The idea is still great, but as it is now it holds no interest to me. The bets are so tiny and because of the parimutuel aspect of the site and the low userbase, any bet is basically going to be laying 1:3 or so which is horrible odds. If there were more people playing, leading to bigger pools it would be great. Good luck.
Thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated.
I would only argue with the 1:3 odds, which I'm not sure how you ended up with.
The worst case scenario would be a game with an unpredictable (50-50%) outcome - and that would still make it better than any dice sites with a house edge.
Odds are basically created by people who place bets, and you know they haven't all done their scientific research, so plenty of times you'll see games where the less likely outcome has the more bets (especially now, with bots posting bets).
Not to mention with some games, the outcome depends not just on the result, but other players' bets. I'm talking about the 'estimate' type of games (where you bet a number) and the 'sorter' type of games where even if you only get one word right in the sorting, you win everyone else's bitcoins if they scored zero.
I'm thinking I will use part of my budget to add more bot votes. I suspect most visitors are like you - it's not worth their time to play just to win small amounts (and you would definitely win considering most bets are posted randomly, by bots).
The only thing I don't get is, how is it worth anyone's time to play anything, when with most typical gambling establishments (dice, blackjack, whatever) the house wins in the long run by definition.
Personally I would much prefer to play on sites where the outcome isn't completely random and I have at least a small chance to play smart, and it's not mathematically predicted that I will be losing in the long run. Sure, maybe I make less per game, but at least I have a chance to stop playing with more money than what I started with.