So, what the rest of investors would think about trying with a 1.5% edge? It's going to be difficult to have doog agree on that as all the marketing of JD is based on the extremely low 1% edge, but I would love to hear your reasoned opinions.
I have run some "crazy whale" simulations. Assuming there is a lone whale betting max at all times trying to break the house, and also assuming that he keeps playing until going broke.
What is the minimum bankroll we risk until the whale busts?
I was surprised to see that the house edge has almost no influence on this number! Almost all risk comes from the maximum allowed win. Of course he will survive at lot fewer plays with a bigger house edge but that is not the question I was interested in.
Note that the simulations are not a fixed number of plays, rather they show the complete lifetime of the player.
The initial capital of the whale is not very influential either, surprisingly (but I didn't make a graph showing that) The graphs below use a player starting capital of 25% of the house.
On the horizontal axis are the percentiles and the vertical axis is the minimum bankroll.
If we compare this to the effect of changing maximum win size:
I conclude that Dooglus did the right choice when he lowered the maximum win to 50% of the Kelly bet. I was critical at first, but I'm even starting to think that 25% was not such a bad idea.
These results also seem to indicate that raising the house edge is of little use.
