🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021

[darewaller]

Exchanging the funds of investors with no fee could be possible if they offer rates lower than most exchanges but I doubt this feature is necessary unless a lot of their investors asked for it.

Well, it could be possible if they only could have some sort of DEX agreement as well, or anything else like shapeshift, there could be some sort of third party app that could allow people to have direct exchanging inside the website without the casino itself really putting their finger on it, just exchange it using something else. That way you would have a casino with basically moving money to wherever you want for whatever reason (gambling or investing) and casino wouldn't take any fee at all, at most they would be basically allowing an exchange to take trading fee which is usually quite small as well.

Moreover, I think when the gambler wins something the house probably doesn't really take money, they do take money when they lose but I am sure it can't be true that they take it even if someone wins.

[1715600082]

1715600082

[YOLO_LIFE]

Final results of Weekly wagering contest

[Emitdama]

If you leave hiddens[1] aside for a minute, Flowcash is the only one who appears three times in three different currencies, he is in bitcoin one, at litecoin one and also at dogecoin one as well, dude really loves gambling with whatever he can get his hands on.

Also a big LOL to covid-19 coming in third at the ethereum one as well . Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .

[1]Hidden people might the same people or maybe different people, those are unknown, there is no ID given neither for the hidden ones because it would basically be same as telling their names since people could check from the ID, so these could be all same person or different people.

[ralle14]

Also a big LOL to covid-19 coming in third at the ethereum one as well . Dude is probably a newer user that took that name but it really looks funny when you see that in a casino .

That COVID-19 user looks like a regular on the site because accounts with user ids in the 260k mark are nearly 1 year old. He most likely changed his nickname just for fun since you're allowed to do so under your profile.

i would like it if they could even exchange at the same rate as most exchanges instead of how a lot of casinos try to take 5-10% in fees

It would be unprofitable for the casino if they have same rate as popular exchanges. If there could be improvements on their exchange having a slightly reduced exchange fee would be a good reward for higher levels.

[leea-1334]

So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?

And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?

Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?

so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?

[arisatox]

So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?

And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?

Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?

so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?

it does not matter if it is 1 or 10 million ltc, if players lose more than 0.5% investors win and if they lose less than 0.5% investors lose

[eXtremal]

So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?

And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?

Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?

so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

[HatakeKakashi]

Yolodice is not only a gambling sites that a player can join but it gives also opportunity to the player or investord to earn some percentage of the money they invested and they accept bitcoin, litecoin or dogecoin as investment in the bankrolls. Im not investing to the gamblinv sites now but maybe I change my mind after I calculate the possible earning if I invest to the yolodice.

[Timetwister]

These signature campaign goblins are so tiring.

[ralle14]

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

How is it not fair ? In the end the investors win anyway, sure they might not profit every other week but eventually it should go in their favor until they recover those losses if not then there's something wrong or certain factors affecting the investors. Someone created a thread about his yolodice investment you could follow that if you're still not convinced.

[lixer]

So, if a player wagers 1000 LTC and loses 5 LTC during that session, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge of the wagered amount) and investors get nothing, right?

And if a player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 LTC, the house gets 5 LTC (50% of house edge from wagered amount) and investors lose 10 LTC: 5 LTC to the winning player and 5 LTC to the commission?

Hmm, this does sound right too actually,,, or am I missing something here? So it would appear that as long as the player does not lose more than his expected loss, investors get nothing or lose something?

so in 1000 LTC he needs to lose more than 0.5% for investors to get something?

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

The system is probably not like that @extremal. I know that is how it was seen when it first started but I doubt they would take money from the investors to their own pockets, which the second option suggests. Think about it, if player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 ltc, that means house should be down normally, and I would understand if the investors cover that loss, it makes sense that investors take that risk when investing, however with that logic it says house gets 5 ltc, how could house claim that they could take money from the investors under disguise of house edge?

I am 100% sure they are not doing that, the first one makes sense, if gambler plays 1000 ltc and only loses 5 LTC, house could get all of it, yet do not forget that he could also gamble 1000 ltc and lose 1000 ltc as well, in that scenario we are talking about house getting 5 ltc and investors getting all the rest.

[ralle14]

The system is probably not like that @extremal. I know that is how it was seen when it first started but I doubt they would take money from the investors to their own pockets, which the second option suggests. Think about it, if player wagers 1000 LTC and wins 5 ltc, that means house should be down normally, and I would understand if the investors cover that loss, it makes sense that investors take that risk when investing, however with that logic it says house gets 5 ltc, how could house claim that they could take money from the investors under disguise of house edge?

Their new commission works exactly like that and it doesn't just go to their pockets. It also benefits the investors in a way since they're doing their best to improve the site with those funds and I guess on the old commission rules they're struggling with the expenses so now they reworked it. Losing to a player that wagers a lot might sound bad but imo the investors are fine since the cut is taken instantly.

[hatshepsut93]

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.

These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.

[adaseb]

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.

These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.

I don't think its considered like short term investing. Honestly short term investing means more like day trading cryptos or stocks. And what usually happens to most people that short term invest? Unless they are extremely lucky and catch the bottom most 98% or so lose their money due to greed. Look at what happened with the stock market and oil markets. Most retail investors were long oil and short S&P500 and the complete opposite happened.

With bank-roll investing is more like long term investing. Basically like buying a stock like APPLE and hold for 10 years or buying Bitcoin and holding for 5 years. Chances are you will most likely make some money, however at a very slow pace. So there is some degree of risk but its pretty low compared to anything else. Sure you can leave it in your bank account and pretty much get nothing for it. Nothing else out there which pays you more for less risk. So its a good investment in my opinion.

[DarkStar_]

Is not a system like this is not so fair, investors risk their money, but their money is cut in my opinion such a system is not fair, or how am I wrong in responding?

In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.

These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.

Agreed. I personally think 50% might be a bit too high, but when you consider all of their various costs (rakeback, faucet, jackpot, various wagering contests) to attract and keep players, the 50% isn't that bad. bustabit is also at a 50% fee and offers none of those things (though bustabit also takes variance, while YOLODice does not).

[leea-1334]

So I guess right now there are two takeaways,,, most people (including myself) would prefer a time-based XP from investment (like it was before), though I agree the XP majority portion should be from the balance itself. Secondly, maybe not everybody is happy with the 50% of house edge commission but as DarkStar points out, we get more things to attract gamblers like the rakeback, faucet, jackpot and wager, which all do not come out from investor bankroll. I think I am happy to stay at this but maybe, lower 50% slightly.

[Timetwister]

So I guess right now there are two takeaways,,, most people (including myself) would prefer a time-based XP from investment (like it was before), though I agree the XP majority portion should be from the balance itself. Secondly, maybe not everybody is happy with the 50% of house edge commission but as DarkStar points out, we get more things to attract gamblers like the rakeback, faucet, jackpot and wager, which all do not come out from investor bankroll. I think I am happy to stay at this but maybe, lower 50% slightly.

XP from investment should be based on wagered in relation to your bankroll, that encourages people to invest and leave their investment there, which is what the casino wants.

[ethan_nx]

XP from investment should be based on wagered in relation to your bankroll, that encourages people to invest and leave their investment there, which is what the casino wants.

This is exactly how we had it before, but it was hard to calculate and update how much each of the investment was "wagered". Maybe the reason was that I was trying to be really precise on calculating it. But that's why I am looking for a simpler solution without many rules, yet giving an adequate appreciation to investors.

Agreed. I personally think 50% might be a bit too high, but when you consider all of their various costs (rakeback, faucet, jackpot, various wagering contests) to attract and keep players, the 50% isn't that bad. bustabit is also at a 50% fee and offers none of those things (though bustabit also takes variance, while YOLODice does not).

The thing about the commission - various player benefits like faucet/rakeback/referral are mostly wager-based, but they also effectively lower house edge for players. What we are doing with wager-based commission is we make sure to take commission in a way to be able to pay these bonuses to players. In the long-term whether the commission is profit-based or wager-based should not matter, but from our perspective it's critical to have a system that is protected against short-time variations in site profit.

The first 2 weeks it seems that both DOGE and LTC performed above the expectations - the actual profit was higher than expected (LTC by 37% and DOGE by 22%).  Unfortunately BTC perfomed worse than expected (still bringing over 5 BTC as site profits), but investors should be seeing profit nevertheless.

I am now working on re-enabling XP from investments and referrals.

Cheers,
Ethan

[Timetwister]

This is exactly how we had it before, but it was hard to calculate and update how much each of the investment was "wagered". Maybe the reason was that I was trying to be really precise on calculating it. But that's why I am looking for a simpler solution without many rules, yet giving an adequate appreciation to investors.

How were you calculating it? It can simply be wagered*that investor's bankroll/total bankroll, multiplied by some multiple (1 experience point per X BTC).

Isn't it realistic to calculate that after every game? If not, maybe you can do something like daily wagered*that investor's average bankroll in the day/total average bankroll that day.

The thing about the commission - various player benefits like faucet/rakeback/referral are mostly wager-based, but they also effectively lower house edge for players. What we are doing with wager-based commission is we make sure to take commission in a way to be able to pay these bonuses to players. In the long-term whether the commission is profit-based or wager-based should not matter, but from our perspective it's critical to have a system that is protected against short-time variations in site profit.

The current system is perfectly fine for me.

[ethan_nx]

This is exactly how we had it before, but it was hard to calculate and update how much each of the investment was "wagered". Maybe the reason was that I was trying to be really precise on calculating it. But that's why I am looking for a simpler solution without many rules, yet giving an adequate appreciation to investors.

How were you calculating it? It can simply be wagered*that investor's bankroll/total bankroll, multiplied by some multiple (1 experience point per X BTC).

Isn't it realistic to calculate that after every game? If not, maybe you can do something like daily wagered*that investor's average bankroll in the day/total average bankroll that day.

I've been updating investments' XP periodically, taking into account how much the site total wager was and the percentage share of a given investment. The issue was that the percentages change when people open/close investments, and iterating over individual bets is a lot of overhead. I had huge optimizations in place but still...

Whenever possible I try to avoid adding overhead by updating too much data after every bet, so the main thread (process) only does what is necessary to process the bet and return the result. Things like stats, investment XP and so on are all calculated in separate processes asynchronously.

Well, but code aside, we have two options now:

1. investments get XP gradually, proportional to their wager - which depends on amount (share in bankroll) and time they are opened
2. investments get XP instantly, proportional to their initial value only. Let's say

XP_points = n * amount_of_coins

where n is something we could set arbitrarily.

(2) is far simpler to implement and gives instant gratification to investors. I also think it's pretty fair. (1) means slow leveling up, so someone who instantly invests loads of coins is still in low level range for some time.

Tell me what you think. Personally I am leaning towards (2).

Cheers,
Ethan