Topic: 🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021 - page 51. (Read 143533 times)
So I guess right now there are two takeaways,,, most people (including myself) would prefer a time-based XP from investment (like it was before), though I agree the XP majority portion should be from the balance itself. Secondly, maybe not everybody is happy with the 50% of house edge commission but as DarkStar points out, we get more things to attract gamblers like the rakeback, faucet, jackpot and wager, which all do not come out from investor bankroll. I think I am happy to stay at this but maybe, lower 50% slightly.
Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?
In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.
These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.
Agreed. I personally think 50% might be a bit too high, but when you consider all of their various costs (rakeback, faucet, jackpot, various wagering contests) to attract and keep players, the 50% isn't that bad. bustabit is also at a 50% fee and offers none of those things (though bustabit also takes variance, while YOLODice does not).
Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?
In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.
These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.
I don't think its considered like short term investing. Honestly short term investing means more like day trading cryptos or stocks. And what usually happens to most people that short term invest? Unless they are extremely lucky and catch the bottom most 98% or so lose their money due to greed. Look at what happened with the stock market and oil markets. Most retail investors were long oil and short S&P500 and the complete opposite happened.
With bank-roll investing is more like long term investing. Basically like buying a stock like APPLE and hold for 10 years or buying Bitcoin and holding for 5 years. Chances are you will most likely make some money, however at a very slow pace. So there is some degree of risk but its pretty low compared to anything else. Sure you can leave it in your bank account and pretty much get nothing for it. Nothing else out there which pays you more for less risk. So its a good investment in my opinion.
Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?
In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.
These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.
The system is probably not like that @extremal. I know that is how it was seen when it first started but I doubt they would take money from the investors to their own pockets, which the second option suggests. Think about it, if player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 ltc, that means house should be down normally, and I would understand if the investors cover that loss, it makes sense that investors take that risk when investing, however with that logic it says house gets 5 ltc, how could house claim that they could take money from the investors under disguise of house edge?
Their new commission works exactly like that and it doesn't just go to their pockets. It also benefits the investors in a way since they're doing their best to improve the site with those funds and I guess on the old commission rules they're struggling with the expenses so now they reworked it. Losing to a player that wagers a lot might sound bad but imo the investors are fine since the cut is taken instantly. 
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?
so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?
I am 100% sure they are not doing that, the first one makes sense, if gambler plays 1000 ltc and only loses 5 LTC, house could get all of it, yet do not forget that he could also gamble 1000 ltc and lose 1000 ltc as well, in that scenario we are talking about house getting 5 ltc and investors getting all the rest.
Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?
How is it not fair ? In the end the investors win anyway, sure they might not profit every other week but eventually it should go in their favor until they recover those losses if not then there's something wrong or certain factors affecting the investors. Someone created a thread about his yolodice investment you could follow that if you're still not convinced.
These signature campaign goblins are so tiring.
Yolodice is not only a gambling sites that a player can join but it gives also opportunity to the player or investord to earn some percentage of the money they invested and they accept bitcoin, litecoin or dogecoin as investment in the bankrolls. Im not investing to the gamblinv sites now but maybe I change my mind after I calculate the possible earning if I invest to the yolodice.
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?
so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?
so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?
it does not matter if it is 1 or 10 million ltc, if players lose more than 0.5% investors win and if they lose less than 0.5% investors lose
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?
so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?
Also a big LOL to covid-19 coming in third at the ethereum one as well 
. Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .
That COVID-19 user looks like a regular on the site because accounts with user ids in the 260k mark are nearly 1 year old. He most likely changed his nickname just for fun since you're allowed to do so under your profile.. Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .i would like it if they could even exchange at the same rate as most exchanges instead of how a lot of casinos try to take 5-10% in fees
It would be unprofitable for the casino if they have same rate as popular exchanges. If there could be improvements on their exchange having a slightly reduced exchange fee would be a good reward for higher levels.
If you leave hiddens[1] aside for a minute, Flowcash is the only one who appears three times in three different currencies, he is in bitcoin one, at litecoin one and also at dogecoin one as well, dude really loves gambling with whatever he can get his hands on.
Also a big LOL to covid-19 coming in third at the ethereum one as well. Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .
[1]Hidden people might the same people or maybe different people, those are unknown, there is no ID given neither for the hidden ones because it would basically be same as telling their names since people could check from the ID, so these could be all same person or different people.
Also a big LOL to covid-19 coming in third at the ethereum one as well
. Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .[1]Hidden people might the same people or maybe different people, those are unknown, there is no ID given neither for the hidden ones because it would basically be same as telling their names since people could check from the ID, so these could be all same person or different people.
Final results of Weekly wagering contest
Exchanging the funds of investors with no fee could be possible if they offer rates lower than most exchanges but I doubt this feature is necessary unless a lot of their investors asked for it.
Well, it could be possible if they only could have some sort of DEX agreement as well, or anything else like shapeshift, there could be some sort of third party app that could allow people to have direct exchanging inside the website without the casino itself really putting their finger on it, just exchange it using something else. That way you would have a casino with basically moving money to wherever you want for whatever reason (gambling or investing) and casino wouldn't take any fee at all, at most they would be basically allowing an exchange to take trading fee which is usually quite small as well.Moreover, I think when the gambler wins something the house probably doesn't really take money, they do take money when they lose but I am sure it can't be true that they take it even if someone wins.
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Correct, regardless of the outcome the house now always takes a certain commission based on the total amount wagered.And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hell I think you should also be capable of exchanging the currency you are investing as well, so lets say you have 1 btc invested but want to move to ETH, you should be able to do it without paying any fee at all.
Exchanging the funds of investors with no fee could be possible if they offer rates lower than most exchanges but I doubt this feature is necessary unless a lot of their investors asked for it.i would like it if they could even exchange at the same rate as most exchanges instead of how a lot of casinos try to take 5-10% in fees
They have to have high commission to prevent users from arbitrage.
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Correct, regardless of the outcome the house now always takes a certain commission based on the total amount wagered.And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hell I think you should also be capable of exchanging the currency you are investing as well, so lets say you have 1 btc invested but want to move to ETH, you should be able to do it without paying any fee at all.
Exchanging the funds of investors with no fee could be possible if they offer rates lower than most exchanges but I doubt this feature is necessary unless a lot of their investors asked for it.i would like it if they could even exchange at the same rate as most exchanges instead of how a lot of casinos try to take 5-10% in fees
So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?
And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Correct, regardless of the outcome the house now always takes a certain commission based on the total amount wagered.And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?
Hell I think you should also be capable of exchanging the currency you are investing as well, so lets say you have 1 btc invested but want to move to ETH, you should be able to do it without paying any fee at all.
Exchanging the funds of investors with no fee could be possible if they offer rates lower than most exchanges but I doubt this feature is necessary unless a lot of their investors asked for it.
I doubt that investors would really care about it when considering almost all of the investors who divest their investment and take it out literally take it out, and not to withdraw it complete. What could happen is, you could allow people to invest and divest just parts of their money, which means if a person has 1 bitcoin investment, they could divest only half of it if they want and not withdraw it completely and reinvest the half, that is the smart way to do it and probably many prefer that method anyway.
However if you want to invest even more you should be able to invest into on top of the current one as well, that is the right way to do as well. Hell I think you should also be capable of exchanging the currency you are investing as well, so lets say you have 1 btc invested but want to move to ETH, you should be able to do it without paying any fee at all.
However if you want to invest even more you should be able to invest into on top of the current one as well, that is the right way to do as well. Hell I think you should also be capable of exchanging the currency you are investing as well, so lets say you have 1 btc invested but want to move to ETH, you should be able to do it without paying any fee at all.
Jump to: