But *now*, what is the max bet for the whale's second roll? There are two ways to calculate this and it depends on whether you "trust" Investor B:
If you *don't* trust Investor B, then I think you would say:
max profit = 1% of 99 BTC + 1% of 9 BT * 10X = 0.99 BTC + 0.9BTC = 1.89 BTC,
and, should the whale lose the next bet, it would only be fair to give Investor A more of the winnings than Investor B (remember, we don't trust that he is good for the "bankroll" he claims to hold off site).
I think if you do it that way, it is exactly the same as if "offsite" reserves weren't implemented at all, and investor B just invested 10 BTC at 10% risk. After losing his first bet he would have 9 BTC left, risk 10% of it, ie. 0.9 BTC, as in your working above. The point of the "offsite" reserve is that it doesn't shrink with losses. He deposited 10 BTC, claims to have 90 BTC more at home, and we take him on his word.
If you *do* trust Investor B, then I think you would say
max profit = 1% of 99 BTC + 1% of 99 BTC = 0.99 BTC + 0.99BTC = 1.98 BTC,
in which case both investors would share equally in the win.
And that is how it is meant to work. "offsite" investment is a way for player B to invest his whole 100 BTC without having to trust us with more than 10 BTC of it at a time. It should be exactly equivalent to investor A investing the whole 100 BTC at once.
So can we trust Investor B? Or should it be Investor B's responsibility to "keep up his margin" as required.
We don't care whether he really has the other 90 BTC or not. If he loses the first 10 BTC without topping it up, he gets divested.
The only downside I can see to this is that it can cause sudden changes in the available max profit. To mitigate that, we limit the amount of leverage investors are allowed access to.
As a way of limiting the leverage - have you considered restricting people's total investment to the max they had deposited at any one time?
That way - they demonstrate they had the funds, by only 'risking' it with you for a short time.
Sure - people could game it a little. e.g friends lending around the same 100BTC for deposit/withdraw into different accounts - but you're still limiting it to people who at some point had access to that sort of money.
I guess that sort of eligibility criterion favours the wealthy - but would help put an overall cap on use of leverage.. and help with promoting the image of 'responsible gambling' by only offering the higher leverage to those who can afford it.
It wouldn't completely stop the issue of big fluctuations in available max profit... but I guess big investors can already instantaneously influence that quite heavily anyway.