Topic: [Crypto-Games.net] Investment Returns, Updated weekly, Week 35, +27.96% in BTC - page 3. (Read 16417 times)

>>Because total profit is simply the sum of all profit the casino made until the present day

Once again I am confused. For the week 08/06-08/13 all investors ( casino included ) made a total profit of 899-895 = 4 BTC. What's wrong with this calculation?

I was seeing last 12 weeks and BTC had a little advantage over LTC % profit. But after this last result LTC progress is really competitive with BTC. Very good week for Litecoin. I'm in doubt if a LTC investment worth or not. My doubt isn't about the % profit generated (because it's going nice), but about the variation in currency's price, Bitcoin still gives an advantage to investors for this reason (price increases mucn more than LTC price).

Every investor has a certain amount invested in the bankroll. All investors together build the bankroll (bankroll = sum of all investments).
The current bankroll is 1588BTC, of which eg Reve364 owns 54.95BTC (-> 3.46% of the bankroll).
Out of all profit the casino makes, they will receive 3.46% (after fees and all).

Because total profit is simply the sum of all profit the casino made until the present day (meaning historic numbers from June 2015 until the present day, historic numbers that do not influence current investments).
Invested amounts are not purely profit though, they combine between a base amount that the investor deposited and profit that has since been added to that base investment.
Further, new investors coming into the bankroll or old investors pulling out with profit are not being measured into that chart, as it's a simple global profit chart (unlike the bankroll size chart, which takes those things in).

Thank you for trying to explain. Not sure what you mean. What is 'their investment amount' & why is does not include 'total profit'?

That's not what the chart shows, you are reading it wrong.

The numbers Twistedx2 provides in this thread are based on their investment amount (eg if an investment increases from 1BTC to 1.02BTC, it would be a 2% increase).
The number you have calculated is based on past profit (the casino had made 895BTC profit until the week before and the number increased to 899BTC over the week.

However, new profits are not distributed between those 895BTC historic profit, but between everyone currently invested in the bankroll.
At the time of writing, that is 1615BTC in total.

Week 33 has been added!

This week my Btc investment saw a 0.06% decrease.

This week my Eth investment saw a 0.29% increase.

This week my Doge investment saw a 0.16% increase.

This week my Ltc investment saw a 3.99% increase.

This week my Dash investment saw a 1.03% increase.

This week my Grc investment saw a 0.42% decrease.

This week my XMR investment saw a 1.69% increase.

This week my PPC investment saw a 0.88% decrease.

I know you are upset that you dont have your assigned bch. There are exchanges/btc casino that dont even pay out to the customers. Even exchanges that hold the alt coin that can generate extra coins are return back the customers as well. It is good on CG side to handle this fork in an effective way. Their email was out faster than other from what i experience and their reply to my question after the fork is speedy. You just have to learn from this experience and if you really want to enjoy this kind of airdrop/fork and no do the due diligent, i recommend you to just keep all your coins in your own private wallet.

Their FAQ section on investing addresses this:

That's wrong though.
Check the OP, and you'll find out LTC has performed better than BTC in the past few weeks (1.21% weekly average against a 0.89% weekly average).
Of course that's subject to variance, so historic numbers are nice to look at, but don't tell us much about the future.

So let's check the numbers that actually matter for calculating the potential of an investment.
LTC has less wagers, but also a smaller bankroll. The exact numbers tell us that expected returns are almost the same:

BTC has 2811BTC wagered the last month over a bankroll of 1630BTC (1.72x)
LTC on the other hand has 27317 wagered over a bankroll of 16180 (1.68x)

Why not diversify, invest some in LTC and some in BTC, mitigate the risk you're taking.

Currently have a very small btc and eth investment. Very happy with the site and if my dang mining returns hadn't been hit so hard, I'd still be gambling a bit every now and then.

Nothing but good things to say.

Surely Bitcoin investment worth much more as after one year it's much more probable your $500 in BTC will increase its price, while with LTC it's probable it will keep around the same price... Also, the casino profit potential with BTC's bets is higher in my opinion.

Put my first litecoin yesterday and today another one. I dont have time to look at cryptocurrency frequenly im thinking investing on this with my 500 dolares. There is a change after one year having loss? I chose litecoin because its a steady coin. But im think doing that with BTC because will be worth more in on year. (or no xd)

No one is forcing you to invest in our bankroll. We have many happy investors that gain much profit.

Not sharing the forked coin risked having many investors pull out their bankroll ahead of the fork - it was a smart business move, not altruistic.

The poor business decision is to rigidly enforce this policy on a profitable customer that will now move on to another site.

The terms on which the users invested in the site bankroll doesn't have any reference about giving a forked coin. Yet, crypto-games handled the unexpected situation favoring its users. Handling of BCH (claiming, storing and dividing between users) surely was a extra bit of work for the site and There's no place to blame the site for not being able to claim the BCH within the stated deadline.

That number is based on usercount, not investment amount, eg an investor with 100BTC claimed would influence it the same way as one with 0.01BTC unclaimed.
For reference, the current bankroll is 1649BTC, of which 1103BTC // 67% are provided by a group of only 10 people (1358BTC by a group of 20 people // 82%).
I'd expect the actual number of BCH left unclaimed way below your calculated 65.

Noted.


Totally get that - I'm not suggesting they work for free. A ~10% (+/-)  transaction fee would be very reasonable.


This is an investment. I don't check it daily or weekly. I check it once a month at most. It's been a year without any problems. Having to spend time checking on it every few days would quickly make any profit earned on it a pretty expensive investment of time.


That's ~$20,000 USD of investor money left on the table. It seems like CG is being compensated quite well with this fork. (EDIT: See Lutpin's comment below - 95% of investors not BCC)


Yes, the email included a link at the bottom asking people to read their blog post. However, writing an email specifically saying at the top that all investors will be paid their BCC and then only mentioning an immediate deadline in a link comes across as disingenuous.


This is the one that ended up in my junk box. Not blaming CG for that, don't know why it happened. Regardless, this was the first actual email with a deadline in it and it only gave people 5 days.

---

I'm not suggesting CG is malicious or a scam - it's not. It's legitimate, I've dealt with them for a year without an issue before this.  However with this policy in place, my warning to investors still stands. If you invest with CG, you are expected to read every email, blog post, social media, etc. within a few days or risk losing funds like I have. The end result is I've been hit with a ~7% penalty for not reading a blog post and not responding to an email within 5 days.

A little disclaimer: The following is my own view and experience, opinions voiced are mine, and mine only.

This fork meant mainly one thing for CG; a huge investment of time and work.
In preparation of the fork, there's already been several blogposts and announcements on the site, social media channels, this forum and via the newsletter.
Further, August 1st was a rather unconvenient time for the fork, since it's holiday season and staff is thin as it is, most vacation plans were already made by the time BCC/BCH became evident.

All in all, there's been a lot of tasks to handle (both informative and executive), including moving to new cold wallets, setting up a BCH node, handling several hundred transactions.
All of those tasks were done by CG free of charge, tasks that would not have been neccessary if the site had not paid out BCH to users/investors (quite a few other casinos did not do that).
CG stands to gain nothing from that process, the distributions were done for the investors, the time spent was spent for the investors (could've been spent on other tasks else).

The 12 day limit had several reasons. The main one was to limit time investment needed for the distribution.
Maintaining a node (especially an enterprise sized one connected to a huge wallet) has both technical and personel costs.
Every day the node is kept running, those costs grow, and as CG does not support BCC/BCH at this point, maintaining a node for an indefinite time is a waste of ressources.

I'd also expect from someone who stores funds on a site and is aware of a situation like this fork to take the initiative and inform themselves about how the situation is handled.
Checking the blog or asking a moderator in chat (or maybe even contacting support) takes a few minutes, and avoids running into situations like this.

---

I don't have exact numbers as I was not involved with the distribution, but as far as I know, over 95% of the investors claimed their BCC/BCH (we're talking about a group of ~500 people).

The first email was sent July 25th, when the blogpost "Update: BIP91 and BCC" was published (I know that because I got the email myself, as I'm also an investor).
It referenced this post that includes the information that
"Users will have 12 days after the fork to set their BCC addresses and receive their coins. After that, we will stop accepting new BCC addresses and you will lose your claim due to failing to meet the deadline."

A second email was sent a few days after the fork (only to those users that did not claim their BCC until then) reminding everyone of the deadline.

That's been the second one, the reminder.
Curious why you had marked newsletter updates from CG as spam/junk.

Very well, my apologies for naming you then - I've only scanned the thread and did not know the extent of your involvement. Thank you for looking into this.


You'll have to excuse me for being upset - the email response above that I received from support today did not seem very open to compromise.

I'm not. My role around CG is purely consulting, thus I don't have any direct influence on decisionmaking.
I've currently not got the time or means to write a full explanation of the other side of the coin,
but I'll get back to you in a few hour with some insight on why and how certain measures were taken.

For now, please, stay calm. Nobody has any malicious intentions,
and I'm sure we can find a solution suitable for both parties.