Investor lowRisk: 10 000 BTC @ 0.25%, Investor highRisk: 10 000 BTC @1%.
Plan A: my Assumption which is actually flawed.
Plan B: GOB's implementation.
Plan C: An Alternative that is slightly modified version of GOB's.
Computation: A - difficult
B: Actually quite simple.
C: A bit more difficult than B.
Max Profit:
A: 25 + 100 = 125
B: 0 + 100 = 100
C: 25 + 100 = 125
Case 1: Bet 0.25% of house roll. Bets 50 BTC @ 49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±10, HighRisk = ±40
B: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±25
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±25
A isn't exactly fair for risk-averse investors. They're okay with risking 25 BTC.
Case 2: Bet 100 BTC @49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±20, HighRisk = ±80
B: LowRisk = ±0, HighRisk = ±100
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±75
Case 3: Bet 125 BTC @49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±100
B: Bet too high
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±100 - OOOPS it's 100 here
B - Without lowRisk helping out, the bet can't go as high.
Note for C that low risk can only win up to 25 btc.
Plan A: my Assumption which is actually flawed.
Plan B: GOB's implementation.
Plan C: An Alternative that is slightly modified version of GOB's.
Computation: A - difficult
B: Actually quite simple.
C: A bit more difficult than B.
Max Profit:
A: 25 + 100 = 125
B: 0 + 100 = 100
C: 25 + 100 = 125
Case 1: Bet 0.25% of house roll. Bets 50 BTC @ 49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±10, HighRisk = ±40
B: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±25
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±25
A isn't exactly fair for risk-averse investors. They're okay with risking 25 BTC.
Case 2: Bet 100 BTC @49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±20, HighRisk = ±80
B: LowRisk = ±0, HighRisk = ±100
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±75
Case 3: Bet 125 BTC @49.5%
A: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±100
B: Bet too high
C: LowRisk = ±25, HighRisk = ±100 - OOOPS it's 100 here
B - Without lowRisk helping out, the bet can't go as high.
Note for C that low risk can only win up to 25 btc.
Great summary.
It is true that with scenario B you don't get as high of a max profit. I knew that going in and I don't see it as a negative-- I think investors should be paid fairly/what makes sense/etc., and max profit will be what it'll be. The goal is not necessarily to maximize max profit, after all.
Despite that I see the value in your scenario C. However, I think what I posted a couple posts above still stands. In Case 3, without investor HighRisk being willing to risk 100BTC on each roll, site Max Profit would have been 25, and that bet might never have been made. Thus, LowRisk is profiting, or benefiting, or deriving value, from risk Highrisk was willing to provide.
However, now that I write that out, I'm realizing that is true of this site in general, in concept: the reason my tiny investment is able to profit is because a bunch of other people have invested an additional 40kbtc that draws bettors to the site.... hmmmm. I'm stumped.
Can I ask you a favor? Could you make a Case 4: Bet 110 BTC @49.5%? Specifically for Plan C? i.e. would LowRisk make 10 or 25 btc?
Case 4: bet 110 BTC @49.5%
Break into two bets. 50 btc and 60 btc.
lowRisk ±50 , High Risk ±75
Okay, and the problem with Investment B, is what if there are multiple tiers. Like 5 or even 3. And what if the ratios were different. It wouldn't scale and the top tier (most risk) investors would not actually have a bigger bankroll than the next lower tier. You understand what I'm trying to say. Its a great concept but what if the high risk doesn't even have enough money to go above the max profit for the low risk investors. They wouldn't be attracting any whales. SO it is the low risk investors helping high risk.
Um, I think there's an error in your case 4. You have LowRisk at ±50, but their max profit was 10,000 * 0.25% = 25btc
Yeah, that's a good point. I do understand what you're saying.
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking.
Scenario C:
Case 1: lowRisk ±25, highRisk ±25
Case 2: lowRisk ±25, highRisk ±75
Case 3: lowRisk ±25, highRisk ±100
Case 4: lowRisk ±25, highRisk ±85
