Before all this with Nakowa winning big and taking the house down. What was the max profit the house ever had since the site started?
1% kelly and had a max profit over 550 BTC |
|
|
|
What is happening is really unbelievable.
enhpad turned 50BTC into 2,300, then lost it back.
20:15:49 (43175) <enhpad> i cant believe i was kinda a millionare a few moments ago
FFs Owns turned 4 BTC into over 1,000+
all 3 whales were playing at the same time.... we might hit 1 million BTC wagered today
*3 million, which is just incredible. They will wager over 1Million today which means about 125 million USD. Crazy |
|
|
|
What is happening is really unbelievable.
enhpad turned 50BTC into 2,300, then lost it back.
20:15:49 (43175) <enhpad> i cant believe i was kinda a millionare a few moments ago
Proof? I would be mad ... Not sure where he started but he made several winning max bets back to back |
|
|
|
holy crap from -6k to +1 in minutes. insane. insane day.. half of volume from creation til yesterday was bet today..
He trying to break the bank. |
|
|
|
Wow people retracted 10K bitcoins from their investments in a few hours.
About 6k were divested |
|
|
|
only 10% divestment today, and they'll go back in when the whales stop playing.
stop whining about variance. either understand math or dont invest here.
if we set to 1/4 kelly we miss out on a lot of profit in the long run. 1/2 is a good compromise. feel free to divest at any time.
I am just asking a question - would you rather have 1% max bet as opposed to current 0.5%? |
|
|
|
I did some back of the envelope calculations that suggest parallella can't compete against just going out and buying a new i5/i7 and sticking it in a milk crate. Dream away at finding a niche primecoin mining platform that no one else has up and running yet  It's good to dream! Even if true, the parallella does not require a MB, ram, an enclosure, cooling (other than maybe a single fan blowing across the entire assembly) - and it is infinitely parallizable without any additional cost. You cannot say the same for an i5/i7 which each require at the minimum a MB, ethernet, ram modules and cooling with some sort of enclosure and also it takes up 20X more space per unit. |
|
|
|
Did you do that on your first try at .01% chance of winning, or how many attempts? Impressive. yes that the real question! |
|
|
|
3 player currently making 100btc+ bets, holy hell...
Don;t you wish the max profit was 1% so we could have even higher variance? Mechs, you amaze me. You do realize that the more players we have doing near max profit bets the lesser variance we have, right? And YES, I'd like to have full Kelly again, as 99% of investors who understand how math works. No way, broseph. We won when we were at 1/4 Kelly and lost since we've been at 1/2 Kelly so LDO 1e-12 Kelly max bet will produce unlimited profits LOL :-P The smaller the max bet, the more reliable the profits will converge on predicted value due to less variance - with the assumption that the total amount wagered remains unchanged. Of course, the total amount wagered would likely be less with a lower max profit so that assumption is likely false It a matter of variance tolerance and how much vaiance the bankroll and investors can support. We are seeing a lot of divestments now with big bids in. Is that fair to investors who stay invested, especially those who invest & forget and not happen to be online when whales come on? |
|
|
|
3 player currently making 100btc+ bets, holy hell...
Don;t you wish the max profit was 1% so we could have even higher variance? Yes... My biggest problem with that is I do not think the bankroll supports so many large bets without a significant risk of ruin for the site. The gamblers won't gamble until the bankroll is 0 afterall, they are not a computer simulation. Between a combo of luck and fear divestments, they can break the bankroll to a very low level. When everything "settles down", those who divested and higher profits and new investors flock back in and dilute those investors who "stuck through it". We have a lot of invest & forget investors who rarely check the site and they are hurt by this effect significiantly. |
|
|
|
3 player currently making 100btc+ bets, holy hell...
Don;t you wish the max profit was 1% so we could have even higher variance? |
|
|
|
2.6
Cex is the top bid with 2.6 BTC. Auction ends sunday midnight utc Timer removed. End time: 2013-09-30+00:00:00UTC |
|
|
|
Why would I invest 500 BTC at 0.25% when I can just invest 125BTC at 1% then and not have the CP risk for the othet 375 BTC?
Because you would get less variance. Suppose a whale bets max bet and wins 20 times. If you invest 500 BTC at 0.25%, you'll still have 95% of your bankroll left: >>> a=500 >>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0025); print "%.2f" % (a*100/500,), 99.75 99.50 99.25 99.00 98.76 98.51 98.26 98.02 97.77 97.53 97.28 97.04 96.80 96.56 96.31 96.07 95.83 95.59 95.36 95.12 But if you invest 125 BTC at 1%, you'll have only 82% of it left: >>> a=125 >>> for i in range(20): a *= (1-0.0100); print "%.2f" % (a*100/125,), 99.00 98.01 97.03 96.06 95.10 94.15 93.21 92.27 91.35 90.44 89.53 88.64 87.75 86.87 86.01 85.15 84.29 83.45 82.62 81.79 Your risk of ruin is much greater if you invest at 1% than if you invest at 0.25%. Not sure that's true in the second case - as their BR is what they have left of the 125 plus the untouched 375 they have in cold storage. Broadly speaking having the two risks is similar to (but not quite the same) as if the people wanting low variance did what they should have done in the first place - and withdrew 3/4 of their BR. But as they can't do BR management themselves, you're having to do it for them. For those who want to avoid massive losses, the amusing thing is that a high risk level SHOULD be their friend. Their optimal strategy if they want to avoid large downswings is to invest a small percentage of their BR at a very high level risk level - giving them tiny CP risk AND a stop-loss to curtail losses if a whale hits a large winning streak. Of course they then also give up a lot in situations where a large down-swing is followed by a large up-swing - but until they accept they can't get the benefits of massive variance in an upward direction without accepting the reverse nothing is going to make them happy. Unless you were to specifically cater for them by allowing them to only cover small bets (where their money isn't needed) out of some sense of charity. The system seems very complicated as opposed to just staying at the current 0.5%. Personally, I will divest when the new system first comes out and see how it goes for a couple of weeks before re-investing and deciding what risk tier to be in. It hard not to see unanticipated consequences result from such a complicated approach. |
|
|
|
I'm hoping and expecting the latter.
You're right. Then this really is not so much a set your own kelly % more more a set your own leverage.
I don't think so. Leverage would be if I was to consider your bankroll to be N times bigger than you've actually deposited. But that's not what this is. What you're doing here is deciding what percentage of your investment you want to risk at most, and then, when the player decides to only bet X% of the maximum, you get to risk X% of the most you're willing to risk. Why would I invest 500 BTC at 0.25% when I can just invest 125BTC at 1% then and not have the CP risk for the othet 375 BTC? |
|
|
|
And... Is it safe to buy on btctc.co or why everybody want direct shares now? Something happened with btctc.co?Thanks a lot. I think this will be usefull for others too  btct.co will be closed soon and shares have to be moved to another trading platform (havelock or bitfunder). I don't think it's unsafe, but it would be a hassle to buy at btct.co now. It would seem prudent to just take the shares directly. It seems like only a matter of time before the other exchanges close as well. |
|
|
|
Hi Doog. Sorry to keep beating this horse, but can you confirm whether this is true:
It sounds true to me. The only reason I don't earn exactly 4x what you earn is because we don't adjust our investments to be equal to each other after every roll. I risk 1% and win, my investment grows more than yours, since you only risked 0.25% and won. Our bankrolls were equal before the bet, but mine is now slightly bigger than yours. (101 vs 100.25). If we both immediately divested our profits, bring the rolls back to 100 each before the next bet, then I'd always win (or lose) 4x as much as you. I understand the max bet part, but what if a player bets 1BTC and wins (way below a max bet). Do the 0.25% and 1% guy participate equally based on portion of the bankroll or does the 1% person get 4X more than the 0.25% investor? I'm hoping and expecting the latter. Then this really is not so much a set your own kelly % more more a set your own leverage. |
|
|
|
Hi Doog. Sorry to keep beating this horse, but can you confirm whether this is true:
It sounds true to me. The only reason I don't earn exactly 4x what you earn is because we don't adjust our investments to be equal to each other after every roll. I risk 1% and win, my investment grows more than yours, since you only risked 0.25% and won. Our bankrolls were equal before the bet, but mine is now slightly bigger than yours. (101 vs 100.25). If we both immediately divested our profits, bring the rolls back to 100 each before the next bet, then I'd always win (or lose) 4x as much as you. I understand the max bet part, but what if a player bets 1BTC and wins (way below a max bet). Do the 0.25% and 1% guy participate equally based on portion of the bankroll or does the 1% person get 4X more than the 0.25% investor? |
|
|
|
|
That made me want to puke
|
|
|
|
Max bet is 200 bitcoin, easily high enough for nakowa to give the site a run for its money? Unless he actually thinks its rigged now...
YES, I have to think so now. You have succeeded in becoming tiresome |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
