what did the user confirm?
 
the red trust for you is anyway a joke cause you did a new account to hide your original account. red trust cant hurt you

can RHavar confirm that a 2x or more KC was used or not. that would help all

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly.

Your thread title:  RHavar trust abuse and lies


You moved the goal posts. We are discussing Trust sent and left, you are on another tangent. You left BS feedback, a lie but you want me to go after someone who lied as well? .
I can't take anything you post seriously because you also lied. Fix your own lies first. That is fact.
Your theatrics don't work on me.

Your thread title:  RHavar trust abuse and lies


You moved the goal posts. We are discussing Trust sent and left, you are on another tangent. You left BS feedback, a lie but you want me to go after someone who lied as well? .
I can't take anything you post seriously because you also lied. Fix your own lies first. That is fact.
Your theatrics don't work on me.

No I did not since you also left BS Trust. I would advise you both to chill out, remove that BS Trust and just ignore the other. Ignore button is below the user name. Problem solved.

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
RGBKey   2018-02-27   0.00000000   Reference   Troll. See reference.
RHavar   2018-02-27   0.00000000      Troll, best to just ignore him. Also left me nonsense feedback

Sent feedback

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
RHavar   2018-02-26   550.00000000   Reference   RHavar and devans lied about kelly criterion being 1x kelly. Causes investors to lose 550 bitcoin while they profit 125.
devans   2018-02-26   550.00000000   Reference   RHavar and devans lied about kelly criterion being 1x kelly. Causes investors to lose 550 bitcoin while they profit 125.


Looks like you instigated it and you complain he retaliated? You really risked 550 X2 BTC?

Without knowing the house edge in this scenario, it's not possible to compute.

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly. After the update, it was changed such that the worst case would be ~1.5x kelly.  All of these risks were clearly documented


That doesn't impact the kelly at all, as the site is risking based on your post-dilution fee bankroll.

I think the way that makes most sense for me, is that the house needs to sort of assume a whale has infinite money. Like if you imagine dragonmaster2's "100% risk" scenario, it's just a matter of time before the infinite angry whale is guaranteed his win.

But if you invert the scenario, it doesn't really make sense to assume you can be a gambler with an infinite bankroll. And with any finite bankroll, all you can achieve is having a very large chance of busting the house -- but you can never turn that into a "profitable" scenario.


So when the house is risking more than a 2x kelly, you have a sort of weird scenario where it's bad for the house (it'll probably go broke) but also bad for the player (it'll still have an expectation to lose)

2:1 is indeed the limit when adjusting your investment (although you won't be margin called if you later exceed it). I stuck with Johnson2239's example calculation anyway to show that it was off.

Well it completely depends on how you expect people to bet. If you are assuming the "worst case" of high-profit bets then Daniel is right. If there's more modest bets that aren't fully utilizing the bankroll, then the investor who decided to leverage will probably end up doing better (as their leverage will be closer to the kelly).

Probably Daniel should've added said: "Assuming an angry whale ..." to make it more correct, but honestly I think very few people really appreciate the harm in over-leveraging so I think the site has a duty to err on the side of pushing people into not using offsite for the purpose of leverage.


I remember after I sold MoneyPot to the current owners, they did a few little changes that resulted in the bankrollers risk being a worst-case going from a 1x kelly to a worst case 3.33x -- no matter how hard I tried (including even writing a simulator, that showed an angry whale would consistently bust them) they never listened. It's just not intuitive for people to realize that despite being +EV you can still expect to keep busting due to over-leverage (and funnily enough, even after they should've learnt the hard way and lost most of their bankroll they just resorted to hacks like limiting max-bet instead of addressing the core issue)

And to be honest, the whole idea of negative expected bankroll growth while having positive expected profit really screwed with my head. It took a lot of creating simulations to get a grasp on it. And the part that I found the most counter-intuitive is that if the casino is over-risking to the point that it expects to lose money, shouldn't it be profitable for a whale to play there?

To protect investors, the most a single player can win in one game is 1 % of the bankroll, in line with the Kelly criterion.

How can you possibly claim that I've "cost investors millions of dollars" when bustabit investors are up nearly $3 million at current Bitcoin prices?

Nope. It's just your reading comprehension sucks.


Devans said "the most a single player can win"  ... he is talking about max profit, and I said "the max bet" referring to the most you can bet at once.

That's why bustadice only restricts the max profit because each bet is "single player", while bustabit needs to restrict both to protect both investors and not ruin the playing experience for other players.

Anyway, I really don't want to waste more energy on this. I'll let someone else waste their time with you

I very much did answer it. Based on the betting, I assume it was a single person (although I have no insider knowledge that would allow me to verify that) who was consistently betting more than 1% of the bankroll amount. It's just that site never promised to stop it, and that it's irrelevant for the reasons I explained.

Higher bet limits
To protect investors, the most a single player can win in one game is 1 % of the bankroll, in line with the Kelly criterion. If a player were to win more than that, he will be forced to cash out.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

Just to be clear, I didn't allow anything. I am just a passive investor there, it's Daniel who is the owner.

And secondly, if you read the FAQ and terms you would see that the site never deviated from what it promised. I guess there's some ambiguity on the term "player" as you could interpret it to mean "person" or you could interpret it to be "bustabit account". However, bustabit has had a long standing policy of allowing multiple accounts for a single person (doing anything differently would imho be kind of crazy, as it's a policy that's impossible to enforce and results in a lot of false-positives like when people from the same house hold are players)

But the reality is it doesn't matter. Take a look at bustadice.com for instance, which operates in virtually the same way with a similar size bankroll and players are free to bet up to like 2000 BTC if they want. It would actually be advantageous to bustabit and investors if bustabit allowed the same thing (after all, if someone bets 1000 BTC in a single game, that's 10 BTC of EV) but the entire reason that bustabit doesn't allow it is to protect other players. Whales that bet a lot of money are able to drive the "forced cashout point" down really low, which can really negatively impact other people who were hoping to aim at higher multiples.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

0.75%/1% is the max bet per account. 1.5% is the max bet per game. This was known since the beginning of V2.

Furthermore, a player isn't limited to playing on one account, that's been known since V1 and hasn't changed for V2.

You claim they are "lying", but they never claimed that 1% is the max bet a single person over multiple accounts can hit. That doesn't even make sense with the current game logic, and I can't even begin to think how that would even be possible.

The guy is just an idiot, I am investing on the same terms as everyone else. Ironically the whale just busted and everyone (including me) in the bankroll should now be at a considerable profit. People like quickmaffs take the term "the house always wins" too literally, invest and then start crying at the slightest down turn in profit.

Some thing I used to always tell players was "the casino isn't a charity" when they thought there was free money to be had from gambling, but the same really can be said for investors. The site isn't giving money to investors as some act of kindness, it is paying them in +EV to accept a lot of risk and eat a lot of variance.

Anyway, as of now investors are up 280 BTC, I doubt anyone has cause for complaint 

Could you clarify what you think I lied about, please? We openly discussed the reasoning behind accepting some >1x Kelly rounds in this very thread as early as two weeks ago. The site makes no secret of risking 1.5 % of the bankroll per game either.

The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.

I am the only the one who–normally–receives any fixed commission from bustabit. A little over a week ago I suspended the commission in order to help investors recover and prop up the max bet and profit.

Could you clarify what you think I lied about, please? We openly discussed the reasoning behind accepting some >1x Kelly rounds in this very thread as early as two weeks ago. The site makes no secret of risking 1.5 % of the bankroll per game either.

The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.

I am the only the one who–normally–receives any fixed commission from bustabit. A little over a week ago I suspended the commission in order to help investors recover and prop up the max bet and profit.

I was certainly an early investor, but I don't see how that changes anything -- especially on account that Daniel reimbursed everyone for the 10% dilution fees out of pocket. Anyway, my net profit/loss from dilution fees is pretty negligible. Not sure exactly, but I suspect it's < 1% of my investing loss  (which with hindsight my investment has been the single biggest financial mistake of my life  )  But  I'm not going to complain, I knew the risks and based on the current volumes it's seems pretty likely the site will get out of the red in the next 6 months (in fact, I've recently seen it in positive profit briefly twice so far during the crazy whale action).


Regardless, I really don't know what more you expect. The site is already running with no commissions, did a pretty big refund to investors and lowered the worst-case kelly. If you're not prepared to absorb (a lot of) variance, don't join the bankroll.