Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 33. (Read 61171 times)

I strongly consider removing (parts of) my investment simply because my EV is going to be much lower without the offsite investment. I know some other bankroll investors who feel the same way.

Yes, I know that I can just deposit the offsite investment and put it in the bankroll. Third party risk is already high enough, I still wanna sleep at night.

edit: and FWIW I don't know investors who also gamble at bustabit.

I don't see any reason why the bankroll would become smaller than 5,000 BTC. At that size the commission rate is the same as it is now and investors are currently happy to be invested. A max profit of 50 BTC is still significantly higher than that of any other Bitcoin casino I'm aware of. Even WangTang_V2, the largest high roller in bustabit's recent history, only placed four bets that wouldn't have been supported by that bankroll.

In my experience high rollers are more concerned with the wager limit–which would technically still be 5,000 BTC in the scenario above–than the max profit. Of course I might be wrong and bustabit might lose out on a high roller that wanted to win 70 BTC per bet instead of 50 BTC, but that's a possibility I'm willing to accept.



When I acquired bustabit in 2018 I started using bustadice's cold wallet (2-of-3 multisig with Ryan and a "backup" party) to store most of its funds as well. Maybe I should have mentioned that to Ryan, but as he mentioned as long as the cold wallet holds enough funds to cover bustadice's liabilities it doesn't really matter to him in his role as bustadice's auditor.



That's correct IMO. With some exceptions (e.g. WangTang_V2 said he was a bankroll investor in the past) I suspect there is very little overlap between bankroll investors and players.



Don't get me wrong: I am not complaining about bustabit not being listed on most of these sites. I understand why and don't expect them to do anything differently. I merely pointed out to two players why they can't expect unbiased reviews from these sites because of the conflict of interest that they may not have been aware of. I'm not sure why you consider that controversial :/

People understood you, even though you are trying to avoid the topic as much as you possibly can, we really really REALLY understand you. The problem here is that you ignore what the other part people are saying. We agree that "here are the greatest casinos" lists that is basically paid advertisement and affiliate, if a review website is getting paid for giving good ranking that is bad, we all agree with that.

However the part where you keep ignoring and keep not responding (and neither devans for that matter) is the simple fact that they also do not have to list all the good ones neither, if you have no affiliate, or you do not pay, that means they do not have to list you neither, they could simply act as if you never existed if they want to, that is their own business decision.

I'd guess the number of investors with >0.5 btc invested who are also regular players is somewhere below 10%. Makes it *extremely* -ev to divest and reinvest in bankroll frequently, so you'd have to just be  withdrawing every so often to bet, which I'm sure happens just at a low frequency.

Does anybody know what proportion of bankroll investors are actually playing and betting at Bustabit? If as an example devans (however unlikely) decided to return the bankroll and fund the site himself, how many of those bankroll investors that play there because they have invested - would stop betting there?

If for example 50% of all users betting at Bustabit are bankroll investors then there would be a large chunk of those that would stop betting there if they withdrew their bankroll, right? So would the website be as profitable and successful without the present bankroll structure? I think the status quo suits everybody so there is no need to change anything.

I don't think that's the complaint. At least my problem with most casino review/comparison sites is they pretend to be a list of "the best casinos for you to play at" but are in reality are a list of "these casinos make us the most money". Often those two lists are wildly divergent, to the point some of the biggest casino review sites literally knowingly promote some of the most worst casinos out there.

All this talk of advertisement has people missing the main point: When you run a crowd-funded bankroll dice/crash site, the most effective marketing you can have is having the largest bankroll/betting limits/# of investors. It's an immediate boost to credibility and bankroll investors act as co-owners of sorts driving traffic to the site since it's in their best interest - and thereby not pushing/promoting other sites where they deem their investment to be more profitable. If, for example, Daniel decided tomorrow to eliminate bankroll investors and fund the site himself, it would have a large detrimental affect on the betting volume on the site if all other factors remained the same. As long as he has the biggest bankroll and largest # of investors, Bustabit will continue to crush it.

No one knows (except daniel, admin of bustabit). I thought he will keep betting on Wangtang_V6 new account around 2 weeks ago, but until now it didn't made any bet after profited 1.5 btc. For sure anyone who have lose 297 bitcoins won't touch gambling activity for a while, doesn't matter he has lot of bitcoins or not.

it's a business decision, and considering how much casinos spend on affiliates, SEO, and player retention I think it is a legitimate strategy. It saves a lot of money that you can spend on other things, for example working on a great product.

I don't understand the "no one advertises for free for us" complaints though.

Considering how extremely profitable it is to run this casino, it seems hard to justify not trying to spend some money on advertising. If it doesn't work out, it can be stopped, but it seems like it hasn't been tried, or at least for years.

I don't know what there is to discuss really. If you spent money on advertisement you get more advertisement than someone who doesn't spend money on it.

That's just how it is, no reason to complain about it. At least you have extra money in your pocket that you can spend on other things

Anyone knows what happened with the Wang Tang dude? I am very curious about him and what happened with him. Last we heard or seen of him was the fact that he lost a ton of money, came back and gambled just a tiny amount and never to be heard from ever again. I don't know his last account and how to find it, but if anyone can find it, could you check and see what he is doing?

Moreover, when someone deletes their account and we find another account with his name, does that really even mean it is him? Another person can start with the same name with different VX and act like it is him but unless we know their IP we may never know if it is really him neither. I really hope he is doing well, the amount he lost is not a child's play, so I really wish him the best both psychologically and financially.

 That is exactly what I was trying to say. If you go to a review website and it is only good places, that means they are doing it right. lets assume there are 200 casinos in crypto world that you can review (there are probably more nowadays) and lets say there are 100 good and 100 bad ones (there are more bad ones than good ones normally but lets go with this example). What I was trying to say that, as long as none of the 100 bad ones are listed, and lets say only 80 of the good ones have affiliate system in place, any review website could go with 80 good ones. This leaves 20 good ones aside along with 100 bad ones, thats something they should do and they are free to do that.

 However the bad part which I also agree is that they get paid by bad places and list them too, which lowers their credibility. It should be the way I said, list a bit of good, remove all bad, and if you want, do not list other good ones that have no affiliate system, those all makes sense.

Like captain corporate said, I agree with the notion that what you guys are saying on "bad place gets good review for affiliate commission" is a bad thing but I also think that what you are missing out here is that what he was trying to say is that as long as they do not list shady casinos as good just for good income, they also do not have to list good places that have no affiliate business neither.

I mean you are still saying that "these places list bad casinos as good because of affiliate" and we get that, nobody denies that, but you are also not focusing on the part where they are not forced to show any casino they do not want to show, it is their own business and if they do not want to list you because you have no affiliate, they are free to do that.

Only thing they are responsible for is not listing bad casinos, as long as they do not list bad casinos, they can list "some" good casinos and not list other good casinos.

Yeah, your site was actually one I had in mind of thinking of exceptions. It just is unfortunately pretty small compared to some of the competitors, although I think if you expanded more with content (reviews?) (and community?) there would be some serious potential. There was one site (thebitcoinstrip.com) that I thought had so much potential and was going the right way, but then as I understood, sold to someone who just destroyed it

Hey, not all of us have bad intentions!  

Since I started GamblingSiteFinder.com back in 2018, I've had both Bustabit and Bustadice ranked very highly in the Crash Gambling and Dice categories. We're ranking #1 in Google for various Busta- related keywords and have happily sent hundreds (probably even 1000+) new players to BaB and BaD over the years.

My site is quite small, but I can only imagine how much referral commission we could have generated if we had referred those players to higher paying, yet inferior crash gambling and dice sites.

Something readers here might not know either is that online gambling sites approach review site owners (like myself) and offer us money in exchange for higher rankings. You wouldn't believe how many times a major competitor to Bustadice (I won't say names) has emailed me offering $$$ in exchange for removing BaB and BaD from the top positions on my site.  

I asked about something similar in the Bustadice thread and he said he would not in to detail which is definitely his right but he seems to have covered ways for investors to get their funds back though he did not elaborate: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55608148

The 2-of-3 multisig cold wallet I think is a brilliant idea (for multiple reasons). I hope devans is doing something similar on bustabit. If devans hasn't already revealed a basic overview of how he handles bustabit's cold wallet (I assume RHavar would've known otherwise) I'd be interested in knowing for peace-of-mind reasons. I assumed bit/dice both used the same multisig cold wallet storage techniques, but if devans has a superior way of doing it, don't know why he wouldn't use whatever is the safest, most secure option on both sites.

I can only speak for bustadice, which does indeed use 2-of-3 multisig wallet, of which I hold one of those 3 keys.  I can independently verify bustadice's player profit/loss (and thus investor profit/loss). So I use that to guide if I should sign a transaction. Although worth emphasizing that  independently verifying player profit/loss is not really enough information to do a great job at being a cold-wallet-key-holder because I have no way to independently verify the bankroll size. (i.e. If Daniel was malicious, he could simply say "Oh we've had a mass exodus of investors. Need you to sign the withdrawal so I have enough funds to pay them" and I'd have no way to know either way).

I have a special role for bustadice (I run the audit server, and hold one of the keys). But don't provide a similar service for bustabit. I could however take a pretty good guess at what Daniel is doing for cold storage there, but it's not really my place to do so.

So, to clarify, Bustabit has one sole owner of the cold wallet (devans) and bustadice's cold wallet had 3 multi-sig owners that require at least 2 signatures to open it?

Is this right?