Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 110. (Read 61394 times)

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

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.

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%.

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

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.

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.


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

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

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.



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.

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



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

Now that I think I understand what 01010100b is saying, if I understand correctly he was saying if people abuse the offsite feature and put themselves into leveraging, it can cause them to be in negative expected bankroll growth when a whale is betting (true enough) and if enough people do it, it'll put the overall bankroll in negative during a whale betting (true enough, even though it'll only affect the people who have leveraged themselves that way). 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.  Fortunately (for investors) this isn't the case, so there's no real abuse avenue.

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)  

If true, then the criminal offense of Fraud by false representation is committed!

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

My argument is that RHavar and devans lied and deceived investors about the kelly criterion that they were being exposed to.

This led to a much higher negative expected bankroll growth ratio than expected and the time-to-bust, as well as the time management window, were subject to different extremes than advertised.  

The playing level for investors was not at all the same as RHavar, despite him consistently claiming lying so.  Unless you had inside knowledge, communication, top of the pyramid dilution benefits, and access to own funds deposited like Rhavar, you were at a great disadvantage.  

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.

Exactly. ;

I have seen the site profit go low and in the chat area of the site those players are crying about their investments turning to sh*t.

But those same ones who are winning so much do comeback later on to throw away those winnings and more into the site.
This is what the site owner relies on them doing and so do those investors.

So I do not know what the argument they are having is about either.

Not sure what the argument is here? Investors who cannot or are not willing to make capital calls are essentially just gambling that variance will swing their way

Yes you are right. What is -EBG for A is really just variance for B but B keeps being at long-term +EBG as long as B actually moves his offsite to his onsite as needed. That's where my analysis went wrong, and it is hence probably not exploitable after all.

Quoting and highlighting.

You are correct: If an investor is not prepared to move his offsite investment onsite, then he potentially faces negative EBG–like A does in your example.

Consider this scenario: All investors initially set their offsite to be as high as permitted. The overwhelming majority of the bankroll is provided by investors who are not prepared to move their offsite investment onsite if necessary, e.g. because they don't actually own the coins. Only a single investor will move his offsite investment onsite before he is margin called. In this example, the majority of investors are overleveraged and can expect to be eventually margin called. The bankroll as a whole clearly has a negative EBG.

However, this risk is borne solely by the overleveraged investors. Each round, our "compliant" investor is risking 1.125 % of his total investment, which is 1.5x his expected value of 0.75 %. Therefore, he has a positive EBG for all bets, regardless of whether his fellow investors end up being margin called or not.

Eventually, the other investors will be margin called. As the total bankroll shrinks, the compliant investor's stake will increase until he is the only investor, but the risk to his bankroll will stay the same.

Since the investor will move his offsite investment onsite before he is margin called, it makes no difference whether he uses the offsite investment system or not. Not even being margin called and letting time pass before moving his offsite investment back onsite will cause him to have a negative EBG. There is an opportunity cost of being margin called, but he will continue to have a positive EBG, assuming that any sequence of EBG+ bets is also EBG+.

Surprised he didn't negative tag you and call you an idiot to try and make you just go away.

I quoted and highlighted some points made for future use.

Your argument does indeed seem pretty reasonable under this assumption, but I don't think the assumption itself holds. For instance in my investment in bustabit, I am using some offsite -- and when the whale was winning, I started moving money from offsite to onsite (by depositing). I didn't even want to risk the possibility of a margin call (as it would suck to be an investor during all the downfall and then potentially miss out on a recovery). And now the site has (more than) recovered, I have taken that money back out of the site (to lower my CP risk, and keep bitcoin where I feel they are most secure).

Further more, that's exactly what the offsite system is designed to do. You can (mis)use it as a leverage system, but it's going to have ugly properties.  I think in a perfect world bustabit would have both an offsite system (like it does) as well as a leverage system (where you can state your max risk %)

I'm surprised that nobody has accused me of being you yet.  I had a lot of similar material being written up into my scam accusation against them.

I find it weird that they keep purposely avoiding the question you seem to be asking which is what makes 10 separate negative growth bankroll scenarios turn into a positive one if all combined?