All the people saying "you don't understand variance" seem to, themselves, not understand it; the maths depends on 'perfect conditions' - in this case that there are many whales and that they bet constantly and consistently. That isn't the case. We need a few dozen (or a few hundred) more whales and then you could trust the maths.
Some saying that may not understand it. But some saying it (such as myself) DO understand variance.
You counter variance with volume. One way is to have lots of whales. Another is to have lots of different investments. If someone has a bunch of different investments all with similar risk profiles to J-D then they don't need any individual investment to have low variance itself. Similarly if someone manages risk across their portfolio so that J-D is part of their high-variance portion then they also aren't too concerned.
The high variance of J-D only really matters to investors who are trying to use it as something it isn't - or who have too large a portion of their investment capital in it. For the rest of us the main concern is maximising EV - then we can manage our investments ourself to deal with variance.
There's only two scenarios in which it makes sense to reduce the max bet % of J-D :
1. If dooglus believes that doing so would attract so much more investment that the actual max bet would increase, allowing even bigger whales and so more total expected house profit (and thus more expected commission).
2. If dooglus needs J-D to be profitable for himself in the short-term - in which case he should probably drop max bet to 5 BTC, remove the investment option (as he could bank-roll that himself) and settle for being just another small-stakes dice site.
For investors who are interested in maximising EV any reduction of max bet % is bad news. Not only is it sub-optimal from a kelly perspective (and so even more inefficient use of capital than the current inefficient system - which is a seperate topic) but reducing max bet has a double whammy impact on likely bet volume:
1. Reducing the attraction of the site to whales.
2. Reducing the attraction of the site to smaller bettors who only come because they can watch the whales play - and because in theory they can keep doubling up to a large win.
It also has a double-whammy impact on EV for investors:
1. Loss of volume,
2. Likely increase in investment diluting the already reduced volume.
Anything which reduces EV is bad for all sensible investors. Variance is something you manage across your investment portfolio - not something every investment needs to handle itself. Precisely how you do that depends on what invesments are available to you and what profile you want your investments as a whole to match. Now I appreciate that can be hard to do - as there's a lack of investments available for the low'risk of your portfolio. But asking for high returns AND low variance is just unrealistic.
Anyone not invested who wants max bet reduced so they can feel safe investing is totally missing the point. Your investment is NOT needed if the condition for it is that the site makes itself less attractive to players than it already is. What is so important about YOU wanting to invest that players should get reduced options and existing investors have their EV destroyed just to make YOU feel happy?
If dooglus wanted to run a low max-bet site than he has the funds to back it himself without investors at all : be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it. It's debatable whether the current investment model is sensible at all - for any significantly lower max bet it almost certainly isn't.
