🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021

[Maus0728]

And who made all those new investments, the gambler? I don't really understand what happened, it's like the gambler divested a lot, then started playing, crushing the rest of investors that stayed and now has reinvested again.

If that is true! That is some quite impressive moves as an investor and at the same time investor. Imagine that if you lose against house, you are still cutting the percentage of your loss. But fortunately, he almost actually crush the whole LTC bankroll.

Well, the recent winner seems to have a lot of luck. I was constantly checking his bets and stats looking for anything unusual that would indicate it was not a fair game, but I found nothing so far. We looking at anything suspicious in our code and in server logs just to make sure nobody has access to server seeds, but we found no leak.

That was a relief though  . Also, thanks for the quick response for the sake of investors as well.

[1714769103]

1714769103

[1714769103]

1714769103

[1714769103]

1714769103

[1714769103]

1714769103

[Timetwister]

I don't understand how that player is winning so much. It's not like they made a few gigantic bets and won them, they are consistently betting and making money, so it being just variance becomes decreasingly likely.

[ethan_nx]

When we announced the lowering of max bet profit a few investors added almost 1,000 LTC (maybe deciding that it's a good moment to invest) and existing investments' share shrank.

From that moment site profit increased a bit, but here's the thing: investors that had certain share in loses when the bankroll was going down had smaller share in profits when the profit was going up. The same happened with my investments, they lost disproportionally to site profit changes.

Investing in crypto games is never a guarantee of profit. There is a risk involved - and I strongly believe that people invest only what they can afford to lose. It's like with being the player - the odds however are in your favor, but it's still a game of chance. Shit happens. I believe credible sites care about investors' coins the best they can (I know I do), but even within the rules of the site big winnings can happen. Thankfully investing is a long-term game, and it usually pays off to those that are patient enough.

Cheers,
Ethan

[Timetwister]

When we announced the lowering of max bet profit a few investors added almost 1,000 LTC (maybe deciding that it's a good moment to invest) and existing investments' share shrank.

From that moment site profit increased a bit, but here's the thing: investors that had certain share in loses when the bankroll was going down had smaller share in profits when the profit was going up. The same happened with my investments, they lost disproportionally to site profit changes.

Investing in crypto games is never a guarantee of profit. There is a risk involved - and I strongly believe that people invest only what they can afford to lose. It's like with being the player - the odds however are in your favor, but it's still a game of chance. Shit happens. I believe credible sites care about investors' coins the best they can (I know I do), but even within the rules of the site big winnings can happen. Thankfully investing is a long-term game, and it usually pays off to those that are patient enough.

Cheers,
Ethan

How is it that before that player won so much I lost way more than I should based on the percentage of the bankroll that I had yesterday? It’s like if other investors divested just before that gambler started winning, leaving me “exposed” to the player. And then, after the player stopped winning, they invested.

It’s as if those that divested knew that the player was going to win.

[FatFork]

How is it that before that player won so much I lost way more than I should based on the percentage of the bankroll that I had yesterday? It’s like if other investors divested just before that gambler started winning, leaving me “exposed” to the player. And then, after they have stopped winning, they invest.

These were not 'other investors' but the player who won big himself. He is probably divesting - playing with big stakes - and reinvesting profits.
The only thing I don't understand is how someone can have so much luck for several days in a row.

[...]

Ethan, you should edit this section of the site to reflect the new changes:

[yakavetta]

I lost in the last hours way more LTC than I should have lost based on my percentage of the bankroll (around 2.5 times as much). I'm at -61% ROI, but the bankroll didn't decrease that much. How is that possible?

the same thing is with me and I'm just thinking about it. I'm starting to be suspicious about the regularity.
the only logical explanation is that the winner reinvested all of his win amounts. So, we have almost the same, only other investors are owners.

When I brought up the subject I got ignored or called a frustrated investor...smallest loss in crypto for me by far so im fine.



Well how is this possible?
Well think about it this way. Lets say the player has luck and manages to bet flat 49.5% bets with 40 LTC 10,000  times.
Now he should be winninig 4950 times and losing 5050. Now let him have some luck and win nothing and win and loss is equal.
The bankroll now shouldnt have lost anything. But:
"Technically we are moving 0.5% of the wagered amount from the bankroll to the commission fund as bets happen,..."
40LTC and that 10,000 times... that hurts^^

Now imagine that the bankroll also lost.

Then imagine the guy losing it again with 1000 of bets on the way back up to the previous site profit.
Well say hello to commission taken on the way up again from the bankroll.

It is sick and probably the only downside to this method of taking commission.
 
On any wager no matter how many that is. He wouldnt even have to win a lot for investments to get slaughtered if placed he 10,000 of bets.
To be fair ...yes the rakeback system needs feeding.

Dear Ethan,

if the above is true and thats what really happened, it would be wise to find a way that this can't be abused.
It would be a possibility for an inside job. I'm NOT accusing you of doing so. Just showing what could be possible.
You guys were into the bankroll anyway. And this is the advantage if you were trying to take on the other investments.
If you started to play just like that....well you'd take the rakeback and any spare commissions.

People have to blind trust a lot. Anything you have to blind trust less is good for yolodice.
There has to be some other way in the future for players, investors and you as an owner.



I didn't really think about the new commission system.
Because if I had thought twice about what it means I wouldnt have done so.

My personal interest is to be investing in YOLOdice again if something may change that works out for everyone.



If someone comes up with "ONLY INVEST WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO LOSE" ...you know what you may do with yourself.
Im just pointing out something and if it is not true just try to falsify my post in a constructive and for everyone understandable way.

[Reid]

I don't understand how that player is winning so much. It's not like they made a few gigantic bets and won them, they are consistently betting and making money, so it being just variance becomes decreasingly likely.

Yeah, even with all the explanation and Ethan looking deep into it, this is the only one I am thinking about when it was brought up. 
What's his secret?
Is lady luck always on his side? 
We all have been doing bets in Yolo and I don't think I can win at full scale in one day.
There will always be the losing streak to balance everything. (according to my superstitious belief) 

[Timetwister]

That makes sense, I didn't consider that. Even if a player is just break even, it can be destroying investors because they are paying 0.5% of what that gambler is wagering. Expected value is positive, but short-term, investors could ironically be losing money when the player is also losing money.

[bsky]

Indeed the commission taken by the site is a thing in cases like this, the site took 2500 LTC of commission this week.
There options like what's done by bustabit to keep a commission of 50% without affecting the investors durings huge loss. The commission is taken only when the site is at its ATH profit.

Also there is new investors because their expected value is much higher when there is a low bankroll (they can have a higher %) and when there is a player wagering a lot, its theorically the best moment to invest.

I also did it after losing a lot first i added another investment yesterday. So  sometimes the new investors you see are in fact the old investors who added some additonal money.

[justdimin]

How is it that before that player won so much I lost way more than I should based on the percentage of the bankroll that I had yesterday? It’s like if other investors divested just before that gambler started winning, leaving me “exposed” to the player. And then, after they have stopped winning, they invest.

These were not 'other investors' but the player who won big himself. He is probably divesting - playing with big stakes - and reinvesting profits.
The only thing I don't understand is how someone can have so much luck for several days in a row.

Oh that is an awesome idea when you think about it! I mean remove all your money from the investment, start gambling, win as much as you can, drop people's money down and make it lower while earning yourself more, then invest all of it to your investment side and suddenly you are 10x more in the bankroll as well. That is really a smart decision if they did that.

However even if that is not the case, when you see someone earning so much from gambling and the investors lose, you do think about investing a lot more right now, that way you would know that the down didn't hurt you much but with more investment the up will help you out. That is really awesome strategy even if you are not the gambler. I personally would do that if I had the chance but I do not have that much money.

[arallmuus]

Oh that is an awesome idea when you think about it! I mean remove all your money from the investment, start gambling, win as much as you can, drop people's money down and make it lower while earning yourself more, then invest all of it to your investment side and suddenly you are 10x more in the bankroll as well. That is really a smart decision if they did that

Thats not smart, thats risky. It sounds and looks like a smart play because he won and what if he lose? . If the player lose that means he will just be giving away his LTC to the remaining investor in the pool. Besides that the most logical explanation on why players lose more percentage of their investment is because of the commision of 50% wagered amount that the house charges

Even if a player is just break even, it can be destroying investors because they are paying 0.5% of what that gambler is wagering

Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor

but short-term, investors could ironically be losing money when the player is also losing money.

Thats because the house wants the investor to stay with them on a long term.

[UmerIdrees]

How is it that before that player won so much I lost way more than I should based on the percentage of the bankroll that I had yesterday? It’s like if other investors divested just before that gambler started winning, leaving me “exposed” to the player. And then, after they have stopped winning, they invest.

These were not 'other investors' but the player who won big himself. He is probably divesting - playing with big stakes - and reinvesting profits.
The only thing I don't understand is how someone can have so much luck for several days in a row.

Oh that is an awesome idea when you think about it! I mean remove all your money from the investment, start gambling, win as much as you can, drop people's money down and make it lower while earning yourself more, then invest all of it to your investment side and suddenly you are 10x more in the bankroll as well. That is really a smart decision if they did that.

However even if that is not the case, when you see someone earning so much from gambling and the investors lose, you do think about investing a lot more right now, that way you would know that the down didn't hurt you much but with more investment the up will help you out. That is really awesome strategy even if you are not the gambler. I personally would do that if I had the chance but I do not have that much money.

This calculation may work on the paper but practically this is not possible. Consider for a moment that you jump in gambling and lose all of your money or 50% of your money. Then you will have less money left for investment. I don't think it is a wise idea to play gambling only to increase your bankroll. You can lose all of your bankroll in gambling.

[Timetwister]

Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor

Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee.

[sana54210]

Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor

Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee.

I would say that short term for casino investment is one of the worst ideas out there for investment. Casino investment is a long term thing, I know a guy who works at a casino in an upper management type of position and when we talk he says that even the casino itself (which doesn't accept investments) doesn't make profit every day, they lose money some days and they win some days and the long story short is they do make a profit in the long term.

There are times when they lose so much that 2 months profits are all erased, but then there are days when they make so much money that they could literally retire and never work again, it is really a wild wild ride. Only thing that makes sense in casino investment is to have it long term so you can both have the losses and wins so that you could be in profit, in short term you could just face losses.

[Timetwister]

Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor

Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee.

I would say that short term for casino investment is one of the worst ideas out there for investment. Casino investment is a long term thing, I know a guy who works at a casino in an upper management type of position and when we talk he says that even the casino itself (which doesn't accept investments) doesn't make profit every day, they lose money some days and they win some days and the long story short is they do make a profit in the long term.

There are times when they lose so much that 2 months profits are all erased, but then there are days when they make so much money that they could literally retire and never work again, it is really a wild wild ride. Only thing that makes sense in casino investment is to have it long term so you can both have the losses and wins so that you could be in profit, in short term you could just face losses.

I'm not complaining about volatility caused by players winning, anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't invest. I'm just saying that the current commission system makes it possible for investors to lose money even when players aren't winning, which is strange.

[DarkStar_]

Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor

Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee.

I would say that short term for casino investment is one of the worst ideas out there for investment. Casino investment is a long term thing, I know a guy who works at a casino in an upper management type of position and when we talk he says that even the casino itself (which doesn't accept investments) doesn't make profit every day, they lose money some days and they win some days and the long story short is they do make a profit in the long term.

There are times when they lose so much that 2 months profits are all erased, but then there are days when they make so much money that they could literally retire and never work again, it is really a wild wild ride. Only thing that makes sense in casino investment is to have it long term so you can both have the losses and wins so that you could be in profit, in short term you could just face losses.

I'm not complaining about volatility caused by players winning, anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't invest. I'm just saying that the current commission system makes it possible for investors to lose money even when players aren't winning, which is strange.

It does make sense if you consider that YOLOdice has other costs too, such as rakeback which goes up to 30%. I'm sure they'd rather have investors handle that instead of hoping that players lose to pay rakeback. The alternate system (50% of net profits) also has it's own pros and cons. For example, if a player lost 50 BTC and then won it back, commission would get paid as if that player lost 50 BTC.

[Timetwister]

It does make sense if you consider that YOLOdice has other costs too, such as rakeback which goes up to 30%. I'm sure they'd rather have investors handle that instead of hoping that players lose to pay rakeback. The alternate system (50% of net profits) also has it's own pros and cons. For example, if a player lost 50 BTC and then won it back, commission would get paid as if that player lost 50 BTC.

I'm fine with the system, it makes sense to me. It can simply be confusing, it was for me at first as I lost a lot during that LTC massacre. It will probably take years to recover from that.

[kolloh]

When we announced the lowering of max bet profit a few investors added almost 1,000 LTC (maybe deciding that it's a good moment to invest) and existing investments' share shrank.

From that moment site profit increased a bit, but here's the thing: investors that had certain share in loses when the bankroll was going down had smaller share in profits when the profit was going up. The same happened with my investments, they lost disproportionally to site profit changes.

This is why dilution fees can be a good idea. Dilution fees would have at least spread some to the existing investors who got crushed and then had their shares reduced by the further investments.

[ethan_nx]

This is why dilution fees can be a good idea. Dilution fees would have at least spread some to the existing investors who got crushed and then had their shares reduced by the further investments.

I've been looking at the dilution fees again - and honestly, the data from the last few months shows that profit from the dilution fee would be really minimal (even negligible), while on the other hand it might stop some investors from playing, which could hurt long-term investors even more. I've seen many investors closing their investments, playing a bit and re-opening again. This is not rare and in the past it boosted site performance quite a lot - yes, some of them lost.

So in the end I am leaning towards the opinion that the dilution fee would penalize the investors who divest to play, while it would not provide enough profit for long-term investors to justify it.

This week Scott and me will discuss the commission model and if it can be improved, especially given the recent profit volatility and loses.

Cheers,
Ethan

[ethan_nx]

Ethan, you should edit this section of the site to reflect the new changes:

Done already!



Cheers,
Ethan