Quote from: betong on June 18, 2017, 07:55:01 AM

Quote from: SoyLaCasa on June 18, 2017, 06:24:13 AM

Quote from: betong on June 18, 2017, 04:53:17 AM

Quote from: SoyLaCasa on June 17, 2017, 12:53:38 AM

Hi,

Although this project sounds interesting at first sight, and it's the first decentralized sports betting platform that seems to have clear goals, I have some doubts about this project being a success, besides the price of the token or the amount of money raised during the ICO.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest value seems to be the oracle masternode, where anyone holding a certain amount of tokens will be able to act as the bookmaker and earn half of the fee that bettors pay (still not sure about the exact requirements for this oracle masternode).

I will try to focus in the main aim of this company, which is to compete against existing sportsbooks, and create an edge for players to move to this platform.

There are two types of bettors, which are mug players and professionals.

The mug players will always need the following requirements for a new sportsbook:

- User friendly, easy to use interface
- Welcome bonuses. This is the typical catch that most bookies use (in many cases it means a cost for companies, due to bonus abusers).
- PROPAGANDA, and by this I mean mainstream advertising, as all the scam, worldwide known bookmakers do, which makes mugs feel their money is safe playing with them (doesn't really matter if it really is safe, the perception is key here), and they are getting the best deal (usually they are getting the worst deal, but then again, they don't care). This will be expensive, and wagerr will have to compete against billion dollar companies.
- Easy to deposit/withdraw money. Here I see the biggest problem, since mugs are not generally used to crypto, and are pretty skeptical (those who are even familiar to this industry). Even more with the volatility of the market.
- Feeling of being "safe" using the company. This again is related to propaganda, and since cryptocurrencies are not known for good things among general public, I see a very difficult task here to convince people to "risk" their money and avoid current easy-to-use options.

The professionals will need the following things:

- LOW JUICE (low fees), and therefore bigger payouts.
- LIQUIDITY, which is 100% linked to low juice (see PINNACLE business model)
- safe deposits and withdrawals
- No limits/bans on winning accounts

As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).
The fee for direct chain betting (I guess this is typical "bet against the house odds" system) is 6%, which certainly won't be even close to beating main asian bookmakers, neither in fee nor liquidity.
In case wagerr is thinking about implementing a mode where people can bet against the system, this is a huge risk, and here is why.
Most bookmakers profit from a large number of mug players, and are not able to compete against professionals. In order to still be profitable companies, what they do is limit winning accounts.
If wagerr is planning on decentralized betting, without identity verification and other KYC procedures, they need to be among the very few companies that are profitable against professionals (this would be very expensive, as they would need to hire the best traders and attract the best market makers), otherwise they will be eaten out by value bettors and arbers.

I guess you might think that decentralizing the service is an advantage against current companies, but I will explain you why I think it is not necessarily that way.
Mug players are losing players, who don't even care enough to pay attention to this (this is the vast majority of players), and as I mentioned before, they just need to be brainwashed with very expensive propaganda, welcome bonuses and user friendly interface.
Professionals currently have access to companies who offer huge limits (impossible to replicate by wagerr under their current terms) and lower fees.
They can use reputable and trusted betting agents to access anonymously to many of these companies, and even deposit and withdraw using bitcoin if they want further anonymity.

With all this being said, the cherry of the pie, which are the oracle masternode, is useless without the ability to bring money to the platform, and therefore liquidity.

By no means I'm saying that investing in this token will not be profitable in the short term, since it's a pretty hyped project, but I would not expect this company to be successful in the mid-long term under the current conditions.

As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).

you did not include overrounds in your estimates.
i'm guessing "matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%)" is what the website take from the winnings.
if this is correct, wagers take from the winnings is 2% of 2% of the winnings.

That's simply wrong, overrounds are the house edge, which they intend to make 2% on winning amount for head to head, 4% on winning amount for multi-player, and 6% on winning side for chain betting.

What might be confusing is that 2% on winning side is not always the same amount for a given stake, as it depends on the odds you bet on.

You are misleading people with this made up 2% out of 2%, and you can clearly see out of their whitepaper that fees are taken from winning side, not 2% of winning side.

"7.13 Fee Structure
Network fees are imperative for the Wagerr network to succeed long term. Where the fees go and how they are distributed to the network depends on the types of transactions and protections in place.
Bet & General Network fees
● Head to Head betting 2% winning side
● Multi-User betting 4% winning side
● Peerless Direct chain betting 6% winning side
● Network transaction fee 0.0001
● Bet Minimum of below 1 Wagerr bet fees triple"

It's still not excessive house edge, just average, with no extra value over most competitors, and a slight disadvantage against some industry leaders.
Then again, it will be hard to get general public to use cryptocurrency tokens to place their bets, at least in the short term and under wagerr's terms.

i'm saying, the 2% fee head to head of wager is one of the best if not the best in the betting world.
let me simplify,
2 equal teams, team A and B
bet 100 on wager. you win 98

in sportsbook sites to be able to beat wager, you will have see decimal odds like below
team A : 1.98
team b : 1.98
i've not seen this kind of odds in a sportsbook

in exchange sites with 1% fee to be able to beat wager, you will have see decimal odds like below
team A : 1.9898
team b : 1.9898
possible but extremely unlikely.

That's not right.

2% fee is more like 1,96 / 1,96, if what you mean is the house edge, but that only applies to chain betting, since it's where the house offers the odds for you to bet on, so at 6% it would be about 1,887 / 1,887.
Anyways, absolutely no bookie in the world applies the exact same edge to all events, and even to all markets within each event, so expect their 6% fee to be on most liquid ones.

The 2% fee on head to head and multi user means extracting that percentage from what you win (not the total payout).
Usually, if the liquidity is high enough, you can even see 1,99 / 1,99, but that is not a matter of what odds the house is offering, as it's what people are willing to pay for their choice on both sides. In this case, with odds of 1,99, saying you place a bet of 100$ and you win the bet, your fee would be (100*0,99*0,02).
In lower liquidity events you will more likely see 1,9 / 1,7 (if there are bets on both sides at all). The fee they charge would remain a 2% on winning amount, but your odds will be horrible.

I don't really care that much about the guy who just constantly writes over my comments with useless arguments, it's obvious that if he knew a thing about betting he would at least try to prove me wrong.
The problem is when people who are trying to invest their money into a project are fooled by this type of people, who are probably paid to hype the project, or fully invested in it.
Anyways, investing is a matter of analyzing where you put your money, and I hope my comments at least help people thinking about putting their money in wagerr do a little in depth research.