|
Is there really people stupid enough to think someone is going to double their BTC in 6h? Doubling them in 3 years would already be a fantastic return.
|
|
|
|
It would be great if you added also the expected return in the investment period, to have a better idea of what can be expected in the future. For example, Dogecoin has had the biggest returns, but it seems that's because it's running way over EV: https://dicesites.com/crypto-games/doge |
|
|
|
|
As both sites are yours now, you could offer some way to invest in both places at the same time (shared bankroll). I'd prefer that way more than the "offsite" option, as I may not notice that a casino is losing money (I don't want to have to monitor it constantly), and it's possible that both casinos go bad, which would mean increasing the leverage on both of them, something very risky.
|
|
|
|
Considering the distribution of bets, what would be the optimal leverage ratio? If people were constantly max betting, then no leverage should be used, but the fact that most bets are smaller (safer for investors), should make some degree of leverage optimal.
At the moment, probably the max offsite if I had to guess. But keep two things in mind: a) It's very explicitly not a leverage system, it's an offsite system. It's designed to allow you to keep money in your own cold storage, while "risking" it. If you use it as a leverage system, you're probably going to have a bad time. b) What is "ideal" based on the recent betting, might not be ideal going forward. The last time there was some serious whale action on bustabit, the site profit was 747 BTC and then got totally smashed and finally recovered to 613 BTC. Which makes it look like investors were hurt a bit. But in reality I was invested in that time period, and made a profit. The reason? Some of the overly leveraged investors got margin called on the way down, and the remaining investors made a profit on the up. Really the entire purpose of offsite investing is to reduce your counter-party risk. But it doesn't do a super great job against maliciousness (e.g. if the house was intentionally draining the bankroll) as to use the offsite system properly you should be topping up your investment. But it provides very strong protection if the site were to suddenly vanish, or something of that nature. I understand the purpose of allowing offsite investments, but I bet it's mostly used as a proxy to use a higher Kelly multiple (leverage). I doubt people investing are worried about counterparty risk. If we didn't trust Devans, we just wouldn't invest at all. If I'm willing to invest say 2 BTC, because I like the investment and I trust Devans, why would I invest just 1 and have to spend all day watching for whales and be ready to deposit the other BTC if things go wrong (and still trust Devans at that point, which some investors wouldn't as they may be suspicious)? Even considering that some leverage was optimal, having to manually adjust it and monitor the investment makes it way less attractive than if it was automatic. Allowing investors to choose to risk up to 0.5, 1, 2, etc. Kelly (as you explained in a previous post) would be way better and we could stop that "offsite" farce. I think there was already a casino using that method, Safedice if I remind correctly. Right now, using 1:2 leverage would mean that a max bet would be 2 times the Kelly criterion? I read mentions to people multiaccounting involving a higher risk for the casino, but I didn't understand that part well. |
|
|
|
|
Considering the distribution of bets, what would be the optimal leverage ratio? If people were constantly max betting, then no leverage should be used, but the fact that most bets are smaller (safer for investors), should make some degree of leverage optimal.
|
|
|
|
Are all the statistics shown on the website from Version 2, or just some of them?
Users' stats such as net profit and total wagered include version 1. The figures you see on our statistics page also include version 1 unless it says version 2 only. So about 211000 BTC have been wagered just since February? |
|
|
|
...
The benefit of using the offsite, is that you fully retain control of it (you literally never even send it to the site). But the downside is you also risk getting "margin called" (basically if ever a max-win would result in your onsite being negative, you get margin-called and the site forcable sets your offsite to 0). And then if you don't put more money in the bankroll you can potentially miss out on any recovery.
There's pro's and cons to both approaches. ...
The major disadvantage of offering offsite investments is that it basically forces everyone to use offsite once a certain percentage of users use a high leverage. Otherwise your investment gets diluted and you literally have no real chance to participate in the profits generated by the site. In my experience the phenomenon that I described above happened at every single dice site that offered or is still offering offsite investments. Due to the advantages it still is a great feature, but this is the major disadvantage of offering offsite investments in my opinion. Exactly. In practice it’s mostly used to leverage, so you are forced to do it too. At least here it is “just” 3, not like in other casinos... |
|
|
|
And of those people playing for bonuses, they were pretty much totally dominated by two bot-owners (who had several bots) that were exceedingly good at bonus play. One of which didn't have a huge bankroll, and couldn't play high-stakes and the other guy who net'd about 1.1M USD profit in a 1 year period. I think it's fantastic that people are taking the game so seriously and doing exactly what it was designed for -- but I think the mistake was that a 1% bonus was small enough that casual players assumed it wasn't worth worrying about.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know there was a game with positive EV around. Are there any other games with positive EV (other than potentially poker)? |
|
|
|
- Probably the only gambling site where investments are proved to be lucrative publicly.
I don't think this is really true. I've been invested in a few casinos bankrolls, and they've all so far been profitable (*touch wood*), just the main problem has been most of them having pretty low bankroll turn over. And correct me if I'm wrong, but crypto-games seems to fall into this category for me a bit. I believe bitcoin investors made 52 bitcoin in the last 6 months (which is absolutely nothing to complain about) but in the same period bustadice investors made 479 BTC (and based on a smaller bankroll in fact too) and bustabit investors made 1250 (although ~750 is probably a better number due to some huge whale action that happened exactly 6 months ago today). But anyway, I agree with the rest of the stuff said here. Probably the thing I appreciate the most about crypto-games is how this thread is kept non-self-moderated so it's pretty easy to check in and get the full story of what's going on (without worrying they're being deleted) and in over a year of following it, it seems like a very honestly run business. Is a history of Bustabit profits posted anywhere? |
|
|
|
|
Are all the statistics shown on the website from Version 2, or just some of them?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Lutpin. Please keep updating this thread, it’s very useful.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm considering investing in Bustadice. However, I wonder why Bustadice and Bustabit bankrolls aren't shared, considering that now the owner is the same. What's the point of making investors deposit on both places (therefore reducing their expected returns approximately in half) when they could be safely combined in one, while allowing players to have the same max bet (actually max bets would be bigger as some people currently investing in both bankrolls could just invest everything in one).
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, the posted stats in the first message refer to a 7 months investment period, right?
Does that take into account the 30% comission that the casino takes on investors profit?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Can new users invest in the casino, or just those than had invested in the past (I remember some time ago that restriction existed, I don't know if it's still running)?
|
|
|
|
Wagered per day is a joke lately, it seems like people are playing somewhere else. It's so sad to see Just Dice dying like this, with the potential it has.
As original as it looks like this i rly think this site needs an update. It was a novelty and kinda cool to look so bad design wise. But i think players recently like to play on more gamelike sites with cool relaxing designs. We are also seeing a lot of people moving from primedice which still has amaizing design and they are deciding to play more and more on stake because it looks so gamelike. I would hate seeing just dice dying away it was so awesome back in the days and its and it should be kinda historical for bitcoin gambling. I guess owner/owners dont rly care improving it or changing it much becuase its an investment site ran by everybody but you all should defiantly try to keep it alive. Lately people seem to be gambling there again, but I agree with you, this place has so much potential with the history it has. |
|
|
|
|
I have to say 6 figures wagered days are very nice, I'm happy investing in Just Dice.
|
|
|
|
|
Wagered per day is a joke lately, it seems like people are playing somewhere else. It's so sad to see Just Dice dying like this, with the potential it has.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, 4 4 figures wagered days in the last 6 days, quite low. |
|
|
|
|
Wagered per day dropping again (like CLAM/BTC ratio)...
|
|
|
|
We have increased captcha time from one hour to one week.
Thanks. This promotion is very nice, it'd be great if it was always this fast. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
