So, my idea would be against rules because there would still be a buy-in, but a casino with a fixed amount to be paid (buy-in) is allowed? This sounds a bit incoherent
I'm not saying that it is the sole factor in what determines a lottery, but it is one of the things which would lead to something being a lottery, yes. I had edited my post to clarify what I meant before you replied - apologies.
raffle = lottery A casino game is different than a lottery because a lottery can have an unknown prize/buy in. That means it's much harder to control and regulate, vs a casino with fixed odds and set prices.
So, lets say I make a game with a max of 10 people and a min of 10 people (only accepting if 10 people want to join in.), I tell people what they get if they win, And they all pay me X ecd to join. Based off what I understand from your post, you are saying this is legal.
As these are seem most likely illegal imo, I am just going to tag @MadMonster_ . Also sorry, could not figger out a way to get these in a screen shot for a complaint. (and yes, I did google how to do so.)
You said that the fixed amount would not be a real problem. If calling it "lottery" or "raffle" would be a problem, one could just call that "babblebabble", problem solved. So my understanding is that the very only real problem is 1v1 vs 1vx (and therefore the fact that both the pay-out and the probability are not fixed). Therefore: if I built an in-game random number generator and had people bet on the numbers of their choice, one people a time, that would be allowed? The would just bet on numbers instead of, say, colored wool blocks. @a18greek18 I'm ignoring your comments. You are clearly begging for a complaint for being an asshole, but I won't give you this pleasure.
Provided you could build an in-game random number generator (no idea if this possible, I don't know anything about redstone/I am not that creative lol), then I see no reason why this wouldn't be allowed. As you said, this would be the same of betting on the colour of wool blocks. This isnt a lottery, so wouldn't fall within what is prohibited from the rules.
Dccciz specifically said a lottery *can* have random odds. Not that it always does. A raffle/lottery is where users buy chances and in some cases, poll their money in, into a common prize. Need an example? "Hey, give me $100 for a chance to win $100,000 at a drawing!" - Illegal Player Run lottery. "Hey, bet on a wool color - If the dispenser shoots that color out, I'll give you twice as much as you betted!" - Legal Player Run Casino Game.
So "Hey, give me $100 for a 0,08% chance to win $100,000 at a drawing!" would be legal, in my understanding. Right, @Dewsy92? (sorry, I'm tagging you because you seem to be the only one who has an understanding of this and is trying to make things clear instead of, say, trolling). About your puzzlement, Yes, it is possible. I've successfully built in a local world a working random binary number generator a few days ago, that doesn't make use of any ECC-prohibited block (such as pistons, hoppers, etc). Just dispensers, water and redstone circuitry. It works flawlessly
I'm pretty sure I'm not trolling in this thread. Anyway, no that wouldn't be legal - Same concept in the end, really. The only reason I didn't include the chance part was that I didn't see the need to, and after all, that example is a drawing, and your odds keep getting lower as more players buy chances.
What don't you understand of "give me $100 for a 0,08% chance"? 0,08% is a fixed number. It doesn't change as more people buy chances, because there's no "more people" buying chances. It's just me and the player who makes the bet. That's why I specified a particular, fixed, probability.
If this was the case, I would think that is legal. idk the odds of say, a mine cart landing on a block, but that is a fixed odd. (assuming nothing extra is thrown in there, say, bumping the cart.)
You quoted my post, so I thought you were using my example. Anyway, yes, that would be legal. It's just a casino game with fixed odds where you bet $100 for a chance to win a $100,000 prize (You need a way on vanilla MC to determine who wins the bet though with those chances.)
Ok, we had a bit of a misunderstanding, but it seems we're starting to agree at some point, finally But now I want to make some more examples then. I will number them, so you can address each one. 1) Nothing new here, we already agreed on this one, however let's rephrase it for the sake of clarity. I run, as you said, a casino game with fixed odds where you bet $100 for a 0.08% chance to win a $100k prize. Say that I have an in-game random number generator that generates a number between 1 and 1250 (both included). That means each number has a 1/1250 probability of occurrence, which makes that a 0.08% chance. The player pays $100 and chooses to bet on, say, number 25. I click a button drawing a number: if I draw 25, I pay $100k to the user. Else, nothing. Perfectly legit. So far, so good. Let's change something. 2) Now I tell the player that, if he wants, he can bet on two numbers, paying $200. He bets on, say, 34 and 175. I click the button once again, drawing a number: if either 34 or 175 is drawn, I pay $100k. Else, nothing. The player is basically paying $200 for a 0.16% (double 0.08%) chance to win $100k. We're just playing two games at the same time, but sparing time with a single drawing. Would that be legal? Based on my understanding of this whole conversation, I would strongly say so, however I'd like to receive a confirmation that I'm not alone. 3) Assuming that (2) would be legal, I would assume for induction that it would be legal even if the player bet on, say, 235 different numbers, paying a total of $23'500. 4) Now I have two players. I don't want to waste time, so I make them play at the same time: player A bets on 56, player B bets on 44. If I draw 56, I pay $100k to player A; if I draw 44, I pay $100k to player B; else, nothing. I'm just sparing time using a single drawing, but the two players are totally not interacting at all. Each one is still paying $100 for a 0.08% chance at winning $100k. Still legal? I would strongly think so, but please confirm. 5) Again two players, but this time they both bet on number 84. If I draw 84, I pay both player A and player B, 100k each; else, nothing. They are again playing with no interaction, each one making his own 0.08% bet on winning $100k. Still legal? Again I think so, please confirm. 6) For induction, even 26 players at the same time, betting on equal/different numbers would be legit. 7) I have many different players, like (6), each one betting on a different multitude of numbers, like (3). Again, I assume still legit. Do we agree that (7) is legit? If not, please tell me at which point we stopped to agree. Thanks! P.S.: I'm probably going against my (future?) interests, but I'd like to point out that in 4/9 color-wool win-double-what-you-bet casino games the expected value is ~0.89 and in server lotto it's 0.85, both higher than my 0.8 example
You said 0.08% chance of winning. The reason he said he'd be playing all day is because to statistically win the 100k he'd only have to pay 92k. Statistically he would be making an 8.7% profit. Your example would thus have a value of 1.087, thus, you, the casino, would play at a loss.
