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

[dadice_dev]

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

Care to check 2 bet IDs already provided there.

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

yes, and a 9 btc win shouldn't be a problem with a 1000 btc adjusted bankroll, a 19 btc win is

9 BTC is your roll, payout is 18 BTC.

if "as much as we can" is limited (which it is) it simply means you cannot pay him/her back completely (in the case i gave as an example) which means you will not pay him/her back completely.

Every casino has a bankroll, we have shown ours, it was the very next message where I reminded you of our bankroll. We will pay as much as we can, that's the bankroll right there. If we are out, we will declare bankruptcy like every other casino works.

please get some information about the kelly criterion which will make it impossible to go bankrupt
and the max win should have been +- 10 at the time someone won 19 btc, that is the problem

As said before, please hold your horses, a justification is coming up shortly. And does that mean you admit manipulating and lying, and fooling dooglus into believing you?

[1714017282]

1714017282

[dadice]

Now since @dadice_dev has introduced working relations of leen93 with dadice, as well as exposed her lies she made number of times (no need to mention her constant rude attitude towards everyone).

First things first, we do not believe in censorship and that is why our thread is not self-moderated. We welcome criticism with open heart and justify the situations, where we are right and correct ourselves where we are wrong. If today we are not accepting public investments, is only because of this community and we consider ourselves as part of this community as well.

We did NOT mute leen93 in our chat, although it came to our attention this morning that after we have left, she created a scene in the chat (which is not new) and one of mods muted her for SPAM reasons. It is also to be noted that she created this thread right after the Skype conversation, and she had full knowledge that we are going offline for the night. She wanted to divest her investments and withdraw 6.19 BTC, those transactions require manual approval, so we also completed her transaction, told her that we are going to bed for the night and we can discuss anything with her in morning.

Since she had already created the thread here, and knew that staff will no longer be available in chat to answer her, she had no reason to make scene of any sort in chat, that is the reason she got muted.

In this justification, I want to put these facts in glance: (1) We never changed a single thing in our investments program and game play experience which could cause what people here referring to as "bug". (2) The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

We believe there is no bug in this system, instead the entire issue is combination of a bit peculiar and bit silly. Kelly criterion calculations are accurate and I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this. But again, the max. payout is and was a well known fact. I would like to ask leen how she came by that link? We removed the link after rightful objection by dean that one of our freelance writers copied major part of it from dean's site. (Well, dooglus also claims dean copied stuff from his site) but since it was wrong, we had removed the link from our interface. And link was not visible to both public and private investors.

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11364583#msg11364583

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

We have now removed the manual link for the time being, until we find another writer who can get this job done. Rest assured, leen knew everything about this system and was beneficiary of this as well. So we totally and utterly reject this accusation from her and deny any incentive. I would also like to request leen to make voluntary request to our support to have her account permanently closed down.

We have rewarded bug incentives to many users, we have had very severe issues (who hadn't?), but we feel its in our own interest to be part of this community and we respect every user on BitcoinTalk.  So I would like to welcome dooglus to check the investments system, give me his username on dadice and I will have this option enabled for him. The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface, I wonder how did leen came by of that link. Perhaps some user gave her the link, but we have now removed that document for time being.

If any of our investors want to leave dadice, they are welcome to post here and we will divest their investment to the value it was prior to mentioned particular roll. With exception of leen alone because of many reasons, one of which is, again, she is not acting in good faith and was aware of max. payouts since the start (she made her first investment on 26-Mar-2015) and knew how our investment program works, and was one of beneficiaries of it as well.

I believe we have answered all relevant questions in this and our previous posts. We will no longer discuss cold storage, max. payout and other issues which have been buried already.

Thank you for your interest in dadice!

[leen93]

Now since @dadice_dev has introduced working relations of leen93 with dadice, as well as exposed her lies she made number of times (no need to mention her constant rude attitude towards everyone).

First things first, we do not believe in censorship and that is why our thread is not self-moderated. We welcome criticism with open heart and justify the situations, where we are right and correct ourselves where we are wrong. If today we are not accepting public investments, is only because of this community and we consider ourselves as part of this community as well.

We did NOT mute leen93 in our chat, although it came to our attention this morning that after we have left, she created a scene in the chat (which is not new) and one of mods muted her for SPAM reasons. It is also to be noted that she created this thread right after the Skype conversation, and she had full knowledge that we are going offline for the night. She wanted to divest her investments and withdraw 6.19 BTC, those transactions require manual approval, so we also completed her transaction, told her that we are going to bed for the night and we can discuss anything with her in morning.

Since she had already created the thread here, and knew that staff will no longer be available in chat to answer her, she had no reason to make scene of any sort in chat, that is the reason she got muted.

In this justification, I want to put these facts in glance: (1) We never changed a single thing in our investments program and game play experience which could cause what people here referring to as "bug". (2) The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

We believe there is no bug in this system, instead the entire issue is combination of a bit peculiar and bit silly. Kelly criterion calculations are accurate and I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this. But again, the max. payout is and was a well known fact. I would like to ask leen how she came by that link? We removed the link after rightful objection by dean that one of our freelance writers copied major part of it from dean's site. (Well, dooglus also claims dean copied stuff from his site) but since it was wrong, we had removed the link from our interface. And link is NOT visible to both public and private investors.

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11364583#msg11364583

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

We have now removed the manual link for the time being, until we find another writer who can get this job done. Rest assured, leen knew everything about this system and was beneficiary of this as well. So we totally and utterly reject this accusation from her and deny any incentive. I would also like to request leen to make voluntary request to our support to have her account permanently closed down.

We have rewarded bug incentives to many users, we have had very severe issues (who hadn't?), but we feel its in our own interest to be part of this community and we respect every user on BitcoinTalk.  So I would like to welcome dooglus to check the investments system, give me his username on dadice and I will have this option enabled for him. The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface, I wonder how did leen came by of that link. Perhaps some user gave her the link, but we have now removed that document for time being.

If any of our investors want to leave dadice, they are welcome to post here and we will divest their investment to the value it was prior to mentioned particular roll. With exception of leen alone because of many reasons, one of which is, again, she is not acting in good faith and was aware of max. payouts since the start (she made her first investment on 26-Mar-2015) and knew how our investment program works, and was one of beneficiaries of it as well.

I believe we have answered all relevant questions in this and our previous posts. We will no longer discuss cold storage, max. payout and other issues which have been buried already.

Thank you for your interest in dadice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
please inform yourself a little bit with the kelly criterion. Even wikipedia is fine

[glorg44]

Now since @dadice_dev has introduced working relations of leen93 with dadice, as well as exposed her lies she made number of times (no need to mention her constant rude attitude towards everyone).

First things first, we do not believe in censorship and that is why our thread is not self-moderated. We welcome criticism with open heart and justify the situations, where we are right and correct ourselves where we are wrong. If today we are not accepting public investments, is only because of this community and we consider ourselves as part of this community as well.

We did NOT mute leen93 in our chat, although it came to our attention this morning that after we have left, she created a scene in the chat (which is not new) and one of mods muted her for SPAM reasons. It is also to be noted that she created this thread right after the Skype conversation, and she had full knowledge that we are going offline for the night. She wanted to divest her investments and withdraw 6.19 BTC, those transactions require manual approval, so we also completed her transaction, told her that we are going to bed for the night and we can discuss anything with her in morning.

Since she had already created the thread here, and knew that staff will no longer be available in chat to answer her, she had no reason to make scene of any sort in chat, that is the reason she got muted.

In this justification, I want to put these facts in glance: (1) We never changed a single thing in our investments program and game play experience which could cause what people here referring to as "bug". (2) The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

We believe there is no bug in this system, instead the entire issue is combination of a bit peculiar and bit silly. Kelly criterion calculations are accurate and I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this. But again, the max. payout is and was a well known fact. I would like to ask leen how she came by that link? We removed the link after rightful objection by dean that one of our freelance writers copied major part of it from dean's site. (Well, dooglus also claims dean copied stuff from his site) but since it was wrong, we had removed the link from our interface. And link is NOT visible to both public and private investors.

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11364583#msg11364583

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

We have now removed the manual link for the time being, until we find another writer who can get this job done. Rest assured, leen knew everything about this system and was beneficiary of this as well. So we totally and utterly reject this accusation from her and deny any incentive. I would also like to request leen to make voluntary request to our support to have her account permanently closed down.

We have rewarded bug incentives to many users, we have had very severe issues (who hadn't?), but we feel its in our own interest to be part of this community and we respect every user on BitcoinTalk.  So I would like to welcome dooglus to check the investments system, give me his username on dadice and I will have this option enabled for him. The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface, I wonder how did leen came by of that link. Perhaps some user gave her the link, but we have now removed that document for time being.

If any of our investors want to leave dadice, they are welcome to post here and we will divest their investment to the value it was prior to mentioned particular roll. With exception of leen alone because of many reasons, one of which is, again, she is not acting in good faith and was aware of max. payouts since the start (she made her first investment on 26-Mar-2015) and knew how our investment program works, and was one of beneficiaries of it as well.

I believe we have answered all relevant questions in this and our previous posts. We will no longer discuss cold storage, max. payout and other issues which have been buried already.

Thank you for your interest in dadice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
please inform yourself a little bit with the kelly criterion. Even wikipedia is fine

LOL. looks like you got BURNT You should be proving they have bug in system but they proved you're a liar well this was fun.

edit:
I saw post from PRC admin, why he deleted that?

[leen93]

Now since @dadice_dev has introduced working relations of leen93 with dadice, as well as exposed her lies she made number of times (no need to mention her constant rude attitude towards everyone).

First things first, we do not believe in censorship and that is why our thread is not self-moderated. We welcome criticism with open heart and justify the situations, where we are right and correct ourselves where we are wrong. If today we are not accepting public investments, is only because of this community and we consider ourselves as part of this community as well.

We did NOT mute leen93 in our chat, although it came to our attention this morning that after we have left, she created a scene in the chat (which is not new) and one of mods muted her for SPAM reasons. It is also to be noted that she created this thread right after the Skype conversation, and she had full knowledge that we are going offline for the night. She wanted to divest her investments and withdraw 6.19 BTC, those transactions require manual approval, so we also completed her transaction, told her that we are going to bed for the night and we can discuss anything with her in morning.

Since she had already created the thread here, and knew that staff will no longer be available in chat to answer her, she had no reason to make scene of any sort in chat, that is the reason she got muted.

In this justification, I want to put these facts in glance: (1) We never changed a single thing in our investments program and game play experience which could cause what people here referring to as "bug". (2) The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

We believe there is no bug in this system, instead the entire issue is combination of a bit peculiar and bit silly. Kelly criterion calculations are accurate and I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this. But again, the max. payout is and was a well known fact. I would like to ask leen how she came by that link? We removed the link after rightful objection by dean that one of our freelance writers copied major part of it from dean's site. (Well, dooglus also claims dean copied stuff from his site) but since it was wrong, we had removed the link from our interface. And link is NOT visible to both public and private investors.

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11364583#msg11364583

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

We have now removed the manual link for the time being, until we find another writer who can get this job done. Rest assured, leen knew everything about this system and was beneficiary of this as well. So we totally and utterly reject this accusation from her and deny any incentive. I would also like to request leen to make voluntary request to our support to have her account permanently closed down.

We have rewarded bug incentives to many users, we have had very severe issues (who hadn't?), but we feel its in our own interest to be part of this community and we respect every user on BitcoinTalk.  So I would like to welcome dooglus to check the investments system, give me his username on dadice and I will have this option enabled for him. The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface, I wonder how did leen came by of that link. Perhaps some user gave her the link, but we have now removed that document for time being.

If any of our investors want to leave dadice, they are welcome to post here and we will divest their investment to the value it was prior to mentioned particular roll. With exception of leen alone because of many reasons, one of which is, again, she is not acting in good faith and was aware of max. payouts since the start (she made her first investment on 26-Mar-2015) and knew how our investment program works, and was one of beneficiaries of it as well.

I believe we have answered all relevant questions in this and our previous posts. We will no longer discuss cold storage, max. payout and other issues which have been buried already.

Thank you for your interest in dadice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
please inform yourself a little bit with the kelly criterion. Even wikipedia is fine

LOL. looks like you got BURNT You should be proving they have bug in system but they proved you're a liar well this was fun.

edit:
I saw post from PRC admin, why he deleted that?

About what did I lie?
There is still a bug in their system, they didnt implement the kelly criterion which exposed me and other investors to more risk than we agreed to regarding the inormation on their website

[bodgybrothers]

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

Care to check 2 bet IDs already provided there.

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

yes, and a 9 btc win shouldn't be a problem with a 1000 btc adjusted bankroll, a 19 btc win is

9 BTC is your roll, payout is 18 BTC.

if "as much as we can" is limited (which it is) it simply means you cannot pay him/her back completely (in the case i gave as an example) which means you will not pay him/her back completely.

Every casino has a bankroll, we have shown ours, it was the very next message where I reminded you of our bankroll. We will pay as much as we can, that's the bankroll right there. If we are out, we will declare bankruptcy like every other casino works.

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max profit you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this it's easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

[glorg44]

Well its clear now that page was taken from PRC but you knew it about all already. You only cry because you lose, you didn't cry when you win. Hahahah not bad for a kid who just lost his pocket money.

[leen93]

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

Care to check 2 bet IDs already provided there.

The point I am trying to make here is that you are one of our early players and you're aware of how system used to work because that is exactly the same way it still works today. Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

Is it ok that I point out a 9btc bet at 50% means a win of 9btc not 18.

yes, and a 9 btc win shouldn't be a problem with a 1000 btc adjusted bankroll, a 19 btc win is

9 BTC is your roll, payout is 18 BTC.

if "as much as we can" is limited (which it is) it simply means you cannot pay him/her back completely (in the case i gave as an example) which means you will not pay him/her back completely.

Every casino has a bankroll, we have shown ours, it was the very next message where I reminded you of our bankroll. We will pay as much as we can, that's the bankroll right there. If we are out, we will declare bankruptcy like every other casino works.

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

This is true if they implement the kelly criterion, his post even shows they know about the fact they didn't implement it correctly.

[dadice_dev]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

[leen93]

Well its clear now that page was taken from PRC but you knew it about all already. You only cry because you lose, you didn't cry when you win. Hahahah not bad for a kid who just lost his pocket money.

I just got to know it: I lost 29% of my bankroll by someone placing 1 bet.
Then I started looking at the max win and realised they didn't implement the kelly criterion while they state they do it on their website.

[leen93]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM
Do you really think muting me in chat and screaming out you are doing well does make up for this bug?

[glorg44]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Isn't 10 kelly actually 10 times of your investment? how much did you invest? If you invest 5, you were contributing and risking 50 BTC to bankroll. am I wrong?

[bodgybrothers]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Actually, as a player wins more, your Kelly goes up exponentially until there is no money left to pay out the player.

[leen93]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Isn't 10 kelly actually 10 times of your investment? how much did you invest? If you invest 5, you were contributing and risking 50 BTC to bankroll. am I wrong?

yes thats true
and the max bet should be 1% of that adjusted bankroll, that is what the kelly criterion means
max bet should depend on the bankroll

[dadice]

This is true if they implement the kelly criterion, his post even shows they know about the fact they didn't implement it correctly.

As I have explained earlier, it is not implemented at all - so there is no bug and your are personally aware of it since our last discussions in March!

[leen93]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Actually, as a player wins more, your Kelly goes up exponentially until there is no money left to pay out the player.

That is the problem, kelly should be fixed liked on all other dice sites which don't have this problem.

[leen93]

This is true if they implement the kelly criterion, his post even shows they know about the fact they didn't implement it correctly.

As I have explained earlier, it is not implemented at all and your are personally aware of it since our last discussions in March!

I was not aware of this till yesterday.

[glorg44]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Actually, as a player wins more, your Kelly goes up exponentially until there is no money left to pay out the player.

That is the problem, kelly should be fixed liked on all other dice sites which don't have this problem.

Isn't what dadice said that kelly is fine, manual was wrong and accordance to PRC? where did you get link to it I also don't see it on site. And PRC admin made post here that it was word to word copy something but I dont know why he deleted that post.

[leen93]

Do they not teach math in your country. If you use 1% of bankroll as max bet you get an exponential decay in bankroll that never reaches 0.
To teach you this its easier in a chart form. The bankroll is on the Y-axis and the winning bets in a row is on the X-axis. You can see that it never reaches 0, although it does reach close enough to 0 at some point.
This means you can always payout the full winnings of the user regardless how lucky they are, the worst case scenario is that the user cashes out the entire bankroll and you have nothing left. You will always be able to pay what is owed if you use this method.

The reason is "commercial" not "technical". We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

as admitted, the manual was taken from dean's site but links were later link was removed from our interface.

I am talking about the lie on your page, I invested at kelly 10 and you placed it at kelly 29 according to the kelly criterion. THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Actually, as a player wins more, your Kelly goes up exponentially until there is no money left to pay out the player.

That is the problem, kelly should be fixed liked on all other dice sites which don't have this problem.

Isn't what dadice said that kelly is fine, manual was wrong and accordance to PRC? where did you get link to it I also don't see it on site. And PRC admin made post here that it was word to word copy something but I dont know why he deleted that post.

I am discussing the problem with PRC
Yes, dadice copied the info for PRC word by word but didn't implement it. This means the information on their website was not according their system.

[bodgybrothers]

This is true if they implement the kelly criterion, his post even shows they know about the fact they didn't implement it correctly.

As I have explained earlier, it is not implemented at all and your are personally aware of it since our last discussions in March!

So you admit you can't pay out a big winner?