I'm not at all trying to be dishonest or disingenuous about it.
I stated what is an objective fact, your amortized commissions are 70%. I didn't mean that as an attack, or that it's bad (in itself, it isn't). I meant that as a fact. Which it is. To which you reply:
I think you may have confused the commission as well. It's nowhere near 50 or 70%. If using the above example, the investors would be effectively paying a 7% commission on their profit.
Which is both insulting,
and a plain lie. Even how you derived the 7% commission is using the same definition of commission I am, so you can't even pretend it's a terminology mistake.
It kind of seemed like you're setting these questions up so that you can knock us down when we respond.
That's not my intention, I just wanted straight answers.
I have no quarrels with you and I don't know why there seems to be tension between us.
I think when you're holding other peoples money, there's a certain duty of care which you're not showing. At least in my books, when you hold other peoples money, tell them you're risking it according to a certain schedule, and don't -- that's negligent.
I honestly don't even think 90% commissions is unreasonable, and there's many investors that would line up for that if you can give them enough turn-over and risk management.
If bettors were all to hypothetically bet to the point where they reach the long run with their bets and with that much volume, I think any investor would be significantly pleased knowing that the greatly reduced volatility over a much larger sample greatly benefits their return on investment position even after including the app fee and house fee payouts.
Of course, that's why investors invest. The more bets the better.
I'm of the firm belief that our investment is +EV.
Well obviously. That's pretty hard to mess up (although I can name two casino that did).
You seem to have accused us of otherwise
Huh? I have never said, or implied such a thing. If anyone told you I said that, they are lying. And if your investments were -EV, it's probably more likely that I'd start gambling on your site than saying anything.
(for reasons I do not know, especially since you're the one that set it up this way)... Can you please explain why you feel this way and why you feel this way so strongly that you're saying it disqualifies us from being able to run a casino?
I'm saying that if your previous answer to me is correct, you're risking >3x as much for investors as you should. When I originally wrote MP, if the bankroll was 100 BTC the max-profit on a 1% game would've been 0.5 BTC. Which is the fully kelly. You added an extra 20% commission, and are saying that max-profit is 1 BTC. When in actuality you should've decreased the max-profit to keep the bets kelly-compliant. See my earlier point about negligence.