🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021

[adaseb]

The way I see public and private bankroll is pretty much whether a company decides to go public and get listed on the stock market. Both are pros and cons. When a company does an IPO they do it pretty much to raise capital so they can expand the company and open new ventures to make more profits. In return they need to give some control of the company over to the shareholders and sometimes they might need to pay dividends.

With casino crypto public bankrolls its pretty much similar. If a site is small it enables them to increase max bet and be able to use more of their funds for advertising and maybe move some funds to another venture. However by doing this they are pretty much making less BTC because they need to share it with the investors. But keep in mind that if a site goes public, they increase their advertising budget, get more gamblers, get more revenue and might make more BTC than before even with the bankroll. So its up to the admin to decide if it right for them or not.

[1713561931]

1713561931

[1713561931]

1713561931

[1713561931]

1713561931

[leea-1334]

Wow ethan,,, had no idea that a lot more people would be asking for investments back! I think it is a great idea for sure,,, of course, being a former investor but also we can see the demand from those who will surely look for other places other than Crypto-Games.

Cannot wait to see or hear about this golden opportunity:)

[ethan_nx]

The way I see public and private bankroll is pretty much whether a company decides to go public and get listed on the stock market. Both are pros and cons. When a company does an IPO they do it pretty much to raise capital so they can expand the company and open new ventures to make more profits. In return they need to give some control of the company over to the shareholders and sometimes they might need to pay dividends.

With casino crypto public bankrolls its pretty much similar. If a site is small it enables them to increase max bet and be able to use more of their funds for advertising and maybe move some funds to another venture. However by doing this they are pretty much making less BTC because they need to share it with the investors. But keep in mind that if a site goes public, they increase their advertising budget, get more gamblers, get more revenue and might make more BTC than before even with the bankroll. So its up to the admin to decide if it right for them or not.

Well said! There are benefits of both public and private ways. Going public (shares or bankroll) also means more transparency too, which is generally a good thing. Going private mean you have more freedom in managing the funds you have.

Anyway, the idea that has been sitting in my head for a while is:

1. All coins could be open for investments,

2. Commission would be based on wagered amounts (expected profit), not pure profit. This means if the commission was 40%, the commission would be 0.4 BTC from every 100 BTC wagered (with 1% house edge). There are a few benefits for the investors:
  - no "commission runs" - the commission would be taken in real time, which means your investments value is what you get when you close it
  - if players lose more than "expected 1% of wagered", it's investors' gain
  - yes, this would put a bit more risk on the investors in case there are big wins on the site with lots of wagering.
On the other hand, it protects the site (us) in a situation when players win a large portion of bankroll, and the site still needs to pay referral/rakeback bonuses. It would also help us get a steady income-to-expenses ratio.

3. There would be no "leverage" setting - almost all investments were at x10 leverage anyway, so I don't think there is much point in having that option IMHO. This would simplify things A LOT for us. We'd just set max bet profit to %1 of the bankroll.

4. For the time of competitions we'd pause all 3rd party investments for a given coin. That's because we'd still like to add 50% of the site profit to these competitions, and we couldn't do it with other investments active. Competitions happen every 2-4 weeks, we have 4 coins, so a given investment would be paused every 8-16 weeks for one week.

What do you say?

Cheers,
Ethan

[rawdog11]

The way I see public and private bankroll is pretty much whether a company decides to go public and get listed on the stock market. Both are pros and cons. When a company does an IPO they do it pretty much to raise capital so they can expand the company and open new ventures to make more profits. In return they need to give some control of the company over to the shareholders and sometimes they might need to pay dividends.

With casino crypto public bankrolls its pretty much similar. If a site is small it enables them to increase max bet and be able to use more of their funds for advertising and maybe move some funds to another venture. However by doing this they are pretty much making less BTC because they need to share it with the investors. But keep in mind that if a site goes public, they increase their advertising budget, get more gamblers, get more revenue and might make more BTC than before even with the bankroll. So its up to the admin to decide if it right for them or not.

Well said! There are benefits of both public and private ways. Going public (shares or bankroll) also means more transparency too, which is generally a good thing. Going private mean you have more freedom in managing the funds you have.

Anyway, the idea that has been sitting in my head for a while is:

1. All coins could be open for investments,

2. Commission would be based on wagered amounts (expected profit), not pure profit. This means if the commission was 40%, the commission would be 0.4 BTC from every 100 BTC wagered (with 1% house edge). There are a few benefits for the investors:
  - no "commission runs" - the commission would be taken in real time, which means your investments value is what you get when you close it
  - if players lose more than "expected 1% of wagered", it's investors' gain
  - yes, this would put a bit more risk on the investors in case there are big wins on the site with lots of wagering.
On the other hand, it protects the site (us) in a situation when players win a large portion of bankroll, and the site still needs to pay referral/rakeback bonuses. It would also help us get a steady income-to-expenses ratio.

3. There would be no "leverage" setting - almost all investments were at x10 leverage anyway, so I don't think there is much point in having that option IMHO. This would simplify things A LOT for us. We'd just set max bet profit to %1 of the bankroll.

4. For the time of competitions we'd pause all 3rd party investments for a given coin. That's because we'd still like to add 50% of the site profit to these competitions, and we couldn't do it with other investments active. Competitions happen every 2-4 weeks, we have 4 coins, so a given investment would be paused every 8-16 weeks for one week.

What do you say?

Cheers,
Ethan

I'm a huge fan of this. Specifically the leverage part. Like you said, pretty much all investments were on 10x -- so might as well just make it simple. 'Pausing' the 3rd party investments during comp time also makes a lot of sense. All-in-all, yes please

[bearexin]

They do not have to give control while they are doing IPO, there are shareholders and there are board members, those are very different two things and not really attached to each other all the time.

A board member can always be someone who has absolutely zero stocks in a company if you can position them there, for example it could be part of the founders that sold his shares but still stays in the board for a salary, plus there could always be no board members as well, just a person at the top as the founder who sold his own shares to public with nobody else who has the shares to it so the founder could just give 49% and keep the control as the 51% owner of the company. That is why we should know the difference between shareholder controlled company and founder controlled company.

[DarkStar_]

3. There would be no "leverage" setting - almost all investments were at x10 leverage anyway, so I don't think there is much point in having that option IMHO. This would simplify things A LOT for us. We'd just set max bet profit to %1 of the bankroll.

This sounds great - I hated essentially being forced to invest risker than I would have just to keep up to the rest of the "investors". Bankroll would have been destroyed if a whale won a large amount too. If you do consider keeping leverage, please cap it at something reasonable like 2-3x to allow people to keep some funds offsite without forcing everyone to 10x. Overall changes all sound pretty good, now that there's a very limited number of Bitcoin casinos to invest in.

[Timetwister]

The way I see public and private bankroll is pretty much whether a company decides to go public and get listed on the stock market. Both are pros and cons. When a company does an IPO they do it pretty much to raise capital so they can expand the company and open new ventures to make more profits. In return they need to give some control of the company over to the shareholders and sometimes they might need to pay dividends.

With casino crypto public bankrolls its pretty much similar. If a site is small it enables them to increase max bet and be able to use more of their funds for advertising and maybe move some funds to another venture. However by doing this they are pretty much making less BTC because they need to share it with the investors. But keep in mind that if a site goes public, they increase their advertising budget, get more gamblers, get more revenue and might make more BTC than before even with the bankroll. So its up to the admin to decide if it right for them or not.

Well said! There are benefits of both public and private ways. Going public (shares or bankroll) also means more transparency too, which is generally a good thing. Going private mean you have more freedom in managing the funds you have.

Anyway, the idea that has been sitting in my head for a while is:

1. All coins could be open for investments,

2. Commission would be based on wagered amounts (expected profit), not pure profit. This means if the commission was 40%, the commission would be 0.4 BTC from every 100 BTC wagered (with 1% house edge). There are a few benefits for the investors:
  - no "commission runs" - the commission would be taken in real time, which means your investments value is what you get when you close it
  - if players lose more than "expected 1% of wagered", it's investors' gain
  - yes, this would put a bit more risk on the investors in case there are big wins on the site with lots of wagering.
On the other hand, it protects the site (us) in a situation when players win a large portion of bankroll, and the site still needs to pay referral/rakeback bonuses. It would also help us get a steady income-to-expenses ratio.

3. There would be no "leverage" setting - almost all investments were at x10 leverage anyway, so I don't think there is much point in having that option IMHO. This would simplify things A LOT for us. We'd just set max bet profit to %1 of the bankroll.

4. For the time of competitions we'd pause all 3rd party investments for a given coin. That's because we'd still like to add 50% of the site profit to these competitions, and we couldn't do it with other investments active. Competitions happen every 2-4 weeks, we have 4 coins, so a given investment would be paused every 8-16 weeks for one week.

What do you say?

Cheers,
Ethan

I'm glad you are considering bringing them back and I'm happy to see that the changes you propose would make investing in Yolodice even better than before. Specifically I'm thinking about the leverage part, which made no sense to me when I was investing (I was "forced" to be more leveraged than I wanted just to avoid being diluted). Charging a constant fee based on wagered is completely fine for me. About the last point, I'm fine with that too.

As soon as you allow investments again, count me in

[ethan_nx]

Hey, just a bump to let you know that our latest competition is about to end in ~17 minutes, and the prize pool is close to 60 ETH.

Cheers,
Ethan

[ethan_nx]

The competition has ended with total of almost 80 ETH, thank you all for joining! And stay tuned for more!

Cheers,
Ethan

[Timetwister]

Crypto-Games closes investments tomorrow, this is a huge opportunity for Yolodice to welcome those investors that are thrown out of that casino.

[leea-1334]

I think the changes are good, if we want to bring back investments,,, the leverage was always riskier and made it much more difficult for you, for no additional gain (as you said since everyone went all in at max leverage anyway). Let us keep it straightforward, and yes, commission should always be on wagered amount, and if people actually send in profit, then also, profit is shared equal to bankroll share. If the maths is straightforward, then it's just easier on everyone too.

Today ends all the CGN investments!

[FanEagle]

Yeah, leverage on investments has always been a bit riskier than usual if you ask me. It is of course a very safe investment that you would make a profit by investing to a casino because mathematically a casino will always make a profit thanks to house edge, however that doesn't mean it will always profit in the short term.

Just to give an example, a website could make 10 bitcoin profit per day on average, but one day there could be a whale who keeps on gambling on maximum allowed and profit 120 bitcoins that day, which means you will on average wait for 12 days to recover from that. Now you still make a profit in the long run as you can see, but there could be short term setbacks like that. When you do x10 leverage, that becomes a lot tougher on the investor.

[Timetwister]

Yeah, leverage on investments has always been a bit riskier than usual if you ask me. It is of course a very safe investment that you would make a profit by investing to a casino because mathematically a casino will always make a profit thanks to house edge, however that doesn't mean it will always profit in the short term.

Just to give an example, a website could make 10 bitcoin profit per day on average, but one day there could be a whale who keeps on gambling on maximum allowed and profit 120 bitcoins that day, which means you will on average wait for 12 days to recover from that. Now you still make a profit in the long run as you can see, but there could be short term setbacks like that. When you do x10 leverage, that becomes a lot tougher on the investor.

With high leverage it's possible to make a good investment become a bad one. High leverage only makes sense if most of the money wagered is targeting low potential profit per bet. If someone with unlimited money is targeting maximum profit while investors are leveraged 1:10, the player would eventually bankrupt the casino. That doesn't mean it's profitable for the player, as unless they really have unlimited money, if they kept playing eventually they would hit a streak in which they lose everything, as playing has negative expected value.

[DarkStar_]

Yeah, leverage on investments has always been a bit riskier than usual if you ask me. It is of course a very safe investment that you would make a profit by investing to a casino because mathematically a casino will always make a profit thanks to house edge, however that doesn't mean it will always profit in the short term.

Just to give an example, a website could make 10 bitcoin profit per day on average, but one day there could be a whale who keeps on gambling on maximum allowed and profit 120 bitcoins that day, which means you will on average wait for 12 days to recover from that. Now you still make a profit in the long run as you can see, but there could be short term setbacks like that. When you do x10 leverage, that becomes a lot tougher on the investor.

Like Timetwister said, it isn't taking longer time to recover that's an issue, it's the fact that 10x leverage is going to be -EBG (expected bankroll growth) for almost all bets that try to win near the max profit, despite each individual bet being +EV.

[leea-1334]

Interesting shares on the x10 leverage calculations, but I guess even if the bankroll growth is negative long term, it's still negative for the leveraged ones, which means, the players' bankrolls,,, so it does not affect the site's bankroll, right? So with or without investment, the site bankroll is not affected, basically we are saying only public shares are affected? Then it seems even a better idea to open invests. My thinking of leverage was that it makes things more complex to manage for site.

[bearexin]

The thing about leverage part is, when it is closer to maximum bet the results are like this ; one big whale bets a big amount, ends up winning, leveraged investor loses all he has, has nothing left, whale eventually loses, but the leveraged person is all out so he can't take advantage of it.

So, as you can see when you invest regularly you take advantage of everything, you never go to full on zero and you still make a profit, however when you are leveraged there is really no way of making profit if the whale first wins and loses only afterwards. I know why they do it tho, they want to leverage it because they imagine if whale ends up losing first and winning later, they could actually make a decent profit, they could x10 their entry and that would be more than great, so they risk it.

[kolloh]

Well said! There are benefits of both public and private ways. Going public (shares or bankroll) also means more transparency too, which is generally a good thing. Going private mean you have more freedom in managing the funds you have.

Anyway, the idea that has been sitting in my head for a while is:

1. All coins could be open for investments,

2. Commission would be based on wagered amounts (expected profit), not pure profit. This means if the commission was 40%, the commission would be 0.4 BTC from every 100 BTC wagered (with 1% house edge). There are a few benefits for the investors:
  - no "commission runs" - the commission would be taken in real time, which means your investments value is what you get when you close it
  - if players lose more than "expected 1% of wagered", it's investors' gain
  - yes, this would put a bit more risk on the investors in case there are big wins on the site with lots of wagering.
On the other hand, it protects the site (us) in a situation when players win a large portion of bankroll, and the site still needs to pay referral/rakeback bonuses. It would also help us get a steady income-to-expenses ratio.

3. There would be no "leverage" setting - almost all investments were at x10 leverage anyway, so I don't think there is much point in having that option IMHO. This would simplify things A LOT for us. We'd just set max bet profit to %1 of the bankroll.

4. For the time of competitions we'd pause all 3rd party investments for a given coin. That's because we'd still like to add 50% of the site profit to these competitions, and we couldn't do it with other investments active. Competitions happen every 2-4 weeks, we have 4 coins, so a given investment would be paused every 8-16 weeks for one week.

What do you say?

Cheers,
Ethan

Seems like a pretty good system to me.

[adaseb]

The thing about leverage part is, when it is closer to maximum bet the results are like this ; one big whale bets a big amount, ends up winning, leveraged investor loses all he has, has nothing left, whale eventually loses, but the leveraged person is all out so he can't take advantage of it.

So, as you can see when you invest regularly you take advantage of everything, you never go to full on zero and you still make a profit, however when you are leveraged there is really no way of making profit if the whale first wins and loses only afterwards. I know why they do it tho, they want to leverage it because they imagine if whale ends up losing first and winning later, they could actually make a decent profit, they could x10 their entry and that would be more than great, so they risk it.

This doesn't only apply to YOLOdice it applies to pretty much everything out there that makes investments possible with leverage. Investing in the stock market is no different and same with bitcoin futures like Bitmex which gives 100x leverage. Why do they do it? Well its simple, the exchange doesn't care who wins or loses they just want to get more in commissions, so if you are given 2x leverage ,they can get 2x in commissions.

I don't think leveraging bankroll is a good idea either, for investments such as this they should be purely 1x. In many markets leverage is the reason why so many people lose money. Pretty much anyone with took any leverage greater than 1x on bitcoin trading in the past couple of weeks would of been liquidated or pretty close. And there is a good chance that $3500 might of been the low. So the leveraged people got liquidated, while the market recovered right after. In leveraged casino bankroll investing its no different. However it should just be removed to keeps things simple.

[DarkStar_]

I don't think leveraging bankroll is a good idea either, for investments such as this they should be purely 1x.

Bankroll investment leverage should be used to reduce counterparty risk (good use). However, when you offer 10x leverage, no one actually uses it for that purpose; just to keep up. Against a large whale playing for max, 10x leverage gives you so little time to add to your investment that it's a lot less practical for reducing couterparty risk.

Optimally I'd like to see YOLODice offer 2x leverage but if it's a lot simpler to just do 1x, it's probably not worth it.

[leea-1334]

Whatever the opinions of everyone here it does seem we can all agree on one thing,,, even if you find leverage ability useful, the shortfalls and extra vulnerabilities to your own bankroll is far worse for you to consider it. I think the simplest is just to have no leverage in this case,,, and then to test something small like 2x down the line in a small sample group. Or offer it as a Level requirement?