Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 115. (Read 61394 times)

Clearly, Daniel has answered your question, he literally says "If your argument boils down to "I thought player meant human, not account" then it's a pretty weak one. "

Ryan answered your question too, players can have multiple accounts if they want to, heck what if that whales comes again opens 5 accounts and bet at 100 btc at the same time.

Let's make it more simpler, you can only bet 1% of the BR for each player, meaning account, would it be against the law for me to open 10 accounts and bet on all of them at once ( 1% of the BR ) each bet.

No, because the round would hit max profit, saving investors from the whales eating it up the bankroll (1.5%) ?? So, the last pages of threads really confused me from your part tbh.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Most likely the site will continue to profit overall with swings up and down along the way. It's possible that there will be a downswing large enough to cause a 2:1 leverage investor to lose their position, but "most likely" it won't happen, and so "most likely" the 2:1 leverage investor will do better than an investor with no leverage.

Or am I missing something?

I'm not saying there's no risk, but it's more like a small risk of catastrophe than a big risk of small loss.

As an analogy, a risky home owner might decide not to buy fire insurance. You would want to warn them that it's a risky move, but to tell them that they will "most likely" end up worse off that someone who did buy the insurance wouldn't be correct. Most homes don't burn down, and so in most cases paying for insurance is a waste of money.


Or if you understand the risks, and want a higher risk, higher reward investment, right?

I'm also a bit confused by these two apparently contradictory statements you made:


and:


If 2:1 means offsite amount is same as onsite amount, and 2:1 is the limit, how could he have 20 offsite and only 10 onsite?

Cheese and Rice are you guys scumbags. 

Clearly I posted that when the site was NEGATIVE 550 Bitcoin (over 5 Million dollars) all while you were in profit in excess of 1 Million dollars.  Now you're trying to spin it like I'm talking about it now and because the profit has temporarily moved up, you guys try to defend yourselves by saying look the other way and ignore our lies because the bankroll is now positive.

I'll get to your other bullshit later.  You guys made several lies throughout this thread.  The fact remains you guys deceived investors about the potential risk and did not attempt to remedy the situation and directly profited off of it. 

Leverage of 2:1 means that your onsite investment can "control" a total investment twice its size. In other words, your offsite can be up to the size of your onsite (10 BTC in your example).

It is worth mentioning that while it might be tempting to set your offsite to something higher than you actually have, by doing so you would most likely end up earning less than you would otherwise. I recommend only investing offsite if you actually have the funds and are prepared to deposit them quickly in order to avoid a margin call if necessary.

Assuming your onsite is 10 BTC, your offsite is 20 BTC and the total bankroll is initially 3000 BTC, you will be margin called if the bankroll reaches approximately 2,030 BTC. At this point the remainder of your onsite investment can no longer cover the risk of a single round.


That's right, just deposit as you would normally and then add to the bankroll under Bankroll > Change Bankroll.

Your profit isn't added to your account's balance directly. Instead your stake in the bankroll simply becomes worth more. You can divest to realize your profits at any time.

Guys, I am new to this and really want to invest some. So if the margin is 2:1, it means I can place 20 BTC onsite, and 10 BTC offsite right? Let say the current Bank Roll is 3000 BTC, I will get margin call at 1000 BTC or -2000 BTC profit, right?

So let assume today profit is 100 BTC, so I will get 100*(30/3000) = 1BTC, right? (I understand that the commission is temporary 0% by now, but may change later)

In addition, I need to deposit first via CASHIER and then go to BANK ROLL to invest, right?

Thank you so much!

So, now that you've been proved to have been lying and your attempt to discredit me by insulting me has not worked, you run away?

Not only are you a dishonest and shameful human being, you are a coward and a criminal.

I did not "force investors into getting margin called". In fact, I recently lowered the allowed leverage to 2:1 to help prevent that from happening. In any case, an investor worried about margin calls can simply opt not to use the offsite system at all. No investor is forced to use it. But it's a moot point because the quote is from bustadice, not bustabit.



The FAQ is very clear on the risk per round being 1.5 % of the bankroll. See the section on the bankroll and the section on forced cash-outs. If your argument boils down to "I thought player meant human, not account" then it's a pretty weak one.

As I have explained in my previous post, it's not necessary to prevent it from happening. Again: The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.



How can you possibly claim that I've "cost investors millions of dollars" when bustabit investors are up nearly $3 million at current Bitcoin prices?

Nope. It's just your reading comprehension sucks.


Devans said "the most a single player can win"  ... he is talking about max profit, and I said "the max bet" referring to the most you can bet at once.

That's why bustadice only restricts the max profit because each bet is "single player", while bustabit needs to restrict both to protect both investors and not ruin the playing experience for other players.

Anyway, I really don't want to waste more energy on this. I'll let someone else waste their time with you

It's not irrelevant at all.  My problem is that you lied.  My problem is that in an attempt to cover up this lie, you tried to discredit me.  You are a dishonest and shameful human being.







It's clear as day that these are totally different things. Thanks for proving my point. 

I would have thought the answer is pretty obvious. Based on the betting, I assume it was a single person (although I have no insider knowledge that would allow me to verify that) who was consistently betting more than 1% of the bankroll amount. It's just that site never promised to stop it, and that it's irrelevant for the reasons I explained.

I really don't understand what your problem is, especially considering how well investors have been done (and currently have totally commission free earnings)



Forgot to switch accounts?

You typed all of this up without even answering the question, which tells me that you just plan to ignore it, hoping it will go away.  You know I am right and you not denying it proves it.

tldr; RHavar has lied multiple times.  quickmaffs has not.

Just to be clear, I didn't allow anything. I am just a passive investor there, it's Daniel who is the owner.

And secondly, if you read the FAQ and terms you would see that the site never deviated from what it promised. I guess there's some ambiguity on the term "player" as you could interpret it to mean "person" or you could interpret it to be "bustabit account". However, bustabit has had a long standing policy of allowing multiple accounts for a single person (doing anything differently would imho be kind of crazy, as it's a policy that's impossible to enforce and results in a lot of false-positives like when people from the same house hold are players)

But the reality is it doesn't matter. Take a look at bustadice.com for instance, which operates in virtually the same way with a similar size bankroll and players are free to bet up to like 2000 BTC if they want. It would actually be advantageous to bustabit and investors if bustabit allowed the same thing (after all, if someone bets 1000 BTC in a single game, that's 10 BTC of EV) but the entire reason that bustabit doesn't allow it is to protect other players. Whales that bet a lot of money are able to drive the "forced cashout point" down really low, which can really negatively impact other people who were hoping to aim at higher multiples.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

RHavar had the audacity to lie about me, lie about what I had said, and insult me.  I'd like it for him to answer for himself.  Thank you.

0.75%/1% is the max bet per account. 1.5% is the max bet per game. This was known since the beginning of V2.

Furthermore, a player isn't limited to playing on one account, that's been known since V1 and hasn't changed for V2.

You claim they are "lying", but they never claimed that 1% is the max bet a single person over multiple accounts can hit. That doesn't even make sense with the current game logic, and I can't even begin to think how that would even be possible.

More lies.  You think you can try to change my narrative, put words in my mouth, and insult me to try and cover this up?  You are clearly a dishonest person. 

Let's circle back to this later and remain focused on my one claim.

The whale (singular), as quoted by you, was betting maximum bets. 

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

thx for explaining

luckily I understand variance

congrats to Investors and owner for 280 BTC profit

The guy is just an idiot, I am investing on the same terms as everyone else. Ironically the whale just busted and everyone (including me) in the bankroll should now be at a considerable profit. People like quickmaffs take the term "the house always wins" too literally, invest and then start crying at the slightest down turn in profit.

Some thing I used to always tell players was "the casino isn't a charity" when they thought there was free money to be had from gambling, but the same really can be said for investors. The site isn't giving money to investors as some act of kindness, it is paying them in +EV to accept a lot of risk and eat a lot of variance.

Anyway, as of now investors are up 280 BTC, I doubt anyone has cause for complaint 

sorry I dont understand what you mean. please be so kind and explain why you think that RHavar did not have same risk or had less risk than other Investors?

thx

It was made pretty clear that the onsite/offsite is meant to represent your investment onsite and offsite. Pretty sure both Daniel and Ryan also made it clear that you probably shouldn't set the offsite to something you don't have, otherwise you would be over-risking yourself.

A single player/account can only win 0.75/1% of the bankroll before automatically being cashed out. It was always clear that the max profit for the entire game was 1.5%, before everyone is cashed out. This info has always been in the FAQs.

You have forced investors into getting margin called by misrepresenting the kelly criterion exposure, even though you say "bustadice[/bustabit] keeps track of your offsite investment and automatically adjusts your leverage to ensure that you are always exposed to the optimal amount of risk.".  This is a lie.

You claimed that a single player could only bet 1% of the bankroll, when in fact, a player can bet over three accounts (ie: whatevs, whatevvs, whatevvs) and win up to 1.5% of the bankroll.

You've taken no steps to prevent this from happening.  You have not warned investors that this has been actively taken place for a while and that their offsite investments are exposed to higher criterion levels that they agreed to based on your words lie!

You and RHavar keep lying and you've cost investors millions of dollars while you have profited over a million dollars yourself.