some that's little, a few bucks or a few hundred. For other's its in the thousands. But I don't think anyone can say "how dare you" without actually understanding another person's plight.

 

Finally, on the whether or not the muting should be done. DUH NO. Jagex should have at the least made a post, if not directly said it's against the rules. If nothing else they should do what WoW does. You can't advertise gambling/a casino in public channels, but if you want to run one that's fine. The reason for this isn't even because of any direct impacts, but because it degrades the game environment (spam essentially).I find this a much more reasonable stance to take.Let people advertise/host in CCs but not out in the open.

 

Ultimately, I think players should be able to do anything in the game world that isn't 1.) Scamming/robbing/cheating or the like and 2.) Bug abuse (the line between bug abuse and emergent gameplay is for another time.)

[GarryGarry]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

[stonewall337]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

[Miss Lioness]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

 

If it is Player versus Player and only one of them can win a portion of the money because of 5%-20% reduction? How is this causing inflation?

 

Money is removed from the game!

[Sy_Accursed]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

 

If it is Player versus Player and only one of them can win a portion of the money because of 5%-20% reduction? How is this causing inflation?

 

Money is removed from the game!

 

Doesn't even have to be player vs player for it to avoid inflation really.

Use real world type odds from poker and roulette and stuff where weighting is like 35:1 against you (for standard pick a number roulette)

 

Win payout could be 10* your bet and it'd still eat money.

Eg say you bet 10k

In 36 games 360k would be taken from players.

350k of it would be eaten by loses.

Whilst a winner would get a 100k payout.

Still -250k in the economy.

 

Same principle current hosts work off the odds are always in favour of the house and the payout for winning, whilst generous, is low enough that it doesn't exceed what the house takes in.

[MotherBrainII]

As much as I despise gamblers, i really can't condone this while it's been in the game for nearly a week and not a single announcement has been made about it on the forums. I can get on board with the idea of a "warning shot", but in a game built around interacting with others, being unable to talk for two days is a bit more than a warning, and it should at least be possible to be aware of the rule without either hearing it through rumours/hearsay or being punished for breaking it.

 

And it's not doing a good job of screwing gamblers over anyway, because now they just use Quickchat to advertise their services.

[Omali]

I'll be honest. I don't and never have sold RSGP, but I would in a second if it meant I could go to college for another semester without having to sit out to earn money. I have no ethical compunctions against doing so, and I've written several articles on why I believe that current U.S courts would uphold the ownership of game accounts/characters/gear/money in games were a case to be brought before them. Likewise, I've consulted a lawyer who'se been a gamer since before I was born (and im in my 20's) and who actually has a paper on the subject published in a law journal- and she agrees with my position.

 

Jagex, Zynga, Blizzard, and a few other developers have successfully won lawsuits against gold farmers. The opinion of one lawyer means nothing against actual legal precedent.

 

Now, going even more particular and addressing the "OMG gold selling so bad". It's a game, and I honestly think there is a line everyone would cross to get something in real life, were it to require giving up something against the TOS. For some that's little, a few bucks or a few hundred. For other's its in the thousands. But I don't think anyone can say "how dare you" without actually understanding another person's plight.

 

No, it's not "just a game." It's a business, one that real people work real hours in order to feed their real families.

 

Finally, on the whether or not the muting should be done. DUH NO. Jagex should have at the least made a post, if not directly said it's against the rules. If nothing else they should do what WoW does. You can't advertise gambling/a casino in public channels, but if you want to run one that's fine. The reason for this isn't even because of any direct impacts, but because it degrades the game environment (spam essentially).I find this a much more reasonable stance to take.Let people advertise/host in CCs but not out in the open.

 

Jagex have said for a very long time, as I've already said, that they don't like gambling and that they would be implementing updates to get rid of not only the gambling methods but the casino operators. It's a simple case of these people were playing with fire, despite being repeatedly warned that something would be done if they got out of hand, and now they got burned. They have no one to blame but their own egos.

 

Ultimately, I think players should be able to do anything in the game world that isn't 1.) Scamming/robbing/cheating or the like and 2.) Bug abuse (the line between bug abuse and emergent gameplay is for another time.)

 

Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here.

 

As much as I despise gamblers, i really can't condone this while it's been in the game for nearly a week and not a single announcement has been made about it on the forums. I can get on board with the idea of a "warning shot", but in a game built around interacting with others, being unable to talk for two days is a bit more than a warning, and it should at least be possible to be aware of the rule without either hearing it through rumours/hearsay or being punished for breaking it.

 

And it's not doing a good job of screwing gamblers over anyway, because now they just use Quickchat to advertise their services.

 

That is why it's called a warning shot. Judging by the response to the RSOF thread, bans will be coming next.

[michel555555]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

 

If it is Player versus Player and only one of them can win a portion of the money because of 5%-20% reduction? How is this causing inflation?

 

Money is removed from the game!

 

Doesn't even have to be player vs player for it to avoid inflation really.

Use real world type odds from poker and roulette and stuff where weighting is like 35:1 against you (for standard pick a number roulette)

 

Win payout could be 10* your bet and it'd still eat money.

Eg say you bet 10k

In 36 games 360k would be taken from players.

350k of it would be eaten by loses.

Whilst a winner would get a 100k payout.

Still -250k in the economy.

 

Same principle current hosts work off the odds are always in favour of the house and the payout for winning, whilst generous, is low enough that it doesn't exceed what the house takes in.

 

I can't see jagex making it be player vs player though.

and if its just player vs comp it could cause inflation if people keep doubling bet every time they lose.

 

lose 1m bet

lose 2m bet

win 4m bet and make 1 mil

 

unless the % taken by the game is extremely high or chance of winning very low, both of which will discourage people from playing, it will cause inflation.

[Sy_Accursed]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

 

If it is Player versus Player and only one of them can win a portion of the money because of 5%-20% reduction? How is this causing inflation?

 

Money is removed from the game!

 

Doesn't even have to be player vs player for it to avoid inflation really.

Use real world type odds from poker and roulette and stuff where weighting is like 35:1 against you (for standard pick a number roulette)

 

Win payout could be 10* your bet and it'd still eat money.

Eg say you bet 10k

In 36 games 360k would be taken from players.

350k of it would be eaten by loses.

Whilst a winner would get a 100k payout.

Still -250k in the economy.

 

Same principle current hosts work off the odds are always in favour of the house and the payout for winning, whilst generous, is low enough that it doesn't exceed what the house takes in.

 

I can't see jagex making it be player vs player thoguh.

and if its just player vs comp it could cause inflation if people keep doubling bet every time they lose.

 

lose 1m bet

lose 2m bet

win 4m bet and make 1 mil

 

unless the % taken by the game is extremely high or chance of winning very low, both of which will discourage people from playing, it will cause inflation.

 

Well like I said - using real world type odds the win chances ARE very low in exchange for relatively large payouts if you win - and plenty of people still do that, even in rs where h/c is weighted against you people play.

 

And even if one or two richies play the system betting larger and larger to offset loses not everyone can do that, plus even richies trying to play the system aren't guaranteed to beat it.

There could bet 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, 16m, 32m and then run outta money without winning just the same as anyone else.

And even then their tide can be stemmed by house limit on bet size and max bet per day.

 

It'd be naive to think any sort of gambling is going to offer odds good enough to make inflation possible, it's just not how gambling is setup the entire premise of it is that the house is ALWAYS at an advantage and enough of one that it ALWAYS makes more money than it pays out.

[Pirkka]

You guys still believe doubling your bet everytime works? Don't they teach you anything about odds in school?

[Piu]

Martingale only works when cash = infinite.

[stonewall337]

add npc but don't make gold spawning :? make so its player vs players gold and remove 5-20% of the winnings

 

also start banning people who under mind the new npc

 

Major problem with this is that it introduces new gold into the game, which causes inflation.

 

If it is Player versus Player and only one of them can win a portion of the money because of 5%-20% reduction? How is this causing inflation?

 

Money is removed from the game!

 

I misread the PVP part (understandable due to the lack of grammar and formatting IMO.)

[stonewall337]

I'll be honest. I don't and never have sold RSGP, but I would in a second if it meant I could go to college for another semester without having to sit out to earn money. I have no ethical compunctions against doing so, and I've written several articles on why I believe that current U.S courts would uphold the ownership of game accounts/characters/gear/money in games were a case to be brought before them. Likewise, I've consulted a lawyer who'se been a gamer since before I was born (and im in my 20's) and who actually has a paper on the subject published in a law journal- and she agrees with my position.

 

Jagex, Zynga, Blizzard, and a few other developers have successfully won lawsuits against gold farmers. The opinion of one lawyer means nothing against actual legal precedent.

 

Now, going even more particular and addressing the "OMG gold selling so bad". It's a game, and I honestly think there is a line everyone would cross to get something in real life, were it to require giving up something against the TOS. For some that's little, a few bucks or a few hundred. For other's its in the thousands. But I don't think anyone can say "how dare you" without actually understanding another person's plight.

 

No, it's not "just a game." It's a business, one that real people work real hours in order to feed their real families.

 

Finally, on the whether or not the muting should be done. DUH NO. Jagex should have at the least made a post, if not directly said it's against the rules. If nothing else they should do what WoW does. You can't advertise gambling/a casino in public channels, but if you want to run one that's fine. The reason for this isn't even because of any direct impacts, but because it degrades the game environment (spam essentially).I find this a much more reasonable stance to take.Let people advertise/host in CCs but not out in the open.

 

Jagex have said for a very long time, as I've already said, that they don't like gambling and that they would be implementing updates to get rid of not only the gambling methods but the casino operators. It's a simple case of these people were playing with fire, despite being repeatedly warned that something would be done if they got out of hand, and now they got burned. They have no one to blame but their own egos.

 

Ultimately, I think players should be able to do anything in the game world that isn't 1.) Scamming/robbing/cheating or the like and 2.) Bug abuse (the line between bug abuse and emergent gameplay is for another time.)

 

Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here.

 

As much as I despise gamblers, i really can't condone this while it's been in the game for nearly a week and not a single announcement has been made about it on the forums. I can get on board with the idea of a "warning shot", but in a game built around interacting with others, being unable to talk for two days is a bit more than a warning, and it should at least be possible to be aware of the rule without either hearing it through rumours/hearsay or being punished for breaking it.

 

And it's not doing a good job of screwing gamblers over anyway, because now they just use Quickchat to advertise their services.

 

That is why it's called a warning shot. Judging by the response to the RSOF thread, bans will be coming next.

 

Gold farming is not the same as ownership of an account. You're literally comparing two separate and completely different arguments and using them both as the same for purpose of defending a stance.

 

As for "Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here." that's not even an argument. That's a "[bleep] off because I CBF actually defending a stance with real logic."

 

Cases against gold farmers are often, if not almost always due to a breach of the DMCA DRM clause, circumventing access control. They do NOT involve whether or not the ToS are binding or enforceable in regards to whether or not you own or only license your account.

[Sy_Accursed]

I'll be honest. I don't and never have sold RSGP, but I would in a second if it meant I could go to college for another semester without having to sit out to earn money. I have no ethical compunctions against doing so, and I've written several articles on why I believe that current U.S courts would uphold the ownership of game accounts/characters/gear/money in games were a case to be brought before them. Likewise, I've consulted a lawyer who'se been a gamer since before I was born (and im in my 20's) and who actually has a paper on the subject published in a law journal- and she agrees with my position.

 

Jagex, Zynga, Blizzard, and a few other developers have successfully won lawsuits against gold farmers. The opinion of one lawyer means nothing against actual legal precedent.

 

Now, going even more particular and addressing the "OMG gold selling so bad". It's a game, and I honestly think there is a line everyone would cross to get something in real life, were it to require giving up something against the TOS. For some that's little, a few bucks or a few hundred. For other's its in the thousands. But I don't think anyone can say "how dare you" without actually understanding another person's plight.

 

No, it's not "just a game." It's a business, one that real people work real hours in order to feed their real families.

 

Finally, on the whether or not the muting should be done. DUH NO. Jagex should have at the least made a post, if not directly said it's against the rules. If nothing else they should do what WoW does. You can't advertise gambling/a casino in public channels, but if you want to run one that's fine. The reason for this isn't even because of any direct impacts, but because it degrades the game environment (spam essentially).I find this a much more reasonable stance to take.Let people advertise/host in CCs but not out in the open.

 

Jagex have said for a very long time, as I've already said, that they don't like gambling and that they would be implementing updates to get rid of not only the gambling methods but the casino operators. It's a simple case of these people were playing with fire, despite being repeatedly warned that something would be done if they got out of hand, and now they got burned. They have no one to blame but their own egos.

 

Ultimately, I think players should be able to do anything in the game world that isn't 1.) Scamming/robbing/cheating or the like and 2.) Bug abuse (the line between bug abuse and emergent gameplay is for another time.)

 

Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here.

 

As much as I despise gamblers, i really can't condone this while it's been in the game for nearly a week and not a single announcement has been made about it on the forums. I can get on board with the idea of a "warning shot", but in a game built around interacting with others, being unable to talk for two days is a bit more than a warning, and it should at least be possible to be aware of the rule without either hearing it through rumours/hearsay or being punished for breaking it.

 

And it's not doing a good job of screwing gamblers over anyway, because now they just use Quickchat to advertise their services.

 

That is why it's called a warning shot. Judging by the response to the RSOF thread, bans will be coming next.

 

Gold farming is not the same as ownership of an account. You're literally comparing two separate and completely different arguments and using them both as the same for purpose of defending a stance.

 

As for "Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here." that's not even an argument. That's a "[bleep] off because I CBF actually defending a stance with real logic."

 

Cases against gold farmers are often, if not almost always due to a breach of the DMCA DRM clause, circumventing access control. They do NOT involve whether or not the ToS are binding or enforceable in regards to whether or not you own or only license your account.

 

Goldfarming and account ownership are related however because the goldfarming cases predominantly hinge on the fact the accounts and gold are NOT owned by the users, but by the game company and therefore it is illegal to be selling them for money.

[Omali]

Gold farming is not the same as ownership of an account. You're literally comparing two separate and completely different arguments and using them both as the same for purpose of defending a stance.

 

Yes it is. You do not own the account, nor do you own the items on it. Selling the virtual items on your account is intellectual property theft because you have no ownership of it.

 

As for "Then find another game, because like or not that's not how it works here." that's not even an argument. That's a "[bleep] off because I CBF actually defending a stance with real logic."

 

No it's an understanding that you can believe all you want that players should have the right to do whatever they want in the game, ultimately this is Jagex's game and they set the rules. Don't like it? There's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

[Hajutze]

I can't see jagex making it be player vs player though.

and if its just player vs comp it could cause inflation if people keep doubling bet every time they lose.

 

lose 1m bet

lose 2m bet

win 4m bet and make 1 mil

 

unless the % taken by the game is extremely high or chance of winning very low, both of which will discourage people from playing, it will cause inflation.

For this to work you need infinite money and time. Just add a max bet cap and there will be no problem.

[Mercifull]

Mod Mark on the flowers sticky in RS General.

Fantastic to see a healthy discussion going on about this. I've read all your posts over the weekend and theres certainly some interesting points that have been raised.

 

A few responses from me:

 

"Allow players to run chance games for each other rather than generating wealth via a NPC run game, but jagex serve as a middle man"

 

We did consider this, but there are too many potential scams with a system like that, and its difficult to know what to do if someone disconnects. We have a similar issue with some of the duel arena. I wanted to suggest a system I knew would be safe.

 

"If its NPC run then wont you just be generating wealth all the time?"

 

That depends entirely on how you implelent the project and the type of chance game we picked. Certainly I wouldnt want any game that we add to be injecting lots of coins into the economy. Averages will balance out over time too.

 

"There will always be these kinds of games, even if you stop the current ones. Focus on something else!"

 

I think that removing the mobile devices is a good first step - taking the spam away from the grand exchange. We can keep an eye out for methods (if any) that replace the flower games etc and do something about that too.

[qfc]14-15-729-64501663[/qfc]

[jayc3399]

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.

[Sy_Accursed]

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.

 

63:37 with 10m

630m eaten by losses

740m paid out.

+110m in economy

 

65:35 with 100m

6500m eaten in loses

7000m paid out.

+500m in economy.

 

80:20 with 100m (triple)

8000m eaten in loses.

6000m paid out.

-2000m in economy.

 

As you can see all bar the last one are set at odds which will cause inflation by adding gp the game.

For double payout to break even lose to win has to be 2:1 (eg 66:33) Of course 66:33 is imperfect but 66:34 will create gp by a small margin, whilst 67:33 will eat it by a small margin.

67:33 1m bet

67m eaten

66m paid out

-1mil money sink.

 

In the same fashion triple payout odds have to be 3:1 to break even (eg 75:25) quadruple payout would have to be 4:1 (80:20).

 

Even flower games use such odds I mean as I understand most hosts take Red yellow orange as hot. Purple blue and pastel as cold. With RYB and the rarer white and black always being lose. That's 6:3 which works out to as close to 66:33 as you can get - despite the 60:40 ratio always being touted as the odds.

[jayc3399]

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.

 

63:37 with 10m

630m eaten by losses

740m paid out.

+110m in economy

 

65:35 with 100m

6500m eaten in loses

7000m paid out.

+500m in economy.

 

80:20 with 100m (triple)

8000m eaten in loses.

6000m paid out.

-2000m in economy.

 

As you can see all bar the last one are set at odds which will cause inflation by adding gp the game.

For double payout to break even lose to win has to be 2:1 (eg 66:33) Of course 66:33 is imperfect but 66:34 will create gp by a small margin, whilst 67:33 will eat it by a small margin.

67:33 1m bet

67m eaten

66m paid out

-1mil money sink.

 

In the same fashion triple payout odds have to be 3:1 to break even (eg 75:25) quadruple payout would have to be 4:1 (80:20)

Like I said wasn't sure on the numbers just picked things.

 

Thanks for the math though, it proves that with some balancing you could easily make it remove money from the game.