This likely means that the "real leverage" player does worse than the fixed offsite investor in the much more common case where the player wins and loses more equally.
Shouldn't "real leverage" still do better in that scenario if the players lose slightly more than they win as expected due to house edge? I kind of ran out of steam at that point. I can't imagine that "real leverage" is better than "offsite investing" in every case. Shouldn't there be a trade-off? Back to the example: A has 10 onsite and 90 offsite. C has 10 onsite with 10x "real" leverage. Suppose a whale plays for a long period with 50% chance of winning each bet. All bets are the maximum, aiming to win 1% of the bankroll. The payout when he wins is 1.98x (1% house edge), and he wins and loses the same amount of bets (as he is expected to do, long term). Let's call the effective bankroll "B". 50% of the time the player wins 1% of the bankroll: B/100. When this happens, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/100, and C's is multiplied by 90/100. The other 50% of the time the player loses his stake. He's aiming to profit by B/100, with a payout multiplier of 1.98x, so he's risking and losing B/98. When this happens, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/98, and C's is multiplied by 108/98. Since the whale wins and loses the same number of bets, we can pair these bets. Each pair consists of one win and one loss. For each pair, A's effective bankroll is multiplied by 99/100 and 99/98, for a net growth factor of 99/100 * 99/98 = 9801/9800 ~= 1.0001x And C's effective bankroll is multiplied by 90/100 and 108/98, for a net growth factor of 90/100 * 108/98 = 9720 / 9800 ~= 0.9918x And so we see that my intuition was correct, and that "real" leverage is worse than this "offsite investment" thing. The "offsite investment" has a (small but) positive expected bankroll growth whereas the "real leverage" expects to lose almost 1% of the bankroll for every pair of (1 win + 1 lose) bets. This is interesting... What would the gambler have to do so that investor A has negative bankroll growth? |
|
|
|
|
Max profit should be equal to the edge (after discounting rakeback, referrals and other promotions, so 0.7% or whatever), and based on the real (deposited) bankroll. Then, you could allow 2x leverage for those that want to let players bet at 2x kelly. More than that is just excessive and forces investors to overleverage as others do the same (or invest in another casino with more reasonable leverage, or no leverage).
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain a little bit better how the onsite and offsite bankroll investing works? what I understand is that if I deposit 1 btc and put it in the bankroll and then say I have another 1 btc offsite then my 1 btc invested onsite becomes 2 by the power of leveraging? so if I would lose 50% of my investment then I would really loose 100% because I am leveraged by 2x by saying I have 1 btc offsite?
If this is like this then it means I can have 1 btc onsite and 9 btc offsite and then I would be leveraged by 10x and so my looses and wins would all move quicker and there is obviously a bigger chance of loosing it all by the high leverage you use
if this is true which is the maximum leverage I can use? 100x? please explain the offsite and onsite bankroll investment thanks
Maximum is 1:3 (1 onsite+2 offsite), which is already quite reckless. 1:10 would be stupid.. |
|
|
|
Are users allowed to refer themselves? If you combine that with rakeback, the casino edge is quite lower (and potentially even negative during some promotions).
It says you aren't allowed to on the site. OK, that makes sense. I hope people aren't taking advantage of that. How is max profit calculated, based on the "real" bankroll or the effective (including leverage) one? Based on leveraged since leverage affects max profit. It seems to be 0.29% of the total bankroll, which is a bit weird. |
|
|
|
Seems like a walk in the park for the current leader. Where's the competition?  For this kind of competitions I'd expect most of the action at the end. |
|
|
|
Are users allowed to refer themselves? If you combine that with rakeback, the casino edge is quite lower (and potentially even negative during some promotions).
It says you aren't allowed to on the site. OK, that makes sense. I hope people aren't taking advantage of that. How is max profit calculated, based on the "real" bankroll or the effective (including leverage) one? |
|
|
|
|
Are users allowed to refer themselves? If you combine that with rakeback, the casino edge is quite lower (and potentially even negative during some promotions).
|
|
|
|
He was playing in at least 2 accounts, he lost about 800 BTC. |
|
|
|
The competition seems to be entering its endgame, and the prize pool is close to 100 ETH. Anything can happen, but the current situation is: - To beat the current leader and get to 1st place you need to win 14 ETH. The current 1st prize is over 24 ETH. - To get to 20th place you need to be winning 0.7 ETH, and the prize for 20th place is 1.45 ETH. The endgame could change these results, hopefully the prize pool will grow even larger. Good luck to everyone! https://yolodice.com/#bonusCheers, Ethan What's really cool is that in the end of the event betting was actually EV+ for the players. If you were to bet 1ETH at 49.5%chance of doubling, the prize pool was laaaaaargely compensating the potential loss. The right strategy during the end of this event would have been to bet as much as possible to get on the top of the event. You still had the same chances as usual to win or lose but in case of winning you were winning 3 times your bet amount and no longer 2 times. Sadly enough I don't have any ETH so hope this kind of event will come back with BTC  I'd expect really crazy volume if this same promotion had been run for BTC (let's say the fixed prize had been 1 BTC instead of 20 ETH). |
|
|
|
|
I lost a 66 ETH 81.41% winning probability bet. It was fun, I liked this promotion. And seeing at the profit during the promotion (higher than expected thanks to me), it seems to be a great promotion for investors.
How often are these competitions run? Can I check somewhere past competitions, to see how much did people profit and how big prizes were?
|
|
|
|
The competition seems to be entering its endgame, and the prize pool is close to 100 ETH. Anything can happen, but the current situation is: - To beat the current leader and get to 1st place you need to win 14 ETH. The current 1st prize is over 24 ETH. - To get to 20th place you need to be winning 0.7 ETH, and the prize for 20th place is 1.45 ETH. The endgame could change these results, hopefully the prize pool will grow even larger. Good luck to everyone! https://yolodice.com/#bonusCheers, Ethan Could you please check the message I sent you? It's regarding this competition. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Do you have updated results posted somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday's action was amazing, I wish we saw players like that more often.
|
|
|
|
Although I hate investing with shitcoins (I ended up really burned buying CLAM to invest them at Just-Dice), historical returns at Yolodice on all those 3 are really impressive while using 1:10 leverage. I'm considering investing and trying to decide which currency is the best option. BTC returns are good, but those on shitcoins have been so much better that they would have to drop a lot per year in average to end up being a worse choice than BTC.
BTC bankroll is quite large compared to wagered amounts, while LTC and DOGE have lower bankroll/wagered ratio. So indeed, at this point investing in LTC and DOGE makes sense. But you'll have to live with altcoin prices ups-and-downs, which definitely adds some pain :-/ Cheers, Ethan ETH wagered/bankroll has been quite decent too, even better than LTC. From those 3 shitcoins I think the best one is DOGE. It's as useless as the other ones but at least it's funny and doesn't pretend to be better than BTC. It sucks buying DOGE now, though, it has risen considerably lately. |
|
|
|
... An unmonitored 10% drop (which can happen very fast if there's a big gambler) would wipe out every 1:10 investor. Does the casino really need that?
It would have to be 10% of effective bankroll, not the "deposited bankroll". To wipe x10 investments someone would have to win over 500 BTC now. This is not that likely to happen, even given 17 BTC max profit. IMO the numbers are not that bad. Do we need such high max profit? Well, I think yes. It's comparable to other dice sites, and it is what players expect. If we wanted a smaller max profit, we'd have never opened the site for investments. We had our initial funding anyway. But I think having clear rules, external investors and transparency helps the project greatly. After all our profit graph has its ups and downs, but you cannot beat the statistics - the moving average follows "1% of wagered" pretty well. Cheers, Ethan I see that volatility on BTC has been truly low in comparison to the real bankroll ("deposited"). So 1:10 leverage may still make sense if it really increases wagered substantially (otherwise there's no point). However, on other coins, volatility has been much higher, why are you allowing so much leverage there? Litcoin and eth are quite stable. Doge is a fun coin, it shouldn’t really be considered as much as a store of value and more ofma thing you can have because it gets pumped and dumped a lot. It never seems to go below 10 stars per dog or above about 100-150 but a 100% increase is quite a lot. I’m not sure I get the argument, I don’t think the bankroll is all converted to bitcoin and made as one huge pool. Although I hate investing with shitcoins (I ended up really burned buying CLAM to invest them at Just-Dice), historical returns at Yolodice on all those 3 are really impressive while using 1:10 leverage. I'm considering investing and trying to decide which currency is the best option. BTC returns are good, but those on shitcoins have been so much better that they would have to drop a lot per year in average to end up being a worse choice than BTC. |
|
|
|
... An unmonitored 10% drop (which can happen very fast if there's a big gambler) would wipe out every 1:10 investor. Does the casino really need that?
It would have to be 10% of effective bankroll, not the "deposited bankroll". To wipe x10 investments someone would have to win over 500 BTC now. This is not that likely to happen, even given 17 BTC max profit. IMO the numbers are not that bad. Do we need such high max profit? Well, I think yes. It's comparable to other dice sites, and it is what players expect. If we wanted a smaller max profit, we'd have never opened the site for investments. We had our initial funding anyway. But I think having clear rules, external investors and transparency helps the project greatly. After all our profit graph has its ups and downs, but you cannot beat the statistics - the moving average follows "1% of wagered" pretty well. Cheers, Ethan I see that volatility on BTC has been truly low in comparison to the real bankroll ("deposited"). So 1:10 leverage may still make sense if it really increases wagered substantially (otherwise there's no point). However, on other coins, volatility has been much higher, why are you allowing so much leverage there? |
|
|
|
I agree, high maximum profits aren't completely useless if players don't play for them, but the benefit from that for investors is way smaller than the extra volatility and risk of ruin that a 1:10 leverage entails. Leverage should simply not be allowed, like in Crypto Games. It forces sensible investors to leverage too or to have to settle with lower returns than they should be getting.
In the very beginning I did not suspect so many investments would be x10. My own investment was x1 to keep the bankroll stable and I was thinking people would go for stability, but then almost everyone else started investing at x10 and soon it was clear that investing at any other leverage means (statistically) missing the revenue. I agree that high max profit is a big feature for players - a lot of people play on really high multipliers, targeting high profits in single bets. There has never been a moment when any investment had to be closed due to site loss. So maybe the concept of leverage is redundant indeed if almost everyone go for x10... We were thinking about limiting investments to x1 on LTC and DOGE (newly opened bankrolls), but then the max profit would be pretty low. So in the end we decided to leave leverage option, maybe we'll change it in the future, but it's been working pretty well so far. The only downside I can see is that it adds some complexity to the investments. Cheers, Ethan Does people really target the max profit often enough? You have to compare the extra money the casino makes from those bets to the absurdly high variance of such high leverage ratios. 1:10 is just ridiculous. An unmonitored 10% drop (which can happen very fast if there's a big gambler) would wipe out every 1:10 investor. Does the casino really need that? Without leverage, profits wouldn't be much different from now, but you wouldn't be forcing investors to either leverage or just not invest. I bet I'm not the only one that would invest if there was no leverage. In the current situation, returns are too low for unleveraged investments, and high leverage is playing Russian roulette (there's 100% chance that eventually those overleveraged investors will lose everything), which is quite stupid when investing should be profitable. |
|
|
|
Why are you allowing such a big leverage when investing? You are basically forcing people to be very leveraged to have decent returns. Your website says there are 6241.53 BTC as effective bankroll, while only 731.59 have been deposited. That's a 1:8.53 leverage ratio. You are making investments tremendously volatile in exchange of what? Does the casino really need such a big effective (but fake) bankroll to function? Are players really betting enough for that bankroll to be needed? I was considering investing when I saw that 1 year profits (129 BTC) were quite decent compared to the real bankroll, 731.59. However, they are very low compared to the effective one. And there's no way I invest using 1:10 leverage or anything near that. I'd have to be monitoring my investment constantly (reducing the "offsite" amount when losing and increasing it when winning), which isn't realistic in practice. Seeing how small volatility in profit is on your website ( https://dicesites.com/yolodice), I don't see why you need a 6241.53 bankroll and therefore you should drastically decrease the allowed leverage on your website (you should just remove leverage, as it doesn't benefit anyone but does harm investors). I agree. Another way to look at it: If the casino (consistently) needed the money (e.g. players are placing bets higher than a 1x kelly on the actual bankroll) then you'd actually have a higher expected return (EBG) by having no leverage. So the corollary is a leveraged investment is actually a bet that the casino doesn't need the money! I do definitely think that leveraged systems are a pretty great way to bootstrap a bankroll, but if I was running the site I'd aggressively phase it out as it became no longer required. That said, there's one thing that is hard to measure: Having a high max-profit is potentially a very good thing, even it's never utilized. It's a powerful marketing tool, and does give players some assurances that they can bet huge if they ever need (something that appeals to loss-chasers/martingalers). So even if no one is trying to win more than a 1 bitcoin a roll, it very well might be healthy to have a 10 bitcoin bankroll I agree, high maximum profits aren't completely useless if players don't play for them, but the benefit from that for investors is way smaller than the extra volatility and risk of ruin that a 1:10 leverage entails. Leverage should simply not be allowed, like in Crypto Games. It forces sensible investors to leverage too or to have to settle with lower returns than they should be getting. |
|
|
|
|
Where is the interest supposed to be coming from? Interest rates for shitcoins are absurd, like 0.1% per day for ETH and DOGE. Who would pay such high interest rates? I see BTC is just 0.1% per month, which is realistic (and too low to justify the risk of they being stolen by the exchange).
Has anyone been lending there for say 1 year and able to withdraw?
|
|
|
|
Why are you allowing such a big leverage when investing? You are basically forcing people to be very leveraged to have decent returns. Your website says there are 6241.53 BTC as effective bankroll, while only 731.59 have been deposited. That's a 1:8.53 leverage ratio. You are making investments tremendously volatile in exchange of what? Does the casino really need such a big effective (but fake) bankroll to function? Are players really betting enough for that bankroll to be needed? ~snip~ Seeing how small volatility in profit is on your website ( https://dicesites.com/yolodice), I don't see why you need a 6241.53 bankroll and therefore you should drastically decrease the allowed leverage on your website (you should just remove leverage, as it doesn't benefit anyone but does harm investors). It benefits me. Most sites have a leverage option bitvest have one too and they're quite good at increasing profits (it increases losses too but that's a separate story). I have made a profit long term (technically a loss more recently but I'm in profit overall still, this would be impossible with a lower house edge as my profits would reduced dramatically). The same profit/loss on 0.1 BTC can be generated with a 1:10 leverage than a 1 BTC stake which I think is quite a nice feature and means you can put less into the house while still being in the bankroll. If the average leverage ratio is 8.53, by using 1:10 ratio you are making just a bit more than if everyone was using 1:1 (your leverage would be 1:17). However, your investment volatility and risk of ruin increases dramatically. You'd be in a way better situation if no leverage was allowed (your expected return would be similar, volatility much lower and there would be no risk of ruin, while now you'll eventually hit a -10% and lose everything, it's just a matter of time). You are being forced to use 1:10 because the other investors are doing the same. In exchange of nothing, as the casino doesn't need such a big effective bankroll. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
