If there are large swings in the bankroll performance, then this is a sign that the maximum bet is sufficiently large so that performance can be impacted by the bets of a small number of whales (in other words the maximum bet size is larger then it should be).
We already have very robust maths to be able to reason about this, which is infinitely better than looking at some historical charts. The maths actually comes to the opposite conclusion, btw. If you're not allowing bets that would significantly affect performance (to a huge degree) you're leaving money on the table (in both terms of EV and expected bankroll growth)
Well if you maximum win is 100 BTC, but most players are making bets with the potential to win under .01 BTC, and (except for one person), no one is betting amounts that would result in a win greater then 1 BTC, then one person comes and deposits 1,000 BTC, makes a single 89% win chance bet with his entire bankroll and then withdraws the entire amount, then how your bankroll performs is going to be very strongly impacted by the result of that single bet. Sure the EV of that bet for the bankroll is +10 BTC, but since only a single bet was made it will either be -100 BTC or +1,000 BTC.
Sure, if you are disallowing bets that your bankroll is large enough to withstand loosing against then you are missing out on the +EV value of those bets, but if the volume of those bets is not large enough then the outcome of a small number of bets is going to have a disproportionate impact on performance, which is something that you probably don't want.
If bankroll performance is significantly larger then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the casino is (at least selectively) cheating their players. This can also be detected if the bankroll performance is significantly greater then expected over short periods of time if there is sufficient amounts of gambling volume.
Players can robustly check if they're getting cheated using the provably fair. If the casino is cheating players so much that it effects the profits they can just not show that in the public stats (which they likely would, to avoid sharing it with investors).
I agree with this, however I would be willing to say that most players do not check their bets. In fact, I would say that most players do not even understand how to check their bets (of those who understand the concept of provable fairness).
If bankroll performance is significantly lower then the house edge over long periods of time, then this may be an indication that the site owner is cheating it's investors by playing against the bankroll with knowledge of the serve seed. This would be very easy for the site owner to do, and would be very difficult to detect assuming the site owner does not go crazy with stealing a lot of money from a single account they are gambling with.
While I agree with this in theory, as Dooglus said a few posts above, BTC Just-Dice's (which had phenomenal volume) was less than a third of it's EV. So clearly "long enough period of time" is going to be so long as not really useful (if you waited on the sidelines for JD's profit to reach 1% of its wagered, you would've missed they HYIP-level returns it generated. And very likely still would be waiting, even if it was still operating =)
Well my understanding is that Just-Dice had a very large amount of gambling volume in proportion to their bankroll size which is what explained the HYIP-level returns.
If Just-Dice experienced actual profits of significantly below 1% over the long term, then it is possible that Just-Dice was cheating their investors by winning large amounts of BTC, yet small enough so that investors still had positive returns. It is also possible that the house simply had "bad luck".
My point is more that if a bankroll has historically earned "significantly" less then the house edge over a large volume of bets, then maybe it is not a good idea to invest in that site's bankroll.
A large amount of variance may also be an indication that gambling volume is too small for the size of the bankroll.
Or, more likely, an indication that people are gambling =)
Fair enough
Exactly how much deviation from the EV is necessary to make the above conclusions, and over what periods of time are both unknown and are both up to the individual (potential) investor to decide.
However yes, historical data should absolutely influence your decision to invest in the bankroll or not because this data can assist in helping you conclude if a site is 100% "above board" or not.
I agree with you here, and think showing data is essential. I'm not against automatically generating fancy charts, I just don't think it's that important =)
I think this data should be one factor in determining if it is a good idea to invest in the bankroll. There are several other factors as well.
Also to be very clear, I am not accusing you nor moneypot of any wrongdoing, nor am I implying as much. I just happened to see statements about bankroll investing that I disagreed with that happened to be in your thread. Although this was posted in the Moneypot thread, it would probably be more relevant if it was in a more general thread in the gambling section.
have been automatically added to my site too.
But for investors I think it is still relevant to see that the stats on the MoneyPot site are actually really based on the statistics of all the apps together. So I think it makes sense to list them all (as long as they have some wagered amount.)
(and tbh I feel like other features on my site currently have higher priority :X) 
