Personal complaint lol

[TurboGenius]

I still don't get the ranking system.

The "goal" is to bet the least amount and win the most - over time
I don't see the value given to someone who bet 1/2 million $ and is negative (- 1.0 winrate).
How does that rank higher than someone who bets small and wins constantly over time and is positive winrate ?
The ranking should be thought out differently -
I still believe everyone under 1.0 should be ranked below anyone "above" 1.0 or better.
Everyone below 1.0 should be ranked by how close they are to breaking even -
Everyone above 1.0 should be ranked by number of spins played and "balance".
Just my opinion, perhaps I just don't get it.

My serious "TurboGenius" account is apparently stuck at 28th place - even though I have kept it over 1.0 - have played
a good number of spins and betting low amounts while keeping my profit per spin average around +3.5 units per spin played.
I can look up the list and see icashbot for example (just for example lol) having played 1/2 the number of spins
that I have - in the negative after betting $519,850.00 with a winrate of 0.983 / $8,700.00 in the hole
So this ranks 6th and my account ranks 28th
Just complaining - I think we're way off track of what's important here.
The least amount bet (risk) with the most profit (profit) over time is how we beat the game.
Would the serious gambler look at someone who throws 1/2 million on the table in 226 spins and is negative
as higher ranked as a player at 504 spins making 3 units per spin average profit ?

As someone on the game site said - once you're so far in the hole, there's no way out. With the 100.00 per number high bet amount, no player who is negative can make up that amount in order to reach 1.0 again.
Why isn't the "Balance" just shown as a negative number then ? It goes back to the "bankroll" vs "balance" suggestion
I had before. The ranking should show the "Balance" negative or positive taking into account bankroll resets, etc.
And the player should have "Bankrolls" available while they play - which the Balance would reflect as they play obviously.

[psimoes]

I agree it doesn´t make much sense.

IMO it ought to be something simple: Balance, Number of spins played, and just for appreciation Amount bet vs. Amount won.

First Bankroll of 1000u is given to you. Balance is Zero. Everytime it gets a reset because you ran out of funds, you´re in debt, and a negative Balance should show this.

Example:

                       Start: BR: 1000 - Bal:  000000 - SP: 00000 - AB: 000000 - AW: 0000000

Bet and win on 1DZ: BR: 1100 - Bal:+000100 - SP: 00001 - AB: 000050 - AW: 0000100

Also should a higher number of spins played  necessarily add to some winrate? It just shows IRL you´re spending too much time in the Casino. Seriously if you are 500 up after 3800 spins you´re not that much of a winner.

[Blood Angel]

Seriously if you are 500 up after 3800 spins you´re not that much of a winner.

I think that rather  depends on how your playing... risk to reward.

[TurboGenius]

I think that rather  depends on how your playing... risk to reward.

Anyone over 1.0 after X amount of spins played is a winner really -
Then you look at how much a player bet and their balance in order to rank accordingly (IMO)
I would say that 500 profit after 3800 spins like psi said is borderline -
but I've seen for example (looks again) -
21.   phi   1000   114   44555   79590   1.78
this makes no sense lol.
How does one bet $44,555.00 and win $79.590.00 and have 1,000.00 bankroll ? It must mean resets, but regardless -
Some kind of reworking of the ranking process is in order or else everyone is simply confused and the ranking doesn't mean much.

[psimoes]

@Blood Angel It´s not that, unless said player is winning constantly, like 1.3 units  every 10 spins without drawdowns...

[psimoes]

You can see by my account. I´m using MPR for system testing since my RX expired.

14.   psimoes   1008   2264   1505749   1399850   0.9296702

How on Earth I´m at 14th is beyond me.

[TurboGenius]

You can see by my account. I´m using MPR for system testing since my RX expired.

14.   psimoes   1008   2264   1505749   1399850   0.9296702

How on Earth I´m at 14th is beyond me.

It's probably because of the high amount bet. For some reason the ranking puts you higher if you bet more.
Completely opposite of what a typical gambler would do - bet small and win big, less risk and high payoff.
Maybe it will get resolved, maybe not - either way it is fun and addictive of course as roulette should be lol

[Priyanka]

either way it is fun

That's what keeps one going heh....

[Steve]

Turbo, The algorithm does put higher win rates at the top, UNLESS the player has bet and played significantly less. This prevents short term winners from ranking high. And players with the highest win rate with enough bets and spins are at the top.

It is easy to get a high win rate over fewer spins. But harder to get high win rate over more spins. Compare these players:

Player A: Win rate 1.1 with lots of spins

Player B: Win rate 0.99 with even more spins than player A

Player C: Win rate 2.5 with not many spins

The average amount bet and spins player, with all players, is in the ranking algorithm. The chances are player A with rank first, then B, then C.

I understand your point but player C should not rank higher because it would be easier to achieve their results than what player A achieved. The algorithm gives higher rank to players with results that are harder to achieve. Isnt that how it should be?

It may seem counterintuitive to rank a 0.99 player higher than a 2.5 player, but 2.5 is easier to achieve if you play fewer spins. What you are suggesting is to still rank higher the players with higher win rate. But if we do that, then we have the bigger problem of giving higher rank to players that havent played over a large enough sample.

And if we capped the variables of spins played and amount bet, then a player could sit on a 1.2 win rate with $300,000 bet and 1,000 spins played, with a result all from luck. But another player may have a 1.1 win rate with $10m and 50,000 spins bet with a genuinely effective system, but they would never beat the other player... despite having the better system.

In your example with icashbot, you have lower win rate and much less bet, so you will of course rank lower. You need both high amount bet and high amount of spins, in combination with high win rate.

Balance isnt shown as a negative number because it wouldnt indicate how good a system was. One player could have -$100,000 and another with -$10,000, but both from the same amount of spins and amount bet. So running bankroll alone wont tell the whole story. Besides we already have total bet and total won.

It comes back to the important variables of win rate, amount wagered, and amount of spins. You need all three in the equation, and thats what the algorithm uses. Again the algorithm gives higher rank to players with results that are harder to achieve - ie less likely to occur for amount bet and soins played, even if their win rate is below 1.0.

If you have a better algorithm in mind, please give the equation and explanation for discussion. Whether or not it is changed depends on what everyone wants.

If we automatically put players with win rate of 1.0 and above at the top, then sorted them, then a player with 0.99 win rate but billions bet and millions of spins may have a system that changes the odds, but still they'll never beat a player with a 1.000001 win rate that only bet on 5 spins. In any case, the algorithm needs to be dynamic and shouldnt segregate groups of players, or it creates new problems.

[Steve]

Also before we implemented the algorithm, i made it known for criticism and suggestions. If anyone wants it changed, suggest a mathematical equation. An actual algorithm that can be coded. An idea or concept alone cant be coded. And keep in mind if you change something, you create a new set of problems.

The problem with the current algorith is more perception. Like why should a 0.99 win rate rank higher than 1.1? Again its because, with all important variables considered, the player with 0.99 has achieved results that are harder to achieve.... whether by luck or a better system.

But again if someone can suggest another algorithm, and guve the actual equation, then we can simulate it in excel and see if we like that one better. But it must calculate based on amount of spins, amount bet, and win rate. Short term luck with small bets will mean more lucky players will rank. It may be more fun, but less realistic.

[Steve]

Another thing to consider is on the leaderboard, notice most of the players with larger win rates are at the bottom, BUT theyve played much fewer spins. Are their results easier or more difficult to achieve than say maestro who has played heaps and is just below breaking even?

Test for yourself and youll find rarely youll break even over thousands of spins. But often you will have a high win rate over fewer spins.

[TurboGenius]

I'll post later how the winrate should be calculated - the way it's being done now isn't taking some important things into consideration - one reason why I wanted "spins bet on" recorded or in the rankings.
When I have time later I'll post it - RX has it perfect already lol - maybe I can use that as an example when I explain it

[Bayes]

I don't know how the rating system works for the game - is it posted somewhere?

One way would be to do a simple standard deviation or z-score, which does take account of the number of spins played. I'll wait to see what Turbo says, but I think RX uses it.

[maestro]

i rather ask Steve to put win rate for everyone above 3.0000 and stop wasting money on coder and all that...everyone happy winner,pockets full no money waste...

[Tamino]

I  am registered but when I  am trying to place a bet the site turns  into a green background.


Some fun. More interesting for  me  is dublinbet.com.


What`s the idea for creating multi player feature anyway?


Puzzled.