What is happening since a few hours ?
Could we have some information here as Bustabit can't be used at the moment ?
Thanks in advance
Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 107. (Read 61171 times)
Hi, when can we expect the site to be back online again? Thanks
Guys do not play on this garbage. There is no chance to win. The administrator has no boundaries.
rihgt,tell it to yahoo6228,cause he hasn't got your memo
and is > 140 bitcoins profit
https://bustadice.com/player/yahoo62278
Guys do not play on this garbage. There is no chance to win. The administrator has no boundaries.
Well yes...that is the general point of a casino, especially now that there is no bonus system
Even with bonus, you are going to be in deep red if you lose. Basically it served no purposes at all. It is going to be EV+ if someone actually try to chase for bonus only but given that most people dont even care about it then it would be wise to remove it. Afterall the site is now crowdfunded so site needs to win and gives profit to investor
Guys do not play on this garbage. There is no chance to win. The administrator has no boundaries.
Well yes...that is the general point of a casino, especially now that there is no bonus system
Guys do not play on this garbage. There is no chance to win. The administrator has no boundaries.
hmmm please explain a bit more, thx
Can you tell me more about "whale dodging behavior"? Hadn't found any information in JD investment topic.
JD doesn't charge for invest/divest actions, but limits the number of times you can change your "offsite" amount per day.
The idea is that same as at bustabit - you don't want investors taking an unfair share of the low-stake bet EV while avoiding over exposure to high-stake bets by adjusting their offsite amount based on who is currently playing.
Allowing people to reduce their kelly multiplier for free re-enables 'whale dodging" behavior, which the dilution fee was designed to prevent.
Can you tell me more about "whale dodging behavior"? Hadn't found any information in JD investment topic.PS finally, offsite investments looks clear
Usually the bankroll isn't being fully utilized, i.e. players aren't going for maximum profit in every round. As an investor, however, you ideally want your risk to be the Kelly criterion for optimal growth.
If players are only attempting to win 10% of the maximum profit in "slow" rounds, an investor can optimize his own bankroll growth by leveraging to 10x, meaning he will be risking the Kelly criterion again. Then, when a high roller starts playing and fully utilizing the maximum profit, the investor would stop leveraging again, thereby dodging the whale.
This is bad for the casino because it leads to a poor experience for the high roller and is arguably unfair towards the investors that aren't micromanaging their investment. Giving investing and indirectly divesting a cost disincentives "whale dodging".
Allowing people to reduce their kelly multiplier for free re-enables 'whale dodging" behavior, which the dilution fee was designed to prevent.
Can you tell me more about "whale dodging behavior"? Hadn't found any information in JD investment topic.PS finally, offsite investments looks clear
Was directed towards RHavar and devans, not you. I just used your comment to show how people trust dooglus to be a good judge on the matter.
Of course it was because your argument is towards the former owner and the current owner of the site whom he sold the site too so whatever you had found any evidence about on the old system was transitioned over to the new owner and now they need to fess up about it if not confronted to in the first place. 
I like how dooglus explained what he learned from his reading, made it a lot clearer to me too how things are actually computed mathematically in terms of how much investors really can profit from each bet depending on the parameters of the casino investment and the house edge. Would say that I've always just trusted that my money will grow in casino bankrolls bu never knew the science of how things really worked.
Let's use Dooglus as the judge on the matter.
If I can convince Dooglus that you deceived investors, you agree to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that any of you lied, you agree to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that investors were not on the same playing level as RHavar, RHavar agrees to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that your lies and deceit led to negative consequences for investors, you agree to publicly acknowledge this in a written statement.
Was not able to watch this thread, and checked it just know. I don't see your point why you commented this on my post. I only commended dooglus on how he explained how house edge and casino investments work, since I really never had the time to research how it truly ticks. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion, but I just don't see any point why you were so hostile to it.
Was directed towards RHavar and devans, not you. I just used your comment to show how people trust dooglus to be a good judge on the matter.
In the hypothetical case that true "leverage" investing is offered, how would the dilution fee work?
Would someone investing 1 BTC at 2x kelly be charged the same dilution fee as someone investing 1 BTC at 1x kelly? Or would they be charged the same amount?
Would people be allowed to change their kelly setting at will, without incurring dilution fees? Or would it work much like the "offsite" feature does at the moment?
Allowing people to reduce their kelly multiplier for free re-enables 'whale dodging" behavior, which the dilution fee was designed to prevent.
I guess the most reasonable way to work it would be to charge dilution fees on ((onsite + offsite) * kelly), since that is the effective contribution to the bankroll.
Would someone investing 1 BTC at 2x kelly be charged the same dilution fee as someone investing 1 BTC at 1x kelly? Or would they be charged the same amount?
Would people be allowed to change their kelly setting at will, without incurring dilution fees? Or would it work much like the "offsite" feature does at the moment?
Allowing people to reduce their kelly multiplier for free re-enables 'whale dodging" behavior, which the dilution fee was designed to prevent.
I guess the most reasonable way to work it would be to charge dilution fees on ((onsite + offsite) * kelly), since that is the effective contribution to the bankroll.
I like how dooglus explained what he learned from his reading, made it a lot clearer to me too how things are actually computed mathematically in terms of how much investors really can profit from each bet depending on the parameters of the casino investment and the house edge. Would say that I've always just trusted that my money will grow in casino bankrolls bu never knew the science of how things really worked.
Let's use Dooglus as the judge on the matter.
If I can convince Dooglus that you deceived investors, you agree to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that any of you lied, you agree to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that investors were not on the same playing level as RHavar, RHavar agrees to be red-tagged by everyone.
If I can convince Dooglus that your lies and deceit led to negative consequences for investors, you agree to publicly acknowledge this in a written statement.
Was not able to watch this thread, and checked it just know. I don't see your point why you commented this on my post. I only commended dooglus on how he explained how house edge and casino investments work, since I really never had the time to research how it truly ticks. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion, but I just don't see any point why you were so hostile to it.
I don't see any. I think it's a very good idea. I think "ideally" the site should probably have 4 bankrolls, one for 0.5x, 1x, 2x and 4x. (and then combine them into 1 "virtualized" bankroll). And allow people to invest into any leveraged bankroll they want. I think combined with offsite, it would be a pretty ideal system.
I'm definitely for being able to choose the max kelly risk. The only thing keeping me from investing into the site is the crazy amount of potential volatility when a whale/whales bets for max profit (as many have seen with that multi account mega whale). There are huge potential swings in the bankroll that can occur at 1.5x kelly and even at 1x kelly. I would personally like to invest at 0.5x kelly and I'm sure many investors probably feel the same.Also I think a per game max profit of 0.5x, 1x, and 1.5x kelly (current) should be sufficient.
With the current system that isn't necessary. If you have 10% of the bankroll before a bet, you still have 10% of the bankroll after the bet. The only time your percentage share changes is when people invest or divest.
Yes your % share of overall bankroll would change according to the kelly you set. The max profit would also be a variable % of overall bankroll (wouldn't really make a difference to players as they only see the max profit value). My maths are next:
Investor 1: 5 x1
Investor 2: 1 x2
Investor 3: 1 x3
Bankroll = 5*1+1*2+1*3 = 10
Bankroll's shares: investor 1 - 50%, investor 2 - 20%, investor 3 - 30%.
Casino'a wins/losses divides among investors according to their shares.
Investor 1: 5 x1
Investor 2: 1 x2
Investor 3: 1 x3
Bankroll = 5*1+1*2+1*3 = 10
Bankroll's shares: investor 1 - 50%, investor 2 - 20%, investor 3 - 30%.
Casino'a wins/losses divides among investors according to their shares.
Dividing the wins/losses among investors changes that 50/20/30 split. You have to recalculate the percentage after every bet.
With the current system that isn't necessary. If you have 10% of the bankroll before a bet, you still have 10% of the bankroll after the bet. The only time your percentage share changes is when people invest or divest.
I do not exactlly understand what is meant by a a lot of bankrolls and virtual bankroll.
Just terminology, you understand =)
I would do exactly what you say: Group all investors by their leverage amount, each of those would be a "bankroll". And then the "virtual bankroll" is the sum of all those bankrolls * the leverage. And then after each game, wins and loses are shared amongst the bankrolls according to their size relative to the "virtual bankroll"
RHavar, dooglus, is there any problems with such "real leverage" investments?
I don't see any. I think it's a very good idea. I think "ideally" the site should probably have 4 bankrolls, one for 0.5x, 1x, 2x and 4x. (and then combine them into 1 "virtualized" bankroll). And allow people to invest into any leveraged bankroll they want. I think combined with offsite, it would be a pretty ideal system.My maths are next:
Investor 1: 5 x1
Investor 2: 1 x2
Investor 3: 1 x3
Bankroll = 5*1+1*2+1*3 = 10
Bankroll's shares: investor 1 - 50%, investor 2 - 20%, investor 3 - 30%.
Casino'a wins/losses divides among investors according to their shares.
RHavar, dooglus, is there any problems with such "real leverage" investments?
I don't see any. I think it's a very good idea. I think "ideally" the site should probably have 4 bankrolls, one for 0.5x, 1x, 2x and 4x. (and then combine them into 1 "virtualized" bankroll). And allow people to invest into any leveraged bankroll they want. I think combined with offsite, it would be a pretty ideal system.
Although I think though there is a point where the bankroll gets big enough, that it's no longer a limiting factor for any whales -- and as such there's no real need to even be offering such leverage (and would be better off making sure everyone is on the lowest)
One more table.
How expected growth depends on investor's leverage and player's bet
As you can see, normal investor gain profit on whales. 4x-leverage investor do not gain profit on whales.
On other side, 4x-leverage investor gain up to 4 times more than normal investor on non-whales.
So, leverage is a mechanism for investors to focusing investments on a specific type of players. Looks very clear.
RHavar, dooglus, is there any problems with such "real leverage" investments?
How expected growth depends on investor's leverage and player's bet
As you can see, normal investor gain profit on whales. 4x-leverage investor do not gain profit on whales.
On other side, 4x-leverage investor gain up to 4 times more than normal investor on non-whales.
So, leverage is a mechanism for investors to focusing investments on a specific type of players. Looks very clear.
RHavar, dooglus, is there any problems with such "real leverage" investments?
This likely means that the "real leverage" player does worse than the fixed offsite investor in the much more common case where the player wins and loses more equally.
Shouldn't "real leverage" still do better in that scenario if the players lose slightly more than they win as expected due to house edge?
I kind of ran out of steam at that point. I can't imagine that "real leverage" is better than "offsite investing" in every case. Shouldn't there be a trade-off?
Back to the example:
A has 10 onsite and 90 offsite.
C has 10 onsite with 10x "real" leverage.
Suppose a whale plays for a long period with 50% chance of winning each bet. All bets are the maximum, aiming to win 1% of the bankroll. The payout when he wins is 1.98x (1% house edge), and he wins and loses the same amount of bets (as he is expected to do, long term). Let's call the effective bankroll "B".
50% of the time the player wins 1% of the bankroll: B/100. When this happens, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/100, and C's is multiplied by 90/100.
The other 50% of the time the player loses his stake. He's aiming to profit by B/100, with a payout multiplier of 1.98x, so he's risking and losing B/98. When this happens, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/98, and C's is multiplied by 108/98.
Since the whale wins and loses the same number of bets, we can pair these bets. Each pair consists of one win and one loss.
For each pair, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/100 and 99/98, for a net growth factor of 99/100 * 99/98 = 9801/9800 ~= 1.0001x
And C's effective bankroll is multiplied by 90/100 and 108/98, for a net growth factor of 90/100 * 108/98 = 9720 / 9800 ~= 0.9918x
And so we see that my intuition was correct, and that "real" leverage is worse than this "offsite investment" thing. The "offsite investment" has a (small but) positive expected bankroll growth whereas the "real leverage" expects to lose almost 1% of the bankroll for every pair of (1 win + 1 lose) bets.
But leverage multiplier should be limited!
For max win = 1KK max leverage = 2x.
For max win = 0.5KK max leverage = 4x.
Investor with max leverage is EBG 0+ always.
When player is whale, regular investor's EBG+, max leverage investor's EBG-zero.
But when player is not whale, both EBG are positive. And regular investor's EBG is lower than max leverage investor's EBG. So, leverage works.
Therefore, "real leverage investment" properly works in all cases. But "offsite investement" not. Or am I wrong?
Jump to: