Raederz
-
Posts
1377 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Raederz
-
-
11 minutes ago, Acarus said:
' the more NPC, the lower the payment''
kinda dumb as long as u have to plan it in "$ per time" to make it efficient.
3 minutes ago, redspawn said:Well true, thing is, right now, people who go into it, are flooded with lotteries, they can't see much other than that, but this also has to do with how inactive trade corner got lately, so idk.
I see what you mean, imo, theres an illusion that lotteries makes u overvalue stuff. Just let 2 or 3 of them fails and people will behave back to normal. Regarding prices of some of them, idk how it is gonna fill.
-
1 minute ago, Acarus said:
overprice shiny leggo
well look at the bright side, the trade corner is very active rnI agree that stuff is getting way too overpriced lately. Just let these people who overprice af know by not taking their tickets, should discourage them doing it again and again.
-
3 minutes ago, redspawn said:
Isnt that a service trade corner could also offer?
Nope. Price check were not allowed on forum. And this would be really dumb to compare a price check (question-answer) to a lottery (which need organisation)
3 minutes ago, redspawn said:All fine by me, couldn't care less about that, but you barely see any trading on trade corner now, instead you se 12 lotteries or something. You want to find something interesting? Page 2 is where it's at now.
I cant find barter in the trade corner, it's been a while we should've renamed it selling corner.. nah ?
Trade corner is meant for people who are looking for any kind of stuff. You can find stuff you are looking for in selling threads, but also in lottery threads.
-
15 minutes ago, redspawn said:
It's a trade corner, not a lottery corner.
Which is why it contains selling, trading, and services as well
-
So what ?
-
Tickets are not selling well .. Special disount -50% !
Ends in 12 hours. Starts now
-
Bump :
Special rules are gone
Gave a cut to the ticket amount, from 200 to 100 !
eleine who claimed the 155 now holds the 95.
Awwww who claimed 106 now holds 96.
Still same ticket price, and 91 remaining tickets !
-
5 minutes ago, Adamesh98 said:
18-19-20-21-22,
for curiosity, if i buy 5 tickets, do i pay just 3 tickets?I think he meant that if you buy 5, you can select 2 more numbers (making it 7) but still pay for 5
-
40 minutes ago, Bearminator said:
I don't think it's good idea for obvious reason- this way we would need to determine prize. Lets give example, someone will message me with shiny Gigalith. Currently only one on gtl is for 1.5m but host wants 2.5 m total. Should I cancel it/not allow it because it's risk for the lottery to fail?
No. In lotteries, you're not buying full value of prize. You're buying one ticket.
If player would make 50m lottery for 1m shiny, obviously it wouldnt fill. He would then be asked to change amount of tickets for example.Here you got the point, moderators wont approve absurd submissions. Stuff can be overvalued, but in a certain measure. 2m5 for something listed 1m5 on gtl is not always absurd, maybe for differenciation reasons, from the prize itself, or even for the way of selling which is different, as long as people need less capital to invest in a lottery.
This rule won't make moderators "Value Judge" but "Good-Faith Judge", I hope I'm understandable on this point.
It makes the refusal pretty exceptionnal.
44 minutes ago, Bearminator said:I will tear apart this one :
What happens if a lottery takes too long to find customers ? What is "too long" ?
/ I think that 2 months of active getting players interest is enought. It's not official measure right now, depends of situation as well.
What if the host become inactive ?
Then, after we will try to reach OP asking to confirm getting money or to give at least sign if his lottery can go. If there will be not a single way of contact from him- no message, no reply- no login into game- we would simply run lottery, because it needs to be held.
What if any customer want his money back at any moment ? After a certain duration ?
I'm sorry but I don't think that one should be possible, unless host will agree in certain occasion. This can potentially bring issues with someone canceling ticket in last minute. If you want to buy tickets, you do or do not.
What if the host want to change the lottery caracteristics after it started (price and/or number of tickets available) ? What about already paid tickets then ?
I don't see issue here. If host has 100 tickets for 10m as example, then he changes it for , idk, 200 tickets but same value- then if player bought ticket nr1, he would have ticket nr 1 and 101 or whatever- because he bought % chance to get pokemon. If host would like to decrease tickets- its his right and its best for player- his %increase.
First, thank you sharing your vision.
My point here was not really to get answers, but to precise what questions we (players) want to staff to discuss about (in a private part) to lead to clear rules.
I also tried to give my vision behind the rules I suggested. I keep thinking it needs to be discussed between staff-only as long as there is no right answer, being very subjective.
On the last question, I obviously agree that no participant can be injutred by any changing in the lottery. They should most of the time keep the same chance, and if practical reason need it, it may be allowed to make them advantaged of the change.
Out of this, I think that, for logistic and practical reasons, this may be forbidden, or at least, controlled a lot and made exceptionnal.
51 minutes ago, Bearminator said:Free lottery belong in trade corner. It's trade after all. Time/ticket limit is up to host, since it's free, players can just wait for free lottery to end. They don't lose anything.
Varying price- Yes, just take yours lottery as example. You said that someone will make drawing, he gets free ticket- is it fair to people who only paid? No, but they can do garbage draw and get one too. If this would include something unethic- like "if you're on my friendlist you get free ticket" then its no-no.I think little things like drawing, or "catch this pokemon and show me (SHOW, not TRADE) is fine. I would like host to contact us to discuss it first tho.
Giving a special rule "[Some particular people] can have cheaper tickets" is not fair, because its not a special rule. But, as it's been a long discussion here page one, should we prevent hosts from giving tickets to their friend, as long as it never affects any other participant, but only reduces the hosts income ? In my opinion, it should not be forbidden, as long as giving items, pokemons, or $s to a friend is allowed.
Would be another decision if giving tickets had an impact on other participants, but this is not the case.
So, the rule I suggested as "Only [some kind of] special rule are allowed" could be concretized like "Any special rule must first be discussed with the moderator who will be the only judge, on approving it or not".
56 minutes ago, Bearminator said:I never seen lava cookie lottery, smallest one I held was for something like 300k vanity so I dont see point here.
As for shiny eevee etc- I don't see reason to limit value.My point is to make rules clear, targeting particular cases can help reducing future prospective problems.
Just by precising you give yourself the right not to approve a lottery because of it's value, you make sure people won't cry about it the day they wanna host the lava cookie stuff.
The shiny eevee exemple is because lotteries are particular in their need of comunity implication, it's rare for a lottery to only have 2 or 3 customers, and rares shinies is a market where there are a relly little amount of actors.
I see no point giving limits, but as most of the rules I suggested, I feel it wiser to say that moderator CAN use it as a refusal reason.
Btw, a 500 tickets shiny eevee lottery would not be judged the same as a 10 tickets one, even if the value is the same, we rarely see people taking 100 tickets from any lottery.
It may look like a lot of responsibilities I add to the moderator role, but in my opinion it is important, and nothing prevents him to ask advice to the rest of the staff. Btw, in most of the lotteries, there will be no need of all these judgement, they just help covering special cases.
1 hour ago, Bearminator said:Take this 20m for "10m value". It sold out. If there would be problem, tickets wouldn't sold out, he would have to change value /number of tickets and thats all.
As said above, the point is not to stop overvaluation, but absurdvaluation, if the moderator feels it can sell, then run it.
1 hour ago, Bearminator said:We will not allow canceling lotteries at the moment. Amount of checking things and sometimes misscomunication makes it really bad. If you're running lottery, you need to think how to sell tickets.
Mistakes are not always avoidable.
Canceling is sometimes the most fair issue, if only it's managed the right way. Mailing the moderator the refunding amount, and letting him refund all participants, before mailing back the prize to the host, sounds, to me, like a clean way to cancel a defective lottery.
1 hour ago, Bearminator said:He is not overpaying.
Theorically he is, in practice, this is harder to affirm. In practice, the theorical overpaying is not always something unwanted. Not everybody value everything the same way, for personal reasons, which is why non-absurd overpay is not, and should not be forbidden.
Thanks for your answer :)
-
2 hours ago, Goku said:
Increase the original prize with the amount worth 20 tickets. That'll be fair I guess
If the lottery caracteristics are still the same as the day the thread were posted, there is no adjustment to make. Being held by the host, or any other player wont change anything for the ticket value and potential.
Please dont keep answering to this, there are way enought ressources page one to understand this, which is not the original purpose of this topic.
-
This is fucking cool I cant believe Im playing on my mobile rn
Thank you soooo much devs and staff for your work and patience with all these complains !!
-
Imo host assumptions is always (before it starts) that he will sell all the tickets.
Making assumptions about a certain number of tickets selling will always be a mistake, if we can predict if customers are pushed to buy tickets or not (with values), nothing helps us predict in what proportion (theory -without psychology- will always say that either everything or nothing is likely to sell).
Now, if you refeere to a fear from possible customers to buy tickets when they are looking for some tickets, I suggested a rule that give them security, about the lottery being held, and their ticket being as efficient as promised (or more in case of host inactivity) within a month.
(See the suggestion (3), in the main post)
Such a rule may, at the same time, discourage the host on making such fanciful and kinda useless strategies, AND give the customers a better confidence in lotteries, remaining their ability to value the prize as only determinant factor of their participation.
-
1 hour ago, Anthrazit said:
If there is a limit in the amount of buyers you find for your tickets: There might be a limit in the amount of people interested in buying tickets/they might have a limit on how many tickets they all will buy. In that case creating tickets above this limit and distributing them to yourself has no negative impact on your income (as they would not have sold anyway) but still provide the positive side effects.
Number of tickets available has always been set as soon as the lottery thread is oppened. As suggested in the main post, it should be wrote clearly in rules that any lottery caracteristic can be changed without moderator approval.
If it's just about claiming unsold tickets, we're still in the situation we've been talking about.
The host gets to know the tickets wont sell, well, but he already "paid" his part, since he mailed the prize to the moderator. This risk, he took it the day he started the lottery. Now, even if he choose to make less income and hold the remaining tickets, all participants are still satisfied of what they paid for.
Idk if you've been talking about creating extra tickets (over the first set limit which is most of the time 100 or 200), then, I would advice to totally forbid this measure, as long as it directly affects already participating people.
The "will they sell" question doesnt even need to be paused. As long as the value of the prize is equal to the sum of ticket prices, then, selling or not, ticket are worth the chance they give.
We don't write it this way, but in fact, tickets represent parts of the prize, and, since the beggining of the lottery, the host owns the whole prize, and, using tickets, sell parts of it, in a divided version of it. Only point of the lottery is to give tickets a power, once they are all sold, to conclude on a winner.
(not sure if my english is understandable here, did my best)
1 hour ago, Anthrazit said:If it is difficult to find enough buyers/to sell all the tickets (in a desired timeframe or even at all)
- Promotion by artificial inflating the number of tickets sold: Having a lottery with 100 tickets, zero tickets sold might seem less attractive to participate in than one with 200 tickets where half of them are already (allegedly) sold.
- Promotion by inflating the total number of tickets available: Comparing a lottery of 200 tickets instead of 100, a participant might be inclined to buy more tickets (e.g. 20 instead of 10 to reach a desired odd to win), thus possibly enabling to sell more tickets than one normally would.
This is something I talked about in the main post, suggesting rules that lower the risks of failing lottery (by failing I mean not-selling tickets)
1 hour ago, Anthrazit said:If there are (further) biases on the part of the gamblers leading them to participate (more) in the lottery
It would be nice to get some insight here from people actually gambling in lotteries on the factors that motivate them (more/less) to buy tickets.If this question can be asked here, it is also asked a lot in real life.
Who really guess IRL lotteries are worth it in 2018 ? Nobody who is educated. But still, millions of people take part of it.
Here we're entering psychological notions I don't have, but hopes, risk aversion, fun, and addiction will be the main subjects imo.
This is kinda different in PokeMMO as long as the host pays no tax, and has no obligation to make profit. Every participant is free to judge if the ticket is worth the potential it has, and if he's willing or not to get this ticket, worth or not, for his reasons (fun, $ détachment, particular appreciation for the prize, or even profit if he finds out it's worth it, in which case he would be tempted to buy all remaining tickets (such a case happens when you look at the lottery in an investment way, and think that total ticket price > prize value)).
Mathematics help us to find out if it's a scam or not, but, as you said, the biases makes mathematics unable to give any conclusion about participants comportement.
-
Spoiler
Odds are coefficients you have to multiply to know the real values.
Machines can let customers be long term winners, casino ones are just programmed to make them lose, setting these coefficients in what makes the casino win.
Again, the odds are not rigged here. There was 20 tickets, an uniform law, and every participant got 1/20 chance per ticket.
You will never getting if you keep thinking "a chance ... a chance ... a chance .." over than "a chance", people who make profit know to interprate the random part, and here are probabilites. If you dont take it in account, dont talk about rigged stuff or not.
Dont mix "one time winning" and "long term winnnig", best way to ruin yourself.
QuoteJust curious to what evidence that my point of view is wrong
see above "if your...
First point is wrong, second is discutable (And I''d be on your side for this one, but staff is not considering lowballing is not punished, btw, for practical reasons, they're kinda right too)
-
fail to be deleted
-
Spoiler27 minutes ago, redspawn said:
People complained, they deleted literally, I got a warning and so did others, I believe, for writting something 'non related' with buying tickets twice. He might have changed, it was 1m/ticket. And even at 700k ticket, it's 14m for a 10m lottery.
Thing is, definition of scam, will be different from mouth to mouth, it's not something easily discussed.
But yeah, let's kill the discussion since we won't profit anything from continuing it.Well only ppl you can blame here are those who bought tickets because they made it legit.
Just the same as people who lowball uninformed noobs are not punihsed but in a smoother way.
Value are never easy to set, and not even same from everyones' vision.
If you wanna talk about the definition of a scam, then this lottery is not a scam
You get scammed when you're looking for a trade, and you finally dont get what you're promised to.
Here, buying one ticket is 1/20 chance to get the prize.
No matter if theres ticket blocking, a ticket IS 1/20 chance, and if you win, you actually get the prize. No scam.
Sad to ear that you prefer kill the discussion than accepting the evidence, I even gave you numbers, are you gonna say 2+2 is 5 ?
___________
If your problem is about ticket blocking :
Evidence is, ticket blocking does NOT affect lottery value.
If your problem is about tickets price regarding the prize :
Quote(1) When the host private message the moderator, can be refused, according reasons such as :
- Invaild prize
Any prize that is not adapted to lotteries. Such as "lava cookie lottery", "1*31 field egg group breeder lottery". Lotteries are an investment (in time and effort) for both the host and the moderator, it must be reserved for valuable stuff. Also should disable lotteries for stuff like shiny eevee or highly limited items. Prevents high risks of failing lottery, give legitimity to the effort given by moderators on making lotteries possible.
- Invalid price
Total price of the tickets is way too high regarding the prize. Prevents high risks of failing lottery.
- Any other reason that may give the lottery an high risk of failing.
Any refusal will be directly discussed between the moderator and the host.
this was in the main post since the beggining.
-
Spoiler38 minutes ago, redspawn said:
This is exactly why I linked that thread as an example. Guy wanted 20m for 10m worth of shinies.
Selling something over its value is not considered as scam on this forum.
And I've seen nobody complaining about his price, which already happened on other lotteries.
Also, the price I see is 700k per ticket, making it 14m total.
Maybe he changed it ? Then you could have precised it, and then, you can also note that I've already suggested a rule about it.
Spoiler36 minutes ago, Goku said:You're not getting what Redspawn said. Let me put it this way you are in a struggle to get rid of a 80mil shiny. You host this lottery and make it 100mil. 20 of your tickets is being awarded for free to teammates. This being said you are making 80 mil which was what you wanted and you also have a 20% chance to win back your shiny granted your teammates who win will give it back to you.
You also have a 80% to lose the opportunity to sell your shiny for 100m and only sell it 80m most of the time. This loss, considering coefficients, has the exact same value as what you could win. (0.8*20 = 0.2*80)
Here is a drawing that will explain stuff better. As soon as the total ticket price is over the prize value, long term profit will be positive, but changing strategies about holding tickets or not will never affect it.
Situation 1 :
Holds 20 tickets of his lottery, if he gets the shiny, then he makes it again, but sell all the tickets.
Situation 2 :
He directly sell all tickets.
We could chain the first part of situation 1 to infinite re-holding but it would just make a convergent serie, and give same long term profit. I dont wanna put this on paint but well, isnt it enought to understand ?
-
Spoiler43 minutes ago, Goku said:
So basically makes 80mil either way + chance to win back the shiny for free. This is kind of a problem lol. What if he pays for those 20 tickets? That'd be fair?
He actually "pays". By giving a chance for his shiny to be given to the winner, it corresponds to put value on all the tickets, which is why he is the paid guy, by people claiming tickets.
-
Spoiler49 minutes ago, redspawn said:
Person A, holds a 100m shiny lottery to a shiny worth 80m
wow it's different now, here must be why we disagree.
In all this thread i've been assuming that the prize is worth the TOTAL PRICE, for all tickets.
If the total price is higher than the prize value, then I see what you call a scam. It's kinda true. But still, people who claim tickets know what they buy, it's their choice to find it overvalued or not.
(btw here, the long term profit of the host still does not depend on blocking ticket or not, and will always be 20m. Because 20*1=0.2*100)
-
Spoiler
Sorry Redspawn i wont repeat myself again and again, its mathematics and without knowning you, you make me think it's not part of your life anymore. Dont want to be rude but this discussion is around a pretty trivial concept, and you're wrong about it.
2 hours ago, CZD said:I agree with redspawn though, what if someone holds a lottery and gives 90% of the tickets to themself, using alts ? there would be a 10% chance of losing ofc, and in that case, they'd only get 10% of the value, so they'd actually lose money. but 9 times out of 10 (which is rly likely to happen) they'd get easy money from the other 10% of people who actually rly bought tickets from them. AND, they'd keep the shiny...
This is the exact same as if someone bought 90 tickets.
getting 9 times of 10, 10% of the value of the gift (because he will never be paid for the 90 tickets he blocked) is, in term of long term value, the exact same as getting everytime 100% of the value.
Blocking tickets, for the host, just makes him losing time.
Just count.
By blocking 90 tickets/100 on 100 lotteries, he just makes as much profit as 10 lotteries, and loses an average of 10 prizes. The exact same as running 10 lotteries without blocking any tickets. So, same result, what is the scam ?
It well known that anything in maths related to probability causes perception biais to uninformed people. Just look at the calculus, it is the only proof.
_________________
In lotteries where ticket prices are fixed, an enlightene person would theorically either buy all tickets or none of them, because by claiming one ticket you make the assumption "The price of the ticket is worth the chance it gives me to win". Which means taking another ticket is still worth it, until there is no tickets left.
Theorically, the only question is "How is the total price, for all tickets, compared to the value of the prize ?"
But we dont act like this in real life, either because we're not informed enought, or because of emotions, or even because our main goal is not always pure profit.
What you need to know to get that what you talking about has nothing to deal with a scam or a rigged lottery, is that the "risk" is a coefficient, that needs to be affected by the value it gives, to be interpreted.
1*100 is the exact same as 2*50, and the exact same as 20*5
By giving half the tickets, you also let go half the value.
If you dont understand this, I dont know what I can do more to explain you. But I'm not the one who dont understand, I do my best to say it in english, in an understandable way for someone uninformed, but this part of what I study everyday, and it's been a while the notions here as ok for me. So ye, im not the one misunderstanding.
-
Spoiler15 hours ago, redspawn said:
You're not understanding.
What prevents me from creating an 100 ticket lottery, gifting 20 tickets to a team member, who I will then share profits win, since 20% is actually quite a big chunk, and laugh at others who wasted money? Lotteries are to easy to be rigged, if they don't require you to show you're real, or that you're really interested in it, even then, it will still be to easy to rig a lottery.
Therefor, the cash should always be sent to the moderator in charge of the lottery, and not to the person itself. Only way to make it real.Well I understand but you dont^^
Giving 20 tickets of the 100 wont change anything for all other participants. They still have the same odds to win. And if the host wants to be nice with his team members, it's his choice, because he is the only one who loses something doing this.
This is not rigged, and this is really far from what rigged means.
Maybe what you dont understand is "when you can get money, and, by your choice, you dont, it IS a loss". When the host give a ticket to a friend, it is the exact equivalent as giving him $s for him to pay the ticket.
As I already said, but maybe you did not read, theorical gains, and loss of the host, by doing it, are the exact same. If you do it in purpose to scam, you're an idiot, because the only person you scam is yourself.
Imma give you an exemple :
A guy runs 100 lotteries but always give 20 tickets (out of 100) to a friend, who give him back the prize if he wins. Each tickets cost 10k
After 100 lotteries, he will have earned 80.000.000$, and lost 80 prizes (80% of the 100 because he holds 20% of the tickets, this is the most likely and only theorically usable value)
And from the vision of a player who always buy 10 tickets, after 100 lotteries, he lost 10.000.000$ and won 10 prizes.
Now take another host who just runs 80 lotteries of the same gift, ticket number and price, but dont give anything to friends.
At the end, he earned 80.000.000$ and lost 80 prizes. Exact same as above.
And for the player, after 80 lotteries, he lost 8.000.000$ and won 8 prizes, exact same proportion.
(If this second host makes 20 more lotteries, the player also gets the exact same result as above.)
What you are talking about is not a scam. It is just a waste of time for the host, who is the only person affected.
_____________
Being rigged or not is about how the draw is done. Moderators have total power on it. One ticket gives a known chance to win the price. You don't need to know who took the others tickets, as soon as you got your ticket, giving more importance to other participants is just jealousy and/or fear of the random.
-
Spoiler17 hours ago, redspawn said:
gave it as an example. No proof they're real or not. You can literally scam people this way in a lottery, just give 20 tickets to an alt of yours, or a team member, and allow them to have a big chance of winning hte prize pool.
Huh ? The draw is made by a staff member, who holds the shinies, you know ?
Buying a ticket out of twenty is 1 chance out of 20 to get the reward, no matter the existence of the other participants or not. Big chance comes with big price, and by "giving" many tickets, you increase your "long term value" the exact same as you reduce it, only variation is on the risk.
If ticket price is 700k, and if there are 20 tickets, buying a ticket will always be a 700k "long term expected value". And if the host of the lottery wants to hold a ticket, hiding it with unknown account or not, he just pays 700k by not earning them (think about value), and for it, he gets the same chance anybody would get for that value.
To show you how absurd your complain is, just compare it to a game :
You have 99 chances out of 100 to win 1$ but 1 chance out of 100 to lose 99$, do you call it a scam ?
By taking his own tickets, the host plays the exact same game any other participant plays.
Would be absurd to call someone a scammer because he takes 90 tickets out of the 100 of your lottery. Same concept.
Only exception would be if the host put a limit on tickets you can get. Then it would create an inequality, but as I know, it's not the case here.
But well, as pointed, we can suggest the rule :
Ticket limitation is not allowed.
Because it creates irregularity in tickets value.
-
Spoiler19 hours ago, redspawn said:
Make it so that people have to post directly in the thread to proof they're real people aswell, so there's less scams like this one.
If you have anything to suggest, clearly, as a rule, feel free to do so, but why throwing accusation here ? (without proof on top of that, but if you have some, contact a moderator, dont expose them here)
-
U're my favorite meme
- WestTurtle, Toupi and Telf
-
3
Can a Subforum for lotteries be created?
in Suggestion Box
Posted
I mean, the measure "more npc, less payment" ignores time value. Farming for longer time should be more rewarded.