🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com

[ranlo]

App owners and moneypot owners have no risk whatsoever. They take commision from the wagered bitcoins, investors take the real risk of players gambling against their bankroll. So yes, only investors lost.

App owners incur the cost of hosting the app and the cost of marketing/attracting players to play at their app. MP owners incur the cost of attracting app owners to develop MP apps and to attract players to play at MP, as well as the cost of securing funds, and the various seeds.

A lot of the costs that both app owners and MP owners incur will be incurred regardless of betting volume, so they are risking that betting volumes will not be high enough so that commissions on bets to cover the costs.

On a per bet basis, it is correct to say that MP owners and app owners do not bear any risk on each individual bet, however it is far from accurate to say that they do not bear any risk at all.

Yeah, I was referring to per bet basis as you said it. Didn't take the other costs in consideration.

Nevertheless I'd still say investors' risk is way greater than it should be.

It depends how you look at it. Sites like crypto games and safe dice give 70% ish to investors

but

sites like BetKing are proposing to give just 30% to investors, same as MP

but

BetKing will also share in the losses
So, it's really uncharted territory here that we're in now

Also worth pointing out is that Crypto-Games takes commission AND faucets from the investment pool. So they aren't even covering these costs -- investors are.

[1714785484]

1714785484

[1714785484]

1714785484

[1714785484]

1714785484

[fiscorcle]

App owners and moneypot owners have no risk whatsoever. They take commision from the wagered bitcoins, investors take the real risk of players gambling against their bankroll. So yes, only investors lost.

App owners incur the cost of hosting the app and the cost of marketing/attracting players to play at their app. MP owners incur the cost of attracting app owners to develop MP apps and to attract players to play at MP, as well as the cost of securing funds, and the various seeds.

A lot of the costs that both app owners and MP owners incur will be incurred regardless of betting volume, so they are risking that betting volumes will not be high enough so that commissions on bets to cover the costs.

On a per bet basis, it is correct to say that MP owners and app owners do not bear any risk on each individual bet, however it is far from accurate to say that they do not bear any risk at all.

Yeah, I was referring to per bet basis as you said it. Didn't take the other costs in consideration.

Nevertheless I'd still say investors' risk is way greater than it should be.

It depends how you look at it. Sites like crypto games and safe dice give 70% ish to investors

but

sites like BetKing are proposing to give just 30% to investors, same as MP

but

BetKing will also share in the losses
So, it's really uncharted territory here that we're in now

Also worth pointing out is that Crypto-Games takes commission AND faucets from the investment pool. So they aren't even covering all the marketing costs -- investors are.

There you go - and I think their faucet is much higher than MP's. Not to mention their rainbot...

[BetKing.io]

App owners and moneypot owners have no risk whatsoever. They take commision from the wagered bitcoins, investors take the real risk of players gambling against their bankroll. So yes, only investors lost.

App owners incur the cost of hosting the app and the cost of marketing/attracting players to play at their app. MP owners incur the cost of attracting app owners to develop MP apps and to attract players to play at MP, as well as the cost of securing funds, and the various seeds.

A lot of the costs that both app owners and MP owners incur will be incurred regardless of betting volume, so they are risking that betting volumes will not be high enough so that commissions on bets to cover the costs.

On a per bet basis, it is correct to say that MP owners and app owners do not bear any risk on each individual bet, however it is far from accurate to say that they do not bear any risk at all.

Yeah, I was referring to per bet basis as you said it. Didn't take the other costs in consideration.

Nevertheless I'd still say investors' risk is way greater than it should be.

It depends how you look at it. Sites like crypto games and safe dice give 70% ish to investors

but

sites like BetKing are proposing to give just 30% to investors, same as MP

but

BetKing will also share in the losses
So, it's really uncharted territory here that we're in now

You really can't compare BetKing to any dice site now as it's not the same business model at all.

Before we took 25% profit and 25% of edge on wager when we allowed "bankroll investment". Higher commission than some sites but no other site made anywhere near as much for investors in the past 2 years.

However now we don't have bankroll investors, it's private funded by me.
What I'm doing now is selling 30% of shares in the business, not a bankroll.

So it's really not comparable.

[dooglus]

Again, my argument is that you are painting a picture that doesn't truly reflect the commission.  We don't take a commission based off of profit, but theoretical profit (which in the long run should be the same).

I presented hard numbers. Investors have earned about 0% of the profits, while the site and the apps have between them earned about 100% of the profits.

How does that not truly reflect the commission that has been paid? The truth of the matter is that investors have paid a little over 100% of their profits in commission (to the site and the apps).

We take 20% of the house edge as a fee.  50% of the house edge is given to App Owners

And that is what I said happens. You (the house + the apps, combined) take 70% of the expected profit. So if the actual profit *is* 70% of the expected profit then you take *all* of the profit, leaving the investors with none. That is what had happened last I looked, as shown in the screenshot I posted.

What I'm also saying is that back when Moneypot was running well above equity, where an example could have been where investors had 95% of the profit, it would be a borderline lie to say "It is like investors are paying only a 5% commission on profits".

I wasn't paying attention back then. If investors had paid only 5% commission on profits then it wouldn't be a lie to claim that they had paid 5% commission on profits.

I'm not acting like anything, and not pretending anything.

I view your intent of post the same as if I had come to your thread and said Dooglus is indirectly responsible, and a major reason, for the loss of hundreds of stolen bitcoin.  

Who lost some stolen coins? I don't know what you're referring to here, but it's likely unrelated to the point we're discussing.

Maybe this is the old "dooglus vouched for scam casinos" troll? If so, it never happened. I never vouched for any casino other than my own.

But... it's not libel if it's true right?

Right. To be libelous a statement has to be:

* false and
* known to be false by the libeller and
* damaging to the libeled party

[dooglus]

Is it true only investors lost the money in moneypot but moneypot owners and app owners are in profits?

I'm not so good in understanding the statistics, but from this table, it looks like only investors lost the money and others are in still profit. If it is true, then moneypot is not suitable for investors, right?

Yes, it's true.

The site and the apps make a guaranteed gain every time a bet is placed, even if the bet wins. When a bet wins, not only do the investors have to pay the winner of the bet, but they also have to pay the site and the app owner. You can see that in the screenshot. Comparing the left and right sides you see that while the site profit dropped by just 78.5 BTC, the investor profit dropped by 82.5 BTC. The app owners actually profited by 3 BTC from this large loss, and the site itself profited by a further 1 BTC. The investors made up the difference.

On the other hand, if the apps ever do better than expected then the investors will also do better than expected. The site and the apps take a percentage of the wagered amount, independent of the actual profit. The way things are set up means that when the site performs at less than 70% of expectation the investors take a loss.

[DogecoinMachine]

App owners and moneypot owners have no risk whatsoever. They take commision from the wagered bitcoins, investors take the real risk of players gambling against their bankroll. So yes, only investors lost.

App owners incur the cost of hosting the app and the cost of marketing/attracting players to play at their app. MP owners incur the cost of attracting app owners to develop MP apps and to attract players to play at MP, as well as the cost of securing funds, and the various seeds.

A lot of the costs that both app owners and MP owners incur will be incurred regardless of betting volume, so they are risking that betting volumes will not be high enough so that commissions on bets to cover the costs.

On a per bet basis, it is correct to say that MP owners and app owners do not bear any risk on each individual bet, however it is far from accurate to say that they do not bear any risk at all.

Yeah, I was referring to per bet basis as you said it. Didn't take the other costs in consideration.

Nevertheless I'd still say investors' risk is way greater than it should be.

It depends how you look at it. Sites like crypto games and safe dice give 70% ish to investors

but

sites like BetKing are proposing to give just 30% to investors, same as MP

but

BetKing will also share in the losses
So, it's really uncharted territory here that we're in now

Also worth pointing out is that Crypto-Games takes commission AND faucets from the investment pool. So they aren't even covering all the marketing costs -- investors are.

There you go - and I think their faucet is much higher than MP's. Not to mention their rainbot...

Don't make false statements here. Crypto-Games.net Rainbot funds come from owners and donators, investors have nothing with it.

What concerns investments
We (owners) take 30% of the profit/losses! and 70% belongs to investors. Detailed explanation is in our FAQ.

[zaboq]

It was a great run allorbroke. Very entertaining show - congratulations!
MP: Havent noticed anything "fishy"

[Bigmann23]

from allorbrokes rain iwas able to win about 300000 bits during the run i raind about 60000 bits thanks allorbroke

[B_UN1T]

from allorbrokes rain iwas able to win about 300000 bits during the run i raind about 60000 bits thanks allorbroke

Nice one.
I lost my hole rain from aob what else  .
But thats the game.


I wish good luck to mp and hope they can stay.
But the last few month was very hard for investors.
Allorborke / Nottardy only to name a few names from the year 2016.
But a new year is coming and we will see where the journey ends.

[Bjorn_Blockchain]

Is it true only investors lost the money in moneypot but moneypot owners and app owners are in profits?

I'm not so good in understanding the statistics, but from this table, it looks like only investors lost the money and others are in still profit. If it is true, then moneypot is not suitable for investors, right?

Yes, it's true.

The site and the apps make a guaranteed gain every time a bet is placed, even if the bet wins. When a bet wins, not only do the investors have to pay the winner of the bet, but they also have to pay the site and the app owner. You can see that in the screenshot. Comparing the left and right sides you see that while the site profit dropped by just 78.5 BTC, the investor profit dropped by 82.5 BTC. The app owners actually profited by 3 BTC from this large loss, and the site itself profited by a further 1 BTC. The investors made up the difference.

On the other hand, if the apps ever do better than expected then the investors will also do better than expected. The site and the apps take a percentage of the wagered amount, independent of the actual profit. The way things are set up means that when the site performs at less than 70% of expectation the investors take a loss.

I was going to quote your other post and respond, but decided against it, as I'd rather just drop it.  I still don't understand why all the site owners can't just create a pact together to help each other out instead of constantly attacking one another.  We'd all be much better off united.

This is a much better post.  I don't know why you couldn't just say this from the beginning.

Many people hang on to your every word.  If you say it is 'Like' something, many are going to assume that's the way it really is always.  That was my problem.

Anyways, just as a headsup, there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.  We believe the investment situation is highly profitable in the long run.

I agree with Dogedigital, too often are there people in threads that stir up trouble for other businesses just for some weird personal satisfaction. I think if you really had good intentions of trying to help others improve on their sites you'd send a private message to discuss. Doing this publicly Dooglus makes it look vindictive, and at this point why? There is no legitimate answer to that and I don't expect one, just perhaps consider the choices you make prior to posting on threads other than your own.

Have you ever notice most of us never post in your business thread? It's because we could frankly give 2 shits what you're doing with your sites.

[fiscorcle]

Is it true only investors lost the money in moneypot but moneypot owners and app owners are in profits?

I'm not so good in understanding the statistics, but from this table, it looks like only investors lost the money and others are in still profit. If it is true, then moneypot is not suitable for investors, right?

Yes, it's true.

The site and the apps make a guaranteed gain every time a bet is placed, even if the bet wins. When a bet wins, not only do the investors have to pay the winner of the bet, but they also have to pay the site and the app owner. You can see that in the screenshot. Comparing the left and right sides you see that while the site profit dropped by just 78.5 BTC, the investor profit dropped by 82.5 BTC. The app owners actually profited by 3 BTC from this large loss, and the site itself profited by a further 1 BTC. The investors made up the difference.

On the other hand, if the apps ever do better than expected then the investors will also do better than expected. The site and the apps take a percentage of the wagered amount, independent of the actual profit. The way things are set up means that when the site performs at less than 70% of expectation the investors take a loss.

I was going to quote your other post and respond, but decided against it, as I'd rather just drop it.  I still don't understand why all the site owners can't just create a pact together to help each other out instead of constantly attacking one another.  We'd all be much better off united.

This is a much better post.  I don't know why you couldn't just say this from the beginning.

Many people hang on to your every word.  If you say it is 'Like' something, many are going to assume that's the way it really is always.  That was my problem.

Anyways, just as a headsup, there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.  We believe the investment situation is highly profitable in the long run.

I agree with Dogedigital, too often are there people in threads that stir up trouble for other businesses just for some weird personal satisfaction. I think if you really had good intentions of trying to help others improve on their sites you'd send a private message to discuss. Doing this publicly Dooglus makes it look vindictive, and at this point why? There is no legitimate answer to that and I don't expect one, just perhaps consider the choices you make prior to posting on threads other than your own.

Have you ever notice most of us never post in your business thread? It's because we could frankly give 2 shits what you're doing with your sites.

On the other hand, some of us care a lot, because it's a lot of real money invested in these sites

[Pseudo-Random]

Reference 1
Reference 2

"..there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.."

Great idea^
App commissions are too high. MP commission can be reduced perhaps by 1/10 to 1/5 of what it currently is awarding MP for each bet placed, but mostly, the burden of imbalance rests on app owners, as far as I can appraise the problem.

They are getting a slice of the pie that is a bit too large vs. the investors who bear the gambling risk.

Now personally, if I owned MP, the bankroll would be private, I'm not someone who is for crowdfunded bankrolls, I think it's composed of people with exactly the same mentality as all those countless ones in gambling / "investing" subforums who hunt for "Ohh you say this HYIP is paying out so far right? Ok lemme invest" - pathetic ;/

^So, admittedly I am biased, I'm not exactly the most neutral opinion source re: MP's issues lol. And of course I'm a huge gambler.. I'll always be a player, never on the 'investor's' side of things. Nonetheless I hope this insight is of some use to MP in their difficult time.

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

[fiscorcle]

Reference 1
Reference 2

"..there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.."

Great idea^
App commissions are too high. MP commission can be reduced perhaps by 1/10 to 1/5 of what it currently is awarding MP for each bet placed, but mostly, the burden of imbalance rests on app owners, as far as I can appraise the problem.

They are getting a slice of the pie that is a bit too large vs. the investors who bear the gambling risk.

Now personally, if I owned MP, the bankroll would be private, I'm not someone who is for crowdfunded bankrolls, I think it's composed of people with exactly the same mentality as all those countless ones in gambling / "investing" subforums who hunt for "Ohh you say this HYIP is paying out so far right? Ok lemme invest" - pathetic ;/

^So, admittedly I am biased, I'm not exactly the most neutral opinion source re: MP's issues lol. And of course I'm a huge gambler.. I'll always be a player, never on the 'investor's' side of things. Nonetheless I hope this insight is of some use to MP in their difficult time.

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

There are some differences - Ryan ran MP on the kelly system, which is +EV and +Growth. The current team has used a variety of systems I think to determine their max bet, whether it be 1% of bankroll, or more, or 20BTC flat.

I believe Ryan has argued that this could be the primary reason for long-term bankroll decline

[fiscorcle]

Reference 1
Reference 2

"..there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.."

Great idea^
App commissions are too high. MP commission can be reduced perhaps by 1/10 to 1/5 of what it currently is awarding MP for each bet placed, but mostly, the burden of imbalance rests on app owners, as far as I can appraise the problem.

They are getting a slice of the pie that is a bit too large vs. the investors who bear the gambling risk.

Now personally, if I owned MP, the bankroll would be private, I'm not someone who is for crowdfunded bankrolls, I think it's composed of people with exactly the same mentality as all those countless ones in gambling / "investing" subforums who hunt for "Ohh you say this HYIP is paying out so far right? Ok lemme invest" - pathetic ;/

^So, admittedly I am biased, I'm not exactly the most neutral opinion source re: MP's issues lol. And of course I'm a huge gambler.. I'll always be a player, never on the 'investor's' side of things. Nonetheless I hope this insight is of some use to MP in their difficult time.

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

There are some differences - Ryan ran MP on the kelly system, which is +EV and +Growth. The current team has used a variety of systems I think to determine their max bet, whether it be 1% of bankroll, or more, or 20BTC flat.

I believe Ryan has argued that this could be the primary reason for long-term bankroll decline

Current is a hybrid of kelly with max win being 1%.  During the first several months, we had kept the options the exact same way that Ryan had set up for us with the exception that we took 20% of the house edge on all single wagers. 

Ryan's argument holds true under a very specific scenario that would involve the majority of all volume being made up of max bets from whales that have an almost infinite bankroll to bet with.

Any chance you can share what the actual distribution is?

[fiscorcle]

Reference 1
Reference 2

"..there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.."

Great idea^
App commissions are too high. MP commission can be reduced perhaps by 1/10 to 1/5 of what it currently is awarding MP for each bet placed, but mostly, the burden of imbalance rests on app owners, as far as I can appraise the problem.

They are getting a slice of the pie that is a bit too large vs. the investors who bear the gambling risk.

Now personally, if I owned MP, the bankroll would be private, I'm not someone who is for crowdfunded bankrolls, I think it's composed of people with exactly the same mentality as all those countless ones in gambling / "investing" subforums who hunt for "Ohh you say this HYIP is paying out so far right? Ok lemme invest" - pathetic ;/

^So, admittedly I am biased, I'm not exactly the most neutral opinion source re: MP's issues lol. And of course I'm a huge gambler.. I'll always be a player, never on the 'investor's' side of things. Nonetheless I hope this insight is of some use to MP in their difficult time.

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

There are some differences - Ryan ran MP on the kelly system, which is +EV and +Growth. The current team has used a variety of systems I think to determine their max bet, whether it be 1% of bankroll, or more, or 20BTC flat.

I believe Ryan has argued that this could be the primary reason for long-term bankroll decline

Current is a hybrid of kelly with max win being 1%.  During the first several months, we had kept the options the exact same way that Ryan had set up for us with the exception that we took 20% of the house edge on all single wagers. 

Ryan's argument holds true under a very specific scenario that would involve the majority of all volume being made up of max bets from whales that have an almost infinite bankroll to bet with.

Any chance you can share what the actual distribution is?

20% of the house edge goes directly to MP (our commission)
50% of the house edge goes to directly to App Owners (as a referral)
30% of the theoretical house edge goes to the investors.

Were you referring to something else?

No like wager size distribution - like what percentage is made up by whales, etc?

[fiscorcle]

Reference 1
Reference 2

"..there is a possibility that we end up locking investments soon so that no new investments can be done and we will be looking to add in more private funds.."

Great idea^
App commissions are too high. MP commission can be reduced perhaps by 1/10 to 1/5 of what it currently is awarding MP for each bet placed, but mostly, the burden of imbalance rests on app owners, as far as I can appraise the problem.

They are getting a slice of the pie that is a bit too large vs. the investors who bear the gambling risk.

Now personally, if I owned MP, the bankroll would be private, I'm not someone who is for crowdfunded bankrolls, I think it's composed of people with exactly the same mentality as all those countless ones in gambling / "investing" subforums who hunt for "Ohh you say this HYIP is paying out so far right? Ok lemme invest" - pathetic ;/

^So, admittedly I am biased, I'm not exactly the most neutral opinion source re: MP's issues lol. And of course I'm a huge gambler.. I'll always be a player, never on the 'investor's' side of things. Nonetheless I hope this insight is of some use to MP in their difficult time.

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

There are some differences - Ryan ran MP on the kelly system, which is +EV and +Growth. The current team has used a variety of systems I think to determine their max bet, whether it be 1% of bankroll, or more, or 20BTC flat.

I believe Ryan has argued that this could be the primary reason for long-term bankroll decline

Current is a hybrid of kelly with max win being 1%.  During the first several months, we had kept the options the exact same way that Ryan had set up for us with the exception that we took 20% of the house edge on all single wagers. 

Ryan's argument holds true under a very specific scenario that would involve the majority of all volume being made up of max bets from whales that have an almost infinite bankroll to bet with.

Any chance you can share what the actual distribution is?

20% of the house edge goes directly to MP (our commission)
50% of the house edge goes to directly to App Owners (as a referral)
30% of the theoretical house edge goes to the investors.

Were you referring to something else?

No like wager size distribution - like what percentage is made up by whales, etc?

Out of the 73,775 BTC wagered so far:

Approximately 5000 Bitcoin wagered is made up of bets of 5 Bitcoin or more.
Approximately 3500 Bitcoin wagered is made up of bets of 1 Bitcoin or more.
Approximately 65,275 Bitcoin wagered is made up of bets below 1 Bitcoin.

Perfect! thanks

[RHavar]

Something to keep in mind - Ryan H. created MoneyPot and is the one who structured things as they are, designed the payout structures, and the DogeD/ACoin/Ranlo+[Devs] team merely inherited all of this from the sale last year.. It seems quite plausible they might have weighted & designed the payout %'s to each category of users differently had they created MP from scratch.

I'd really like to clear this up, when I designed MoneyPot I structured the risks very differently. The way it is set up now I think is negligent at best and ~8 months ago I had warned them that it would eventually lead them to their investors losing them money. I would've thought the recent events would make them re-evaluate their position, but they still appear dangerously dismissive of the risks.


I worked extremely hard in order to get the maths correct. I think it took me about 3-4 solid days to get the maths right, and I couldn't have done it without the help of blockage  (who is not very active here, but one of the brilliant minds in bitcoin gambling).

As far as I know, MP was the first casino ever that programmatically solved the generalized kelly criterion (no small feat, I must say ) to ensure it never subjected investors to a risk of greater than 1x kelly, designed to ensure the investors would always have optimal expected bankroll growth. Under the system I designed, I believe investors made ~400 (?) bitcoin with the early investors seeing a ~40% (?) return on investment in less than a year.

I'm not sure when or why, but sometime between buying the site and April they changed the logic such that the guarantees I offered no longer applied. I'd encourage you to check out the thread when I found out and did my best to try educate them: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1438838.msg14577586#msg14577586  and at least got them to update the site to remove the mentions of system I had designed.

It's a shame that instead of MP admitting "Oh, maybe Ryan that mad dog has a point." they just go on to continue to downplay the risks:

Ryan's argument holds true under a very specific scenario that would involve the majority of all volume being made up of max bets from whales that have an almost infinite bankroll to bet with.

..which isn't even remotely accurate. (For dice games) every bet that a gambler does that tries to win >66.66% of the max profit, investors should expect negative bankroll growth. This isn't some crazy anomaly, it's the common case when a whale is betting! The maths doesn't care about whales having "infinite bankroll" or anything like that, that's silly.

I'm rather puzzled as I can't tell if they still don't understand bankroll management, or it's just a case of an huge incentive mismatch here (because MP and apps) make a constant commission on each bet it is in their financial interests to accept bets even if they're ludicrous for investors.


Since the concept of "bankroll growth" is foreign to most people, I'll give a simple example. Imagine I have a fair coin that I'm going to let you play with, and I am going to give you 2.5x for winning (instead of the fair 2x).  So given this fantastic deal (a 50% chance of 2.5x'ing your money) how are you going to play to make the most money?

If you were naive, you'd care about your per-bet "expected value" and bet 100% of your money on my coin. Now that is fine, but pretty quickly you'll find you'll bet wrong and lose everything. So even though you're maximizing your expected value in each bet, it's a stupid stupid strategy because your expected outcome is to lose all your money.

The same logic exists even if you don't bet 100% of your bankroll, for instance betting 90% of your bankroll would also be risking way too much. So what the kelly defines is the optimal amount you should be in this circumstance. If you bet more than that, you'll make money slower, and if you bet too much more than that you'll expect to lose money, not make money.

The way MP is configured now, is that it accepts bets that it knows are objective a "bad investment" for investors (although is good for them, and good for apps).



Anyway, I don't post here to be a dick. But I don't want people to think I designed such a system or it's something I implicitly am endorsing.

[Dogedigital]

Again, just to be clear, the only change we had made during that time was having 20% of the house edge deducted as commission on every bet and the rest was kept the same.  Not saying that Ryan had set it up wrong, but we are just showing that we didn't do any crazy changes away from the system we were given.

The 'isn't even remotely accurate part' i disagree with.  

If you extrapolate our current data with 5000 / 73,755 Bitcoin wagered being over 66.66% of the max plus say an additional 1000 being added to it, with the rest being well under, do you still believe that investors would lose it all in the end also taking into account that the beginning ratio is likely to go down since even whales have a finite amount of bitcoin they can afford to lose before giving up?

I do see your point, that hypothetically if we had massive constant whale action liken to BetKing, our model wouldn't be the most efficient.  

However, we have been doing an average of 2.5 Million bets a day and 200 Bitcoin wagered with whale sessions happening maybe once every 3-5 days.  It is setup this way (like you explained earlier) to allow people to yolo, or martingale, or do a short angry tilt session.

To apply this and say that we are deliberately ignoring the bankroll management aspect and positioning investors in a bad situation is wrong.  We have shown that we are watching and willing to adjust as necessary.  

Lastly, I don't know why everyone needs to try and attack everyone else.  I see no reason to try and belittle our competition.  It's clear that we are trying to provide gamblers and investors alike a better experience the best way we can.  We are all established and want the same things.  We should be helping each other, but instead there's always personal attacks and subtle jabs.  All this bickering is not good for the industry on the whole.  There doesn't need to be a 'winner' for an argument.  The goal should be to find the best solutions.  Focus your negative efforts on sites that are purposely trying to deceive and steal from users.  For the rest of us, let's help each other.  I am personally sick of it and you guys should be too.  Seriously, please stop.

[RHavar]

If you extrapolate our current data with 5000 / 73,755 Bitcoin wagered being over 66.66% of the max plus say an additional 1000 being added to it, with the rest being well under, do you still believe that investors would lose it all in the end also taking into account that the beginning ratio is likely to go down since even whales have a finite amount of bitcoin they can afford to lose before giving up?

That's not really an answerable question, because it's irrelevant what someone is betting. What matters is what they are attempting to win.

I'd be interested in though seeing how many bitcoins have been wagered attempting to win > 1x kelly, and > 2x kelly

[RHavar]

Again, just to be clear, the only change we had made during that time was having 20% of the house edge deducted as commission on every bet and the rest was kept the same.  Not saying that Ryan had set it up wrong, but we are just showing that we didn't do any crazy changes away from the system we were given.

20% of the house edge represented a 40% reduction in investor expected profits, while also increasing investors absolute risks (by forcing them to pay that on win or loss). Which is totally fine, it's perfectly reasonable to change the commissions structure. However to avoid throwing the whole thing out of wack, investors would need to have been subjected to a 2/3rd reduction in risk compared to what they previously had. Right now, if a whale makes a big bet you are knowingly accepting it despite knowing that it represents negative growth to investors (but you and the app gets a 70% commission).

I'm not sure how that's fair or reasonable to investors, but then again they're adults who can make their own choices and risks