Hey, thanks for this cool repository & accompanying video, very fun to follow along with!
I'm commenting on two things here: one is that Roobet seems to have changed their algorithm slightly, and the second is that I think there's a mistake in how you're calculating when to override the crash point with 1.
Change to the algo
In the video at 1:11 you can see that they're using a magic number, and then setting the crash point to 1 checking if it divides evenly into the hash:
const hs = parseInt(100 / 4); // <-- the magic number
if (divisible(hash, hs)) {
return 1;
}At the time of writing, that magic number is now parseInt(100 / 5), i.e. it has changed from 25 to 20. Which is interesting.
Calculation where crash point = 1
In your code, you're checking:
if (int(h, 16) % 33 == 0):
return 1I think that ought to have been if (int(h, 16) % 25) == 0):, and now it would be modulus 20 rather than 25 after their change to the algorithm. I.e. a 5% chance of going bust right at a multiplier of 1.
Hey, thanks for this cool repository & accompanying video, very fun to follow along with!
I'm commenting on two things here: one is that Roobet seems to have changed their algorithm slightly, and the second is that I think there's a mistake in how you're calculating when to override the crash point with
1.Change to the algo
In the video at 1:11 you can see that they're using a magic number, and then setting the crash point to 1 checking if it divides evenly into the hash:
At the time of writing, that magic number is now
parseInt(100 / 5), i.e. it has changed from 25 to 20. Which is interesting.Calculation where crash point = 1
In your code, you're checking:
I think that ought to have been
if (int(h, 16) % 25) == 0):, and now it would be modulus 20 rather than 25 after their change to the algorithm. I.e. a 5% chance of going bust right at a multiplier of 1.