DADICE : exposing investors to more risk than their kelly, misleading informatio

[OrangeSeller]

I can't see the invest option, so can someone say exactly how much risk is say 0.5x kelly subject to?

If a site has a 1% house edge, then investing at "0.5x Kelly" should mean that you are risking 0.5% of your bankroll at the most on each roll.

As I understand it, at DaDice, investing at 0.5x Kelly doesn't limit your exposure at all. If you are the only person invested in the bankroll and you invest 1 BTC at 0.5% Kelly, you are risking over 100% of your 1 BTC, because the site offers a payout of 20 BTC no matter how much is in the bankroll. At DaDice your "Kelly" factor doesn't limit your maximum risk. All it does is change your proportion of the total risk relative to other investors.

In other words, if all the investors were at 0.5x Kelly, it would be exactly the same as if all the investors were at 10x Kelly. The maximum bet would be the same, and amounts risked would also be the same.

I'm not able to see the investment interface. It was hidden a while ago.

Could it be un-hidden on my account so I can see how it looks? My name at DaDice is "doog" (it seems someone already registered "dooglus").

Not to forget all the investors are aware of 20 btc max. payout and they were also covered by 500+ BTC on kelly 1 of our own bankroll. So even in this case major part of discussed specific payout was paid from sites own bankroll.

Even if this is so, I don't see the reason to lose 29% at once! or could this be an inside job? Owner roll that bet and divested before it so the investor cover the most of that?

[dadice]

I find it interesting that OP is having problem with DaDice and still wearing their sig campaign?

Is there a reason you have not changed sig's?   Are you on good terms with DaDice now? (did not read the 9 pages to see this)

Leen was previously in the campaign for 1 week and never posted anything back then. She was not very active on the forum either and therefore has kept the signature ever since she enrolled in the campaign. Some of her BTC is still kept by dadice and the fact that she is still wearing the signature does not mean she has solved this issue with them.

Leen was never in our campaign! She wouldn't have been accepted due to her post history, ie. selling Belgian chocolate.

[dadice_dev]

Even if this is so, I don't see the reason to lose 29% at once! or could this be an inside job? Owner roll that bet and divested before it so the investor cover the most of that?

I think that has already been explained by dooglus that it is due to 20 BTC max. payout. And from our view, yes the max. payout has been and is 20 BTC and leen being totally aware of it.

[dooglus]

Can you enable the invest feature on my 'doog' account please?

dadice_dev PM'ed me saying it was enabled.

I checked it out. The invest dialog looks like this:



I get to select my "risk" from a list of different "kelly" values.

That suggests to me that my risk is limited to the kelly amount I pick.

The FAQ mentions the maximum payout per bet:



DaDice argue that that line in the FAQ should be enough to let investors know that the risk they select isn't implemented. I think a more reasonable interpretation is that investors get the risk they select and the house makes up the difference between the investors' risked amount and the 20 BTC they actually offer. Either way it should be made explicit.

I found dadice_dev in the on-site chat. He told me that people are warned of the risks when investment is enabled on their account. Maybe that's true, but I wasn't, so it apparently isn't automatic:

doog:
is there any help or FAQ about "investments"?

Staff dadice_dev:
No doog

Staff dadice_dev:
We ask them to contact support

Staff dadice_dev:
But 20 BTC max. payout is mentioned in FAQ

doog:
and what then? do you have some canned text you send them or something?

Staff dadice_dev:
Yes they are told the minimum investment is 0.05 and explain the risks involved

Staff dadice_dev:
Yes they are told the minimum investment is 0.05 and explain the risks involved

Staff dadice_dev:
However I agree that until the max. payout stays at 20 BTC. we should change terminologies.

doog:
I don't think it's reasonable to use the word "Kelly" in the investment dialog under "risk". That's totally misleading

Staff dadice_dev:
Okay doog

Staff dadice_dev:
I will change However I agree that until the max. payout stays at 20 BTC. we should change terminologies right away

doog:
the most logical interpretation is that the investor risks their selected Kelly amount, and DaDice makes up the difference between that and the 20 BTC

Staff dadice_dev:
I will change terminologies right away

[...]

Staff dadice_dev:
Terminologies have been updated, doog

[dadice_dev]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

[sdmathis]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

In other words, the OP was correct all along. DADICE had misleading information and was, in fact, exposing investors to more risk than their Kelly. It's good to have that straightened out.

[dooglus]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

Thanks. I think that's a lot less confusing:



Although I think it would be better to explicitly state how things work. A smart investor will want to risk something between 0.5 and 1 times the Kelly amount. First off, they are going to need to know what "bankroll: 621.7470" means. Is that the actual number of Bitcoins you have invested? Or is that the sum of each invested amount times the risk factor? I'm guessing its the latter, but am not sure. That should be cleared up somewhere.

Assuming that is the case, and that I want to risk a full Kelly, I need to set my risk to bank/maxprofit/100 = 621.747/20/100 = 0.31x - which isn't an option. The smallest you allow is 0.5x, which is almost twice a fully Kelly, which is too much.

[dadice_dev]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

In other words, the OP was correct all along. DADICE had misleading information and was, in fact, exposing investors to more risk than their Kelly. It's good to have that straightened out.

I would have agreed to that if leen (i) wasn't one of the beneficaries of investment program,  (ii) didn't know about max. payout being 20 BTC, she could lie as usual but she cannot deny her own roll with payout over 18 BTC. (iii) hadn't lied about skype conversations and twisting words, (iv) after processing her withdrawal requests right on the moment, she was told the we will talk to her next morning, (v) went behind our back and contacted our ex-staff. (vi) leen has history of slandering dadice and associating lies with us, this happened in earlier months as well.

[dadice_dev]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

Thanks. I think that's a lot less confusing:

https://i.imgur.com/yASlDFO.png

Although I think it would be better to explicitly state how things work. A smart investor will want to risk something between 0.5 and 1 times the Kelly amount. First off, they are going to need to know what "bankroll: 621.7470" means. Is that the actual number of Bitcoins you have invested? Or is that the sum of each invested amount times the risk factor? I'm guessing its the latter, but am not sure. That should be cleared up somewhere.

Assuming that is the case, and that I want to risk a full Kelly, I need to set my risk to bank/maxprofit/100 = 621.747/20/100 = 0.31x - which isn't an option. The smallest you allow is 0.5x, which is almost twice a fully Kelly, which is too much.

Yes dooglus, You are right and I didn't deny it earlier either. We will get the new manual in place until the max. payout remains at 20 BTC but as you explained in earlier posts, we will make the max. payout accordingly in near future (as soon as our commercial dept. is up for that). And all your other concerns regarding DA Dice will be addressed as well.

[XinXan]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

In other words, the OP was correct all along. DADICE had misleading information and was, in fact, exposing investors to more risk than their Kelly. It's good to have that straightened out.

I would have agreed to that if leen (i) wasn't one of the beneficaries of investment program,  (ii) didn't know about max. payout being 20 BTC, she could lie as usual but she cannot deny her own roll with payout over 18 BTC. (iii) hadn't lied about skype conversations and twisting words, (iv) after processing her withdrawal requests right on the moment, she was told the we will talk to her next morning, (v) went behind our back and contacted our ex-staff. (vi) leen has history of slandering dadice and associating lies with us, this happened in earlier months as well.

Well in that case it seems that leen knew about it so she can't really complain personally BUT the issue was there anyways. I see that you are changing it and i think that's the way to go if you and your team want to be trusted again.

[dadice_dev]

As informed you in chat, termonilogies have been updated.

In other words, the OP was correct all along. DADICE had misleading information and was, in fact, exposing investors to more risk than their Kelly. It's good to have that straightened out.

I would have agreed to that if leen (i) wasn't one of the beneficaries of investment program,  (ii) didn't know about max. payout being 20 BTC, she could lie as usual but she cannot deny her own roll with payout over 18 BTC. (iii) hadn't lied about skype conversations and twisting words, (iv) after processing her withdrawal requests right on the moment, she was told the we will talk to her next morning, (v) went behind our back and contacted our ex-staff. (vi) leen has history of slandering dadice and associating lies with us, this happened in earlier months as well.

Well in that case it seems that leen knew about it so she can't really complain personally BUT the issue was there anyways. I see that you are changing it and i think that's the way to go if you and your team want to be trusted again.

Yes, thank you for your kind comments. Dooglus's reputation and knowledge is unrivaled therefore no one can deny that. As promised we will soon address all other concerns this community has with Da Dice.

[SebastianJu]

The FAQ mentions the maximum payout per bet:

When i would read that then i would read it as "maximum payout" but as a maximum that comes into play when the house is bigger than 2000 Bitcoins at 1 x kelly. So that even when 1 kelly would be more than 20 Bitcoins the max payout would be restricted to 20 Bitcoins. I would not get the idea that, lets say 100 Bitcoins total in the house could overwrite max kelly and 20 Bitcoins could be taken in one bet. That would simply be too dangerous and the wording would let me never get the idea that it overrides the max kelly in this direction and not in the other one.