bustabit – The original crash game - page 109.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 05:06:41 PM

I'm surprised nobody has called JD "dishonest and shameful"... or maybe they have and I just missed the drama.

Fun fact: not a single person has ever been "margin called" on JD. Probably because the bankroll is so large compared to the size of bets that happen that there's never a significant percentage downturn in the bankroll.

Even if you're at 25x offsite, the bankroll needs to draw down 4% before anyone is margin called. The current bankroll is 19.6 million, so the site would need to lose 784,000 CLAMs to cause the riskiest investor to get margin called. That's 8 max-profit bets. (JD max profit is 0.5% of the bankroll).

It's not impossible, but it does seem pretty unlikely.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: dragonmaster2 on March 05, 2018, 04:42:05 PM

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 04:12:49 PM

I've been attempting to find a good answer to your question, and came up with a surprising realization. Your "A" guy would appear to be running a 2x kelly risk, and so we would say he has zero expected bankroll growth. We know that if the percentage you risk is twice the house edge then your expected growth is zero.

BUT... he is only risking 2x on the first bet. After that his offsite stays constant. If the house loses money, A starts risking more than 2x kelly, and if the house wins money, A finds himself risking less than 2x kelly. A isn't really using "leverage" at all. Leverage would be where he is constantly risking 2%. But this "offsite" feature means he is always risking 1% of (onsite + 50) - which is quite a different thing.

In conclusion, we can't accurately say that if you go 2x using offsite investment then you can expect 0 bankroll growth. That's not true, because kelly only talks about what happens if you are risking the same percentage of your actual bankroll on every bet, and A isn't...

Kelly is the same for both, but the chance to go bankrupt goes from 0 to X% depending on the amount of leverage.

That doesn't sound right. How can the chance of bankruptcy ever be zero?

game-protect

hero member

Activity: 1344

Merit: 507

Quote from: quickmaffs on March 05, 2018, 02:00:37 PM

There isn't a problem with the offsite investment feature. The feature itself is fine. It's just that RHavar and devans deceived investors by stating a kelly criterion that was 1/2 of what it really was while profiting greatly at their expense.

Can you quote where they stated this?

I personally do not understand why RHavar stated this if devans's statement is true:

Quote from: devans on March 02, 2018, 02:33:40 PM

Given that bustabit only started accepting investments after I acquired it from Ryan, I'm curious about why you seem so obsessed with him personally.

The only explanation I am able to see is that devans is only a front man on the papers and in reality RHavar pulls the strings.

RHavar

legendary

Activity: 1463

Merit: 1886

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 12:52:59 PM

It turns out that on average investors are 16.8x offsite-leveraged which is likely too much for lots of them, but that's their call.

It's probably not a big deal for JD, but I think that can be potentially harmful. Once the bankroll is "big enough" (which JD's clearly is) a new investor's investment isn't going to make the site any more attractive or bring in any volume (i.e. investor gains are going to be zero-sum). When investors see that the max-bets the site accept are a tiny fraction of the kelly, they'll be incentivized to increase their leverage -- effectively taking (expected) money from conservative investors (which will push them into doing the same thing).

And now you end up with a potentially pretty unstable bankroll, as the best strategy for the highly-leveraged investors it to divest their position when ever they see a whale (which ironically is what a big bankroll is for) or have a very significant risk of a whale busting them.

But as I said, probably not a big deal for JD as your bankroll is sufficiently big that even with instability (or a big margin call) it'll have no problem supporting the players you have.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: quickmaffs on March 05, 2018, 05:41:23 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 05:06:41 PM

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 04:07:14 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 01:14:14 PM

I'm overleveraged up to my ears on JD as are most investors there seeing how the bankroll exceeds CLAM supply.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you have a billion dollars worth of BTC, you could calculate what that's worth in CLAM and declare that as your "offsite" investment. It doesn't matter that there aren't enough CLAMs in the world to actually convert it to CLAMs, it's still part of your effective bankroll, which you want to risk 1% of. The "offsite investment" feature allows you to effectively use your BTC in the JD bankroll without having to even convert it to CLAM.

Fair enough. I guess I'm not overleveraged then. But what would happen if there's a margin call? Granted it may be unlikely that all investors would get margin-called at once and/or that they would actually attempt to convert BTC to CLAMs but still. I'm surprised nobody has called JD "dishonest and shameful"... or maybe they have and I just missed the drama.

And I guess I'm not leveraged on BAB either because I can get BTC by selling those JD CLAMs Grin

There's no reason to call dooglus these things. If dooglus announced 1% of house bankroll as max profit and then allowed 2% of house bankroll as max profit instead, all while taking a direct commission from the higher wagers, then yes, it would be the same.

I guess the big "/s" matching the color of your trust wasn't big enough for you? Sorry if I gave you any wrong ideas. Please focus on your BAB crusade instead, preferably in an appropriate Scam Accusations thread.

quickmaffs

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 05:06:41 PM

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 04:07:14 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 01:14:14 PM

I'm overleveraged up to my ears on JD as are most investors there seeing how the bankroll exceeds CLAM supply.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you have a billion dollars worth of BTC, you could calculate what that's worth in CLAM and declare that as your "offsite" investment. It doesn't matter that there aren't enough CLAMs in the world to actually convert it to CLAMs, it's still part of your effective bankroll, which you want to risk 1% of. The "offsite investment" feature allows you to effectively use your BTC in the JD bankroll without having to even convert it to CLAM.

Fair enough. I guess I'm not overleveraged then. But what would happen if there's a margin call? Granted it may be unlikely that all investors would get margin-called at once and/or that they would actually attempt to convert BTC to CLAMs but still. I'm surprised nobody has called JD "dishonest and shameful"... or maybe they have and I just missed the drama.

And I guess I'm not leveraged on BAB either because I can get BTC by selling those JD CLAMs Grin

There's no reason to call dooglus these things. If dooglus announced 1% of house bankroll as max profit and then allowed 2% of house bankroll as max profit instead, all while taking a direct commission from the higher wagers, then yes, it would be the same.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 04:07:14 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 01:14:14 PM

I'm overleveraged up to my ears on JD as are most investors there seeing how the bankroll exceeds CLAM supply.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you have a billion dollars worth of BTC, you could calculate what that's worth in CLAM and declare that as your "offsite" investment. It doesn't matter that there aren't enough CLAMs in the world to actually convert it to CLAMs, it's still part of your effective bankroll, which you want to risk 1% of. The "offsite investment" feature allows you to effectively use your BTC in the JD bankroll without having to even convert it to CLAM.

Fair enough. I guess I'm not overleveraged then. But what would happen if there's a margin call? Granted it may be unlikely that all investors would get margin-called at once and/or that they would actually attempt to convert BTC to CLAMs but still. I'm surprised nobody has called JD "dishonest and shameful"... or maybe they have and I just missed the drama.

And I guess I'm not leveraged on BAB either because I can get BTC by selling those JD CLAMs Grin

dragonmaster2

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Quote from: dooglus on March 05, 2018, 04:12:49 PM

I've been attempting to find a good answer to your question, and came up with a surprising realization. Your "A" guy would appear to be running a 2x kelly risk, and so we would say he has zero expected bankroll growth. We know that if the percentage you risk is twice the house edge then your expected growth is zero.

BUT... he is only risking 2x on the first bet. After that his offsite stays constant. If the house loses money, A starts risking more than 2x kelly, and if the house wins money, A finds himself risking less than 2x kelly. A isn't really using "leverage" at all. Leverage would be where he is constantly risking 2%. But this "offsite" feature means he is always risking 1% of (onsite + 50) - which is quite a different thing.

In conclusion, we can't accurately say that if you go 2x using offsite investment then you can expect 0 bankroll growth. That's not true, because kelly only talks about what happens if you are risking the same percentage of your actual bankroll on every bet, and A isn't...

Kelly is the same for both, but the chance to go bankrupt goes from 0 to X% depending on the amount of leverage. At high enough leverage, going bankrupt is almost a certainty because of variance.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: 01010100b on March 04, 2018, 12:18:02 AM

Quote from: devans on February 28, 2018, 02:39:46 AM

That is only the case for an individual investor that (ab)uses the offsite investment system to risk more than he actually has.

The offsite system is meant to allow investors to lower their counterparty risk and free up liquidity by not depositing their entire investment. I strongly recommend to only use it for that purpose. If you use the offsite system properly or don't use it at all, you never have an expectation of negative growth.

This statement is false, just think about it. Suppose there are two investors, A and B, and each have 50 btc onsite and 50 btc offsite. A is lying about it but B isn't. Why would A have -EBG but B have +EBG?

I've been attempting to find a good answer to your question, and came up with a surprising realization. Your "A" guy would appear to be running a 2x kelly risk, and so we would say he has zero expected bankroll growth. We know that if the percentage you risk is twice the house edge then your expected growth is zero.

BUT... he is only risking 2x on the first bet. After that his offsite stays constant. If the house loses money, A starts risking more than 2x kelly, and if the house wins money, A finds himself risking less than 2x kelly. A isn't really using "leverage" at all. Leverage would be where he is constantly risking 2%. But this "offsite" feature means he is always risking 1% of (onsite + 50) - which is quite a different thing.

In conclusion, we can't accurately say that if you go 2x using offsite investment then you can expect 0 bankroll growth. That's not true, because kelly only talks about what happens if you are risking the same percentage of your actual bankroll on every bet, and A isn't...

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: suchmoon on March 05, 2018, 01:14:14 PM

I'm overleveraged up to my ears on JD as are most investors there seeing how the bankroll exceeds CLAM supply.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you have a billion dollars worth of BTC, you could calculate what that's worth in CLAM and declare that as your "offsite" investment. It doesn't matter that there aren't enough CLAMs in the world to actually convert it to CLAMs, it's still part of your effective bankroll, which you want to risk 1% of. The "offsite investment" feature allows you to effectively use your BTC in the JD bankroll without having to even convert it to CLAM.

quickmaffs

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: fiscorcle on March 05, 2018, 01:33:07 PM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

Quote from: RHavar on March 04, 2018, 08:47:42 PM

So there's actually no real issue, just investors need to be aware if they're going to use the offsite feature (especially if they aren't using it as intended) it can easily backfire and the variance will take them out.

But as always, it's really great people verifying and double checking things. Especially valuable when people like Luxo42 find mistakes, which is something I always appreciate (as honestly, my math skills are a lot weaker than 01010100b's and Luxo42's, I've just been working on this problem domain for quite a while) Grin

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

I don't know about removing that feature - seems useful for those who don't fully trust BaB - lets them limit the risk of BaB absconding with their entire investment. It would seem to create some risk (to the owners of BaB) regarding investors who state large but non-existent off-site holdings

There isn't a problem with the offsite investment feature. The feature itself is fine. It's just that RHavar and devans deceived investors by stating a kelly criterion that was 1/2 of what it really was while profiting greatly at their expense.

fiscorcle

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 502

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

Quote from: RHavar on March 04, 2018, 08:47:42 PM

So there's actually no real issue, just investors need to be aware if they're going to use the offsite feature (especially if they aren't using it as intended) it can easily backfire and the variance will take them out.

But as always, it's really great people verifying and double checking things. Especially valuable when people like Luxo42 find mistakes, which is something I always appreciate (as honestly, my math skills are a lot weaker than 01010100b's and Luxo42's, I've just been working on this problem domain for quite a while) Grin

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

I don't know about removing that feature - seems useful for those who don't fully trust BaB - lets them limit the risk of BaB absconding with their entire investment. It would seem to create some risk (to the owners of BaB) regarding investors who state large but non-existent off-site holdings

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: 01010100b on March 05, 2018, 05:08:27 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

I think it would be best if they just stopped referring to it as leverage. It's that description which put me, as an investor, on the wrong track for a while. Specifically, I thought that the leverage would remain constant, however, since offsite is constant and onsite changes in response to betting, the leverage goes up and down as the game progresses.

thx for the explanation. that is exactly the point that no one understands the onsite and offsite difference or they dont want to understand and overseeing it by purpose. I am still for cancelling the offsite part

Investors who use the system properly (to reduce their counterparty risk) should not be penalized because someone might misuse it. I haven't yet seen anything about the offsite system that would warrant its removal.

Even if someone decides to use it as leverage that should still be their right. I'm overleveraged up to my ears on JD as are most investors there seeing how the bankroll exceeds CLAM supply. Not so obvious on BAB but likely similar. The risks are quite clear and simple to understand. There is no problem here.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: quickmaffs on March 04, 2018, 09:39:05 AM

Quote from: dooglus on March 03, 2018, 10:51:30 PM

Quote from: devans on March 03, 2018, 08:42:43 PM

the maximum profit per game has been lowered to 1.125 % of the bankroll

...

While they didn't come right out and admit to their mistakes, at least they're acknowledging the fact that it wasn't right the first time around by doing this.

What I do at Just-Dice is risk up to 0.5% of the bankroll per bet, so investors can play it safe with "half Kelly" if they want to, and then I allow them to use up to 25x "leverage" by declaring an "offsite" amount for those who wish to risk a full Kelly, or limit their counterparty risk.

It turns out that on average investors are 16.8x offsite-leveraged which is likely too much for lots of them, but that's their call. I don't see a good reason to force investors to always have over 1% of their coins at risk to a suitably motivated multi-accounting whale when the house edge is 1%.

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: 01010100b on March 05, 2018, 05:08:27 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

I think it would be best if they just stopped referring to it as leverage. It's that description which put me, as an investor, on the wrong track for a while. Specifically, I thought that the leverage would remain constant, however, since offsite is constant and onsite changes in response to betting, the leverage goes up and down as the game progresses.

thx for the explanation. that is exactly the point that no one understands the onsite and offsite difference or they dont want to understand and overseeing it by purpose. I am still for cancelling the offsite part

01010100b

newbie

Activity: 21

Merit: 0

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

I think it would be best if they just stopped referring to it as leverage. It's that description which put me, as an investor, on the wrong track for a while. Specifically, I thought that the leverage would remain constant, however, since offsite is constant and onsite changes in response to betting, the leverage goes up and down as the game progresses.

01010100b

newbie

Activity: 21

Merit: 0

Quote from: RHavar on March 04, 2018, 08:47:42 PM

However I think he made the same mistake I struggled with too, which was thinking that if the bankroll is -EBG that would allow a player to be +EBG.

That was indeed the core error I made with thinking this would be exploitable. I'm still going to have to wrap my head around this sometime, but that's for later.

Quote

I've just been working on this problem domain for quite a while

Yeah I'm new to this domain (until recently on BaB I never even considered anything of the sort). Even though measure theory (of which probability theory is a special case) is kind of my specialty, there's a whole lot of specific aspects to consider with applying it to a casino like Bab. Add to that that I'm mostly stoned as a goat whenever I bother with this, and the result is that I'm pretty error-prone with this

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: devans on March 05, 2018, 02:40:04 AM

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

Why? In case that didn't come across well: An investor that misuses the system by lying about how much offsite money he is prepared to risk only increases his own risk. He does not pose a danger to other investors.

Offsite investments are an amazing tool for responsible investors and using them is entirely optional. I do not believe they should be removed just because it is possible to use them improperly.

why? just to have a healthy Investor environment that would be good for the site. Investors who are misusing the system are hurting themselves and the site who gives them the option. they are actually gambling and Investors shouldnt gamble IMO

but you as the owner can do whatever you like. I dont and didnt accuse you guys because as long as the Investors are not scammed out of their investment all is fine IMO

devans

sr. member

Activity: 528

Merit: 368

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

Quote from: quickmaffs on March 04, 2018, 05:21:57 PM

(…)

very interesting posting because all the points would even fit to another site and the owners who scammed their Investors!

It's also entirely misleading and outright false in most parts. I've already responded to his claims and won't repeat myself, but I encourage anyone interested to read my previous replies in this thread.

Nearly a week after saying he would he still hasn't opened a scam accusation and instead continues trying to derail this discussion. That speaks volumes about his intentions.

Quote from: JackpotRacer on March 05, 2018, 12:13:32 AM

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

Why? In case that didn't come across well: An investor that misuses the system by lying about how much offsite money he is prepared to risk only increases his own risk. He does not pose a danger to other investors.

Offsite investments are an amazing tool for responsible investors and using them is entirely optional. I do not believe they should be removed just because it is possible to use them improperly.

JackpotRacer

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1014

All Games incl Racer and Lottery game are Closed

Quote from: quickmaffs on March 04, 2018, 05:21:57 PM

Some investors were greatly hurt by all of this.

RHavar and devans tried to cover the whole thing up and never once admitted that it could be their fault
RHavar and devans refused to make changes before, claiming there was no rhyme or reason for doing so
RHavar and devans continued to solicit for a higher bankroll, leading to higher profits for them
RHavar and devans created a predatory system where investors were punished for leaving
They used different results at different times to try and back their claims, trying to state that it applied to the entire bustabit history
They negative tagged people that spoke out about them
They resorted to insults instead of discussions
They used their friends and status to bully people
They misquoted and puts words in people's mouths in an attempt to change the narrative
They selectively answered parts of people's questions while ignoring others
They never took any replies serious and answered in the most sarcastic and condescending way, even though they are in charge of millions of dollars

The main problem is that RHavar and devans' egos are so inflated that they are willing to continue making crucial errors that negatively affect users for significant amounts of money rather than admit they made mistakes and seek a solution.

It is this reason why both RHavar and devans should both be negative tagged themselves so that investors do not fall prey to their dishonest and shameful actions.

very interesting posting because all the points would even fit to another site and the owners who scammed their Investors!

Quote from: RHavar on March 04, 2018, 08:47:42 PM

So there's actually no real issue, just investors need to be aware if they're going to use the offsite feature (especially if they aren't using it as intended) it can easily backfire and the variance will take them out.

But as always, it's really great people verifying and double checking things. Especially valuable when people like Luxo42 find mistakes, which is something I always appreciate (as honestly, my math skills are a lot weaker than 01010100b's and Luxo42's, I've just been working on this problem domain for quite a while) Grin

maybe the best would be to stop offering the offsite feature for Investors

Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 109. (Read 61162 times)