Quote from: lukaexpl on June 18, 2017, 09:28:03 AM

Quote from: SoyLaCasa on June 18, 2017, 04:00:44 AM

Quote from: highaltitude20322 on June 17, 2017, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: SoyLaCasa on June 17, 2017, 07:00:01 PM

Quote from: highaltitude20322 on June 17, 2017, 06:04:09 PM

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.

The biggest issue with your post is you are wrong.. The 2% fee is against the winning payout.. MEANING that its 1% against the total bet... meaning that it absolutely either beats or at the very least ties the lowest fees out there.

Thanks for your opinion tho, but regulation will only get worse. As governments grow, their power and reach will only increase, centralized systems will be shafted first. Like it or not Wagerr is a really great use case for what is already a starving world, that in my opinion only going to get worse.

Well, my point is not wrong because most betting exchanges measure their fees either in winning part of the bet, or in the stake (or sometimes the higher of both). This is taken for granted.
Even though fee being on winning bets means the true cost is lower, it does not really mean it is 1% on payout, as that depends on the odds you are playing. Low odds will have fees under 1% of your total payout and higher odds will have higher fees.
This would be very good if it applied both to head-to-head and multi-user (twice the fee from head to head).
Take into account that existing bookies don't distinguish between these two types of bets, as your stake can be matched entirely by one player, or by as many players as it's necessary (or not every bet entirely matched).
By the way, this certainly does not beat the lowest fees in the market, and will have trouble beating highest liquidity as well.

However, what I consider to be a bigger issue about the business model is unlimited chain betting, as the system is proposing an easy way to avoid being banned.
As I mentioned before, very few bookies where you bet against the system are sharp enough to be profitable against pro players, and 99% of them avoid them by limiting accounts.
Their chain betting model has fees that are too high to compete against industry leaders, but low enough to offer value and create arbitrage opportunities.

In their white paper, they say the following:
"Peerless direct chain betting.
Peerless betting does not require a complementary transaction to forge a contract. Any bettor can initiate a contract on chain, which the Wagerr network is programmed to pay out if the bettor wins.".
This is a very risky behavior, as tokens will be generated to pay winning players, and believe me that without account limits they will most probably attract many arbitrage bettors and value investors who will make them lose money (big time).

There are still many countries where online gambling is not taxed, so decentralizing the industry will not be a fast procedure.
It's true on the other hand that regulation is horrible and will get worse for most people (ask people who use skrill and neteller how they feel about CRS and their money being safe), but in my opinion, it will be more likely to see consolidated and profitable bookies add bitcoin as payment method, and even as currency for betting, either directly or through betting agents, than a project like this or any other existing one being successful.

Anyhow, time will tell us if this project can attract at least a portion of the huge betting industry.
Let's hope some day we can see a decentralized bookie worth using, either this one or any other one, as it will be amazing news for so many people who bet on sports for a living.

A classic take from someone who trusts centralized systems. Go ahead keep all your money/fiat/bitcoin on a site that is controlled by and held by a single entity or person. If you want to roll the dice be my guest, sounds like you are a betting man as is anyhow so it makes sense. Just don't come complaining when the government freezes it, or the company just ups and walks away with it, or gets it taken from them.

This project takes advantage of the power of decentralization better than almost all that i have seen out there to date. (at least in proposal)

"If you don't hold the keys, you don't own the coin." or dollars for that matter as well...

What a bunch of nonsense. Are you even capable of reading before replying?
Who said I trust centralized systems? Did I not say, and I quote "Let's hope some day we can see a decentralized bookie worth using, either this one or any other one, as it will be amazing news for so many people who bet on sports for a living."?
Decentralized betting will be positive for absolutely every single bettor on earth, but it has to be done properly, and offer a clear edge to take out of business billion dollar companies, who spend millions on propaganda and brainwashing.

The fact that I want something to happen does not mean that I think it will happen, and that seems to be the biggest mistake you are making, mixing feelings with reason.

I find your post SoyLaCasa very thought out and valuable.
You raise valid concerns for the project.

Do not get upset by criticizing illiterates who resort to name calling like "centralists" or "fiatists" because you do not automatically swallow anything that the well intended ICO community spits out. Standard tactic of the left to silence you out as soon as you don't align with their world dogma.

I was wondering along the same lines.
Does Wagerr act as a decentralised classical bookie with set odds or a decentralised odss exchange (for example decentralised Betfair)?

Would like to see a response from Wagerr team to your concerns.

I believe they will use both, where head to head and multiplayer are in the form of an exchange (I don't really understand the need to put them as different things, rather than acting as a regular exchange), and chain betting means betting against the system.