bustabit – The original crash game

[RHavar]

the part that I found the most counter-intuitive is that if the casino is over-risking to the point that it expects to lose money, shouldn't it be profitable for a whale to play there?

And...? Don't leave us hanging! How did you resolve this?

I think the way that makes most sense for me, is that the house needs to sort of assume a whale has infinite money. Like if you imagine dragonmaster2's "100% risk" scenario, it's just a matter of time before the infinite angry whale is guaranteed his win.

But if you invert the scenario, it doesn't really make sense to assume you can be a gambler with an infinite bankroll. And with any finite bankroll, all you can achieve is having a very large chance of busting the house -- but you can never turn that into a "profitable" scenario.


So when the house is risking more than a 2x kelly, you have a sort of weird scenario where it's bad for the house (it'll probably go broke) but also bad for the player (it'll still have an expectation to lose)

[1714926097]

1714926097

[1714926097]

1714926097

[1714926097]

1714926097

[1714926097]

1714926097

[1714926097]

1714926097

[JackpotRacer]

So when the house is risking more than a 2x kelly, you have a sort of weird scenario where it's bad for the house (it'll probably go broke) but also bad for the player (it'll still have an expectation to lose)

the house should protect their Bank Roll and Investors Bank Roll IMO and give the players a fair game

[quickmaffs]

the part that I found the most counter-intuitive is that if the casino is over-risking to the point that it expects to lose money, shouldn't it be profitable for a whale to play there?

And...? Don't leave us hanging! How did you resolve this?

I think the way that makes most sense for me, is that the house needs to sort of assume a whale has infinite money. Like if you imagine dragonmaster2's "100% risk" scenario, it's just a matter of time before the infinite angry whale is guaranteed his win.

But if you invert the scenario, it doesn't really make sense to assume you can be a gambler with an infinite bankroll. And with any finite bankroll, all you can achieve is having a very large chance of busting the house -- but you can never turn that into a "profitable" scenario.


So when the house is risking more than a 2x kelly, you have a sort of weird scenario where it's bad for the house (it'll probably go broke) but also bad for the player (it'll still have an expectation to lose)

And there it is!

Tell me RHavar...

What kelly are investors exposed to when they receive 0.75% of the house edge but a single player constantly bets to win 1.5% of the bankroll?

When you minus the dilution fees from the original investment, what does the kelly become greater than?

With this kelly and the house taking 0.25% of the house edge automatically, who are the only people to end up with the money in the end in this model (hint: they're both criminals)?

[RHavar]

What kelly are investors exposed to when they receive 0.75% of the house edge but a single player constantly bets to win 1.5% of the bankroll?

Without knowing the house edge in this scenario, it's not possible to compute.

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly. After the update, it was changed such that the worst case would be ~1.5x kelly.  All of these risks were clearly documented

When you minus the dilution fees from the original investment, what does the kelly become greater than?

That doesn't impact the kelly at all, as the site is risking based on your post-dilution fee bankroll.

[quickmaffs]

What kelly are investors exposed to when they receive 0.75% of the house edge but a single player constantly bets to win 1.5% of the bankroll?

Without knowing the house edge in this scenario, it's not possible to compute.

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly. After the update, it was changed such that the worst case would be ~1.5x kelly.  All of these risks were clearly documented

When you minus the dilution fees from the original investment, what does the kelly become greater than?

That doesn't impact the kelly at all, as the site is risking based on your post-dilution fee bankroll.

Yes. 2x Kelly.

At 2x Kelly, who are the people that stand to make steal money? 

I'll remind you of the breakdown.  Investors = 2x Kelly.  Players = -1% House edge. devans = 0.25% house edge automatically taken.

[quickmaffs]

You going to insult me and negative tag me to try and discredit me and not answer the question?

Be honest for once.  What's the answers?

[quickmaffs]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

[JackpotRacer]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

what did the user confirm?
 
the red trust for you is anyway a joke cause you did a new account to hide your original account. red trust cant hurt you

can RHavar confirm that a 2x or more KC was used or not. that would help all

[quickmaffs]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

what did the user confirm?
 
the red trust for you is anyway a joke cause you did a new account to hide your original account. red trust cant hurt you

can RHavar confirm that a 2x or more KC was used or not. that would help all

Red trust hurts everyone.  RHavar and others are using it to try and discredit me but also show a deterrent to anyone else that might speak out about their Bustabit scam.

RHavar confirmed 2x kelly here:

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly.

[JackpotRacer]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

what did the user confirm?
 
the red trust for you is anyway a joke cause you did a new account to hide your original account. red trust cant hurt you

can RHavar confirm that a 2x or more KC was used or not. that would help all

Red trust hurts everyone.  RHavar and others are using it to try and discredit me but also show a deterrent to anyone else that might speak out about their Bustabit scam.

RHavar confirmed 2x kelly here:

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly.

if RHavar confirmed 2x KC so please lets hear his opinion why he did use a 2x KC as he knows very good the risk of 2x KC

[quickmaffs]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

what did the user confirm?
 
the red trust for you is anyway a joke cause you did a new account to hide your original account. red trust cant hurt you

can RHavar confirm that a 2x or more KC was used or not. that would help all

Red trust hurts everyone.  RHavar and others are using it to try and discredit me but also show a deterrent to anyone else that might speak out about their Bustabit scam.

RHavar confirmed 2x kelly here:

If you are referring to bustabit, I believe it launched such that the worst case for investors (assuming multiple account aiming for max-profit) was a ~2x kelly.

if RHavar confirmed 2x KC so please lets hear his opinion why he did use a 2x KC as he knows very good the risk of 2x KC

RHavar appeared online after my last two responses to him.  He is refusing to answer.  He is probably trying to find a way to discredit me or bring up some issue that does not have any involvement here.

Maybe he is having trouble reading.  Let's make it easier for him.

According to kelly criterion models, which of these best apply for long term?

2x Kelly for investors = PLUS, MINUS, or  ZERO?
-1% House edge for players = PLUS, MINUS, or ZERO?
+0.25% House edge for devans/RHavar = PLUS, MINUS, or ZERO?

[RHavar]

if RHavar confirmed 2x KC so please lets hear his opinion why he did use a 2x KC as he knows very good the risk of 2x KC

At 2x kelly, an investor simply has 0 expected bankroll growth. That isn't inherently bad or anything (consider that it is still massively +EV), and the risks were well published. It's also worth noting that even when the whale was playing (with multiple accounts) it seemed most of the time he cashed out before the "forced cash out". Which means those bets were all < 2x kelly.

So the reality is, investors were exposed to exactly what was promised: a lot of variance, a lot of EV and a lot of expected bankroll growth (even if there was an occasional bet that didn't improve it).

I think the ideal would be that every investor can pick their own max kelly (e.g. 0.5x, 1x or 2x) and the max-profit becomes a reflection of that. For me personally as an investor, I would rather high risk (e.g. max of 2x kelly) because for me the greatest risk is simply the counter-party risk (you basically send someone your coins, and hope they're honest with them) but I've talked to some other investors who have said they would prefer a 0.5x kelly as they find the swings disconcerting.

In the end though, everyone needs to look at the risks and decide if it's something they want to partake in. But honestly, this whole discussion is a waste of time: bustabit did exactly what was promised and investor are now sitting on $3.1 million dollars in profit (which they are free to withdraw at any time) after merely weeks.  My understanding from talking to some of the larger investors is that everyone is very happy with the way it is being operated (although there admittedly were some grumblings about the commissions back when the site was deep in the red).

--

Also to clarify, I am strictly speaking as just a normal user/investor -- I do not have an ongoing role in bustabit. I am just trying to clarify the nonsense being posted. Do not take anything I say as an official statement or position

[JackpotRacer]

if RHavar confirmed 2x KC so please lets hear his opinion why he did use a 2x KC as he knows very good the risk of 2x KC

At 2x kelly, an investor simply has 0 bankroll growth. That isn't inherently bad or anything (consider that it is still massively +EV), and the risks were well published. It's also worth noting that even when the whale was playing (with multiple accounts) it seemed most of the time he cashed out before the "forced cash out". Which means those bets were all < 2x kelly.

So the reality is, investors were exposed to exactly what was promised: a lot of variance, a lot of EV and a lot of expected bankroll growth (even if there was an occasional bet that didn't improve it).

I think the ideal would be that every investor can pick their own max kelly (e.g. 0.5x, 1x or 2x) and the max-profit becomes a reflection of that. For me personally as an investor, I would rather high risk (e.g. max of 2x kelly) because for me the greatest risk is simply the counter-party risk (you basically send someone your coins, and hope they're honest with them) but I've talked to some other investors who have said they would prefer a 0.5x kelly as they find the swings disconcerting.

In the end though, everyone needs to look at the risks and decide if it's something they want to partake in. But honestly, this whole discussion is a waste of time: bustabit did exactly what was promised and investor are now sitting on $3.1 million dollars in profit (which they are free to withdraw at any time) after merely weeks.  My understanding from talking to some of the larger investors is that everyone is very happy with the way it is being operated (although there admittedly were some grumblings about the commissions back when the site was deep in the red).

--

Also to clarify, I am strictly speaking as just a normal user/investor -- I do not have an ongoing role in bustabit. I am just trying to clarify the nonsense being posted. Do not take anything I say as an official statement or position

thx for explaining. to be frank I dont see any reason to go for a 2x KC with 0 Bank Roll growth. I personally prefer 0.5 and 1x KC, but as it was published and Investors knew the risk of 2x all should be fine IMO

[quickmaffs]

if RHavar confirmed 2x KC so please lets hear his opinion why he did use a 2x KC as he knows very good the risk of 2x KC

At 2x kelly, an investor simply has 0 expected bankroll growth. That isn't inherently bad or anything (consider that it is still massively +EV), and the risks were well published. It's also worth noting that even when the whale was playing (with multiple accounts) it seemed most of the time he cashed out before the "forced cash out". Which means those bets were all < 2x kelly.

Almost all of the volume was bets from the single player whale which closed in on 2x kelly more than it was 1x kelly ("in line with the kelly criterion") from devan's post.

To protect investors, the most a single player can win in one game is 1 % of the bankroll, in line with the Kelly criterion.

Let's fill this out:

2x Kelly for investors = ZERO
-1% House edge for players = MINUS
+0.25% House edge for devans/RHavar = PLUS

Investors were not exposed to what was promised.  It was not in line with the kelly criterion.

If you had explained that investors would be exposed to zero bankroll growth all while devans makes millions of dollars at their benefit, they would not have done it.

You scaled back the kelly to 1.5x instead of 2x but you and devans still profited millions before doing so.

You guys lied several times while doing all of this and tried to make the excuse of recovering from dialing back the kelly to justify your deception and thievery from that before.

You are both dishonest and shameful human beings.  You can insult me and negative tag me all you want to try and hide it, but the fact of it always remains.

[Luxo42]

A user confirmed the same thing but decided to delete it.  Probably because you're abusing your trust and insulting people to try and discredit them.

Yes, i deleted it. I did not find if max profit was 2% of bankroll ever.
Anyway, if yes, that is common fault - owner and investors.

[RHavar]

Yes, i deleted it. I did not find if max profit was 2% of bankroll ever.
Anyway, if yes, that is common fault - owner and investors.

The highest the max profit (per game) has ever been is 1.5% of the bankroll. It actually was not ever changed it's just that because the commissions were no longer charged, that went from a ~2x kelly to a 1.5x  (as kelly is effectively a measure of your risk/reward)

[quickmaffs]

Yes, i deleted it. I did not find if max profit was 2% of bankroll ever.
Anyway, if yes, that is common fault - owner and investors.

The highest the max profit (per game) has ever been is 1.5% of the bankroll. It actually was not ever changed it's just that because the commissions were no longer charged, that went from a ~2x kelly to a 1.5x  (as kelly is effectively a measure of your risk/reward)

And when did devans make his 124 bitcoin of profit at the expense of his investors?

Was it during the 1.5x kelly stage when investors profited or was it at the 2x kelly stage with no expected bankroll growth and lost several millions of dollars?

[quickmaffs]

And when did devans make his 124 bitcoin of profit at the expense of his investors?

Was it during the 1.5x kelly stage when investors profited or was it at the 2x kelly stage with no expected bankroll growth and lost several millions of dollars?

The "no expected bankroll growth" refers to the worst case (2x) and for a specific game (when the whale(s?) were aiming at the forced cashout point). In general, all investors have only been exposed to +EV and expected bankroll growth.

And devans commission seems very well deserved, his job is to run the site and bring in volume. He has been doing a good job of that. And even though his investors are up >3M dollars in a few short weeks, how lucky or unlucky players are, is out of his control. It's not unreasonable to charge a fixed volume-based commission, especially considering investors are expected to earn 75% of the site's profit. But if you disagree with the model, that's fine, you shouldn't invest.

Most of the volume did come from the whale using multiple accounts trying to win a forced cashout.

You both lied and deceived investors.  You continually lie about being a "regular user" when you have abused and been able to take advantages of your position and ties with devans.

You both solicited for investments and aimed to get as big of a bankroll as possible because at 2x kelly bets, all the risk is on the investors which are exposed to zero bankroll growth, and devans gets an immediate cut based on how big the wagers are.

You solicited investments and defrauded investors.

That's the scam.  devans made 124 bitcoin off of it. 

[quickmaffs]

You delete posts because you get caught in lies.

"In general, all investors have only been exposed to +EV and expected bankroll growth."

This is the exact type of fraud that you're boasting and then you hide it after.

Keep lying and scamming.  The community lets you do it because of your position, but I won't stop trying to put an end to it.

You are such a dishonest and shameful person. 

[RHavar]

You delete posts because you get caught in lies.

"In general, all investors have only been exposed to +EV and expected bankroll growth."

This is the exact type of fraud that you're boasting and then you hide it after.

Yeah, I meant to write "and positive expected bankroll growth" but forgot the word "positive". If you take a bunch of bets with +EV and +EBG  and add another bet with +EV and 0EBG .. the result is still +EV and +EBG. But then I realized, I shouldn't even feed the troll.

But the statement (with the word "positive" added) is totally correct.

This is the exact type of fraud that you're boasting and then you hide it after.

Keep lying and scamming.  The community lets you do it because of your position, but I won't stop trying to put an end to it.

You are such a dishonest and shameful person.  

Yes, so you've said. How about you open a scam accusation against me in the proper forum, and I'm happy to defend anything I've said or done without derailing this thread.