bustabit – The original crash game

[RHavar]

A site owner, who cannot finance his own game, taking a profit while the investors that finance the entire operation take a loss will never sit right with me.

Hm? Well Daniel hasn't been taking a commission for a while now. But as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll, I would have no problems even if he was. His job is to keep the site running, improve it, keep bringing in players etc.  And it's investors job to eat the variance. He shouldn't really need to worry about things out of his control (like if players or investors are getting unlucky)


While I would never encourage people to invest (after all, it's more of a good-odds gamble than anything) it seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me, with investors having no commitment and an expected 75% of the sites profit.  And in fact, I think is more beneficial for the long-term prospects of the site (e.g. if you want to start hiring and have an advertising budget .. having a stable income is pretty important).


But I think it's worth emphasizing, the whole reason the site gives investors so much of it's expected profits is precisely as compensation for risks like this. Assuming there's no funny business happening, I don't think anyone has any legitimate reason to be complaining.

[1714186829]

1714186829

[Lionidas]

A site owner, who cannot finance his own game, taking a profit while the investors that finance the entire operation take a loss will never sit right with me.

Hm? Well Daniel hasn't been taking a commission for a while now. But as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll, I would have no problems even if he was. His job is to keep the site running, improve it, keep bringing in players etc.  And it's investors job to eat the variance. He shouldn't really need to worry about things out of his control (like if players or investors are getting unlucky)


While I would never encourage people to invest (after all, it's more of a good-odds gamble than anything) it seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me, with investors having no commitment and an expected 75% of the sites profit.  And in fact, I think is more beneficial for the long-term prospects of the site (e.g. if you want to start hiring and have an advertising budget .. having a stable income is pretty important).


But I think it's worth emphasizing, the whole reason the site gives investors so much of it's expected profits is precisely as compensation for risks like this. Assuming there's no funny business happening, I don't think anyone has any legitimate reason to be complaining.

Let me guess who that reasonably large investor is...
Could it be you? The former site owner?
It would make sense since you have said you would continue to be a partner in bustadice and I am thinking you have said before you would be a co owner of the new iteration of the bustabit site as well.

[RHavar]

Let me guess who that reasonably large investor is...
Could it be you? The former site owner?

Yes, I was speaking about myself when I said: "as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll".

And just to be clear, I am doing it own volition (not as part of the sale or anything) and under the same terms as everyone else. I'm a bit of a fan of +EV deals, and trust Daniel with the amount I have invested. (Although don't take that as an endorsement). I've only invested what I'm ok with losing, (which is a real possibility with an extreme variance investment like BaB and an angry whale).

I've also similarly invested in other casino bankrolls in the past (as well as things like margin lending), when I thought it made sense.

[quickmaffs]

Let me guess who that reasonably large investor is...
Could it be you? The former site owner?

Yes, I was speaking about myself when I said: "as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll".

And just to be clear, I am doing it own volition (not as part of the sale or anything) and under the same terms as everyone else. I'm a bit of a fan of +EV deals, and trust Daniel with the amount I have invested. (Although don't take that as an endorsement). I've only invested what I'm ok with losing, (which is a real possibility with an extreme variance investment like BaB and an angry whale).

I've also similarly invested in other casino bankrolls in the past (as well as things like margin lending), when I thought it made sense.

That's a bold faced lie.

You were the first investor because you knew when it was launching and originally received 10% dilution fees from everyone.

Devans: +124 Bitcoin
Investers: -553 Bitcoin

[RHavar]

That's a bold faced lie.

You were the first investor because you knew when it was launching and originally received 10% dilution fees from everyone.

I was certainly an early investor, but I don't see how that changes anything -- especially on account that Daniel reimbursed everyone for the 10% dilution fees out of pocket. Anyway, my net profit/loss from dilution fees is pretty negligible. Not sure exactly, but I suspect it's < 1% of my investing loss  (which with hindsight my investment has been the single biggest financial mistake of my life  )  But  I'm not going to complain, I knew the risks and based on the current volumes it's seems pretty likely the site will get out of the red in the next 6 months (in fact, I've recently seen it in positive profit briefly twice so far during the crazy whale action).


Regardless, I really don't know what more you expect. The site is already running with no commissions, did a pretty big refund to investors and lowered the worst-case kelly. If you're not prepared to absorb (a lot of) variance, don't join the bankroll.  

[quickmaffs]

That's a bold faced lie.

You were the first investor because you knew when it was launching and originally received 10% dilution fees from everyone.

I was certainly an early investor, but I don't see how that changes anything -- especially on account that Daniel reimbursed everyone for the 10% dilution fees out of pocket. Anyway, my net profit/loss from dilution fees is pretty negligible. Not sure exactly, but I suspect it's < 1% of my investing loss  (which with hindsight my investment has been the single biggest financial mistake of my life  )  But  I'm not going to complain, I knew the risks and based on the current volumes it's seems pretty likely the site will get out of the red in the next 6 months (in fact, I've recently seen it in positive profit briefly twice so far during the crazy whale action).


Regardless, I really don't know what more you expect. The site is already running with no commissions, did a pretty big refund to investors and lowered the worst-case kelly. If you're not prepared to absorb (a lot of) variance, don't join the bankroll.  

It shows that you lied.  Doesn't matter if it you claim it was negligible or not. Don't claim that you had the same risk and playing level as everyone else when you didn't.

What more can we expect? That you don't lie.

[quickmaffs]

This site is a sham. 

It does not follow 1x kelly and all investors will eventually lose all their money.

RHavar and devans lied about the kelly criteria all while getting their fixed share.  They both need to be tagged here and outted on Reddit.

[devans]

This site is a sham.  

It does not follow 1x kelly and all investors will eventually lose all their money.

RHavar and devans lied about the kelly criteria all while getting their fixed share.  They both need to be tagged here and outted on Reddit.

Could you clarify what you think I lied about, please? We openly discussed the reasoning behind accepting some >1x Kelly rounds in this very thread as early as two weeks ago. The site makes no secret of risking 1.5 % of the bankroll per game either.

The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.

I am the only the one who–normally–receives any fixed commission from bustabit. A little over a week ago I suspended the commission in order to help investors recover and prop up the max bet and profit.

[quickmaffs]

This site is a sham.  

It does not follow 1x kelly and all investors will eventually lose all their money.

RHavar and devans lied about the kelly criteria all while getting their fixed share.  They both need to be tagged here and outted on Reddit.

Could you clarify what you think I lied about, please? We openly discussed the reasoning behind accepting some >1x Kelly rounds in this very thread as early as two weeks ago. The site makes no secret of risking 1.5 % of the bankroll per game either.

The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.

I am the only the one who–normally–receives any fixed commission from bustabit. A little over a week ago I suspended the commission in order to help investors recover and prop up the max bet and profit.

This site is a sham.  

It does not follow 1x kelly and all investors will eventually lose all their money.

RHavar and devans lied about the kelly criteria all while getting their fixed share.  They both need to be tagged here and outted on Reddit.

Could you clarify what you think I lied about, please? We openly discussed the reasoning behind accepting some >1x Kelly rounds in this very thread as early as two weeks ago. The site makes no secret of risking 1.5 % of the bankroll per game either.

The worst possible scenario of a single player controlling all bets in a round and targeting a single multiplier has a risk of 1.5x Kelly for investors. At this risk investors still have an expectation that their investment will grow, assuming they don't abuse the offsite system to overleverage.

I am the only the one who–normally–receives any fixed commission from bustabit. A little over a week ago I suspended the commission in order to help investors recover and prop up the max bet and profit.

You have forced investors into getting margin called by misrepresenting the kelly criterion exposure, even though you say "bustadice[/bustabit] keeps track of your offsite investment and automatically adjusts your leverage to ensure that you are always exposed to the optimal amount of risk.".  This is a lie.

You claimed that a single player could only bet 1% of the bankroll, when in fact, a player can bet over three accounts (ie: whatevs, whatevvs, whatevvs) and win up to 1.5% of the bankroll.

You've taken no steps to prevent this from happening.  You have not warned investors that this has been actively taken place for a while and that their offsite investments are exposed to higher criterion levels that they agreed to based on your words lie!

You and RHavar keep lying and you've cost investors millions of dollars while you have profited over a million dollars yourself.

[dragonmaster2]

You have forced investors into getting margin called by misrepresenting the kelly criterion exposure, even though you say "bustadice[/bustabit] keeps track of your offsite investment and automatically adjusts your leverage to ensure that you are always exposed to the optimal amount of risk.".  This is a lie.

You claimed that a single player could only bet 1% of the bankroll, when in fact, a player can bet over three accounts (ie: whatevs, whatevvs, whatevvs) and win up to 1.5% of the bankroll.

You've taken no steps to prevent this from happening.  You have not warned investors that this has been actively taken place for a while and that their offsite investments are exposed to higher criterion levels that they agreed to based on your words lie!

You and RHavar keep lying and you've cost investors millions of dollars while you have profited over a million dollars yourself.

It was made pretty clear that the onsite/offsite is meant to represent your investment onsite and offsite. Pretty sure both Daniel and Ryan also made it clear that you probably shouldn't set the offsite to something you don't have, otherwise you would be over-risking yourself.

A single player/account can only win 0.75/1% of the bankroll before automatically being cashed out. It was always clear that the max profit for the entire game was 1.5%, before everyone is cashed out. This info has always been in the FAQs.

[JackpotRacer]

That's a bold faced lie.

You were the first investor because you knew when it was launching and originally received 10% dilution fees from everyone.

I was certainly an early investor, but I don't see how that changes anything -- especially on account that Daniel reimbursed everyone for the 10% dilution fees out of pocket. Anyway, my net profit/loss from dilution fees is pretty negligible. Not sure exactly, but I suspect it's < 1% of my investing loss  (which with hindsight my investment has been the single biggest financial mistake of my life  )  But  I'm not going to complain, I knew the risks and based on the current volumes it's seems pretty likely the site will get out of the red in the next 6 months (in fact, I've recently seen it in positive profit briefly twice so far during the crazy whale action).


Regardless, I really don't know what more you expect. The site is already running with no commissions, did a pretty big refund to investors and lowered the worst-case kelly. If you're not prepared to absorb (a lot of) variance, don't join the bankroll.  

It shows that you lied.  Doesn't matter if it you claim it was negligible or not. Don't claim that you had the same risk and playing level as everyone else when you didn't.

What more can we expect? That you don't lie.

sorry I dont understand what you mean. please be so kind and explain why you think that RHavar did not have same risk or had less risk than other Investors?

thx

[RHavar]

sorry I dont understand what you mean. please be so kind and explain why you think that RHavar did not have same risk or had less risk than other Investors?

thx

The guy is just an idiot, I am investing on the same terms as everyone else. Ironically the whale just busted and everyone (including me) in the bankroll should now be at a considerable profit. People like quickmaffs take the term "the house always wins" too literally, invest and then start crying at the slightest down turn in profit.

Some thing I used to always tell players was "the casino isn't a charity" when they thought there was free money to be had from gambling, but the same really can be said for investors. The site isn't giving money to investors as some act of kindness, it is paying them in +EV to accept a lot of risk and eat a lot of variance.

Anyway, as of now investors are up 280 BTC, I doubt anyone has cause for complaint 

[JackpotRacer]

sorry I dont understand what you mean. please be so kind and explain why you think that RHavar did not have same risk or had less risk than other Investors?

thx

The guy is just an idiot, I am investing on the same terms as everyone else. Ironically the whale just busted and everyone (including me) in the bankroll should now be at a considerable profit. People like quickmaffs take the term "the house always wins" too literally, invest and then start crying at the slightest down turn in profit.

Some thing I used to always tell players was "the casino isn't a charity" when they thought there was free money to be had from gambling, but the same really can be said for investors. The site isn't giving money to investors as some act of kindness, it is paying them in +EV to accept a lot of risk and eat a lot of variance.

Anyway, as of now investors are up 280 BTC, I doubt anyone has cause for complaint 

thx for explaining

luckily I understand variance

congrats to Investors and owner for 280 BTC profit

[quickmaffs]

sorry I dont understand what you mean. please be so kind and explain why you think that RHavar did not have same risk or had less risk than other Investors?

thx

The guy is just an idiot, I am investing on the same terms as everyone else. Ironically the whale just busted and everyone (including me) in the bankroll should now be at a considerable profit. People like quickmaffs take the term "the house always wins" too literally, invest and then start crying at the slightest down turn in profit.

Some thing I used to always tell players was "the casino isn't a charity" when they thought there was free money to be had from gambling, but the same really can be said for investors. The site isn't giving money to investors as some act of kindness, it is paying them in +EV to accept a lot of risk and eat a lot of variance.

Anyway, as of now investors are up 280 BTC, I doubt anyone has cause for complaint 

More lies.  You think you can try to change my narrative, put words in my mouth, and insult me to try and cover this up?  You are clearly a dishonest person. 

Let's circle back to this later and remain focused on my one claim.

The whale (singular), as quoted by you, was betting maximum bets. 

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

[dragonmaster2]

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

0.75%/1% is the max bet per account. 1.5% is the max bet per game. This was known since the beginning of V2.

Furthermore, a player isn't limited to playing on one account, that's been known since V1 and hasn't changed for V2.

You claim they are "lying", but they never claimed that 1% is the max bet a single person over multiple accounts can hit. That doesn't even make sense with the current game logic, and I can't even begin to think how that would even be possible.

[quickmaffs]

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

0.75%/1% is the max bet per account. 1.5% is the max bet per game. This was known since the beginning of V2.

Furthermore, a player isn't limited to playing on one account, that's been known since V1 and hasn't changed for V2.

You claim they are "lying", but they never claimed that 1% is the max bet a single person over multiple accounts can hit. That doesn't even make sense with the current game logic, and I can't even begin to think how that would even be possible.

RHavar had the audacity to lie about me, lie about what I had said, and insult me.  I'd like it for him to answer for himself.  Thank you.

[RHavar]

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

Just to be clear, I didn't allow anything. I am just a passive investor there, it's Daniel who is the owner.

And secondly, if you read the FAQ and terms you would see that the site never deviated from what it promised. I guess there's some ambiguity on the term "player" as you could interpret it to mean "person" or you could interpret it to be "bustabit account". However, bustabit has had a long standing policy of allowing multiple accounts for a single person (doing anything differently would imho be kind of crazy, as it's a policy that's impossible to enforce and results in a lot of false-positives like when people from the same house hold are players)

But the reality is it doesn't matter. Take a look at bustadice.com for instance, which operates in virtually the same way with a similar size bankroll and players are free to bet up to like 2000 BTC if they want. It would actually be advantageous to bustabit and investors if bustabit allowed the same thing (after all, if someone bets 1000 BTC in a single game, that's 10 BTC of EV) but the entire reason that bustabit doesn't allow it is to protect other players. Whales that bet a lot of money are able to drive the "forced cashout point" down really low, which can really negatively impact other people who were hoping to aim at higher multiples.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

[quickmaffs]

My argument is that he was able to bet more than 1% of the bankroll.  Am I lying?

No, I am not.  He was able to bet more than 1% and RHavar and devans allowed this.  They are the liars.  Prove me otherwise without lying again. Use facts instead of insults you two criminals.

Just to be clear, I didn't allow anything. I am just a passive investor there, it's Daniel who is the owner.

And secondly, if you read the FAQ and terms you would see that the site never deviated from what it promised. I guess there's some ambiguity on the term "player" as you could interpret it to mean "person" or you could interpret it to be "bustabit account". However, bustabit has had a long standing policy of allowing multiple accounts for a single person (doing anything differently would imho be kind of crazy, as it's a policy that's impossible to enforce and results in a lot of false-positives like when people from the same house hold are players)

But the reality is it doesn't matter. Take a look at bustadice.com for instance, which operates in virtually the same way with a similar size bankroll and players are free to bet up to like 2000 BTC if they want. It would actually be advantageous to bustabit and investors if bustabit allowed the same thing (after all, if someone bets 1000 BTC in a single game, that's 10 BTC of EV) but the entire reason that bustabit doesn't allow it is to protect other players. Whales that bet a lot of money are able to drive the "forced cashout point" down really low, which can really negatively impact other people who were hoping to aim at higher multiples.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

You typed all of this up without even answering the question, which tells me that you just plan to ignore it, hoping it will go away.  You know I am right and you not denying it proves it.

tldr; RHavar has lied multiple times.  quickmaffs has not.

[RHavar]

You typed all of this up without even answering the question, which tells me that you just plan to ignore it, hoping it will go away.  You know I am right and you not denying it proves it.

I would have thought the answer is pretty obvious. Based on the betting, I assume it was a single person (although I have no insider knowledge that would allow me to verify that) who was consistently betting more than 1% of the bankroll amount. It's just that site never promised to stop it, and that it's irrelevant for the reasons I explained.

I really don't understand what your problem is, especially considering how well investors have been done (and currently have totally commission free earnings)

tldr; RHavar has lied multiple times.  quickmaffs has not.

Forgot to switch accounts?

[quickmaffs]

You typed all of this up without even answering the question, which tells me that you just plan to ignore it, hoping it will go away.  You know I am right and you not denying it proves it.

I very much did answer it. Based on the betting, I assume it was a single person (although I have no insider knowledge that would allow me to verify that) who was consistently betting more than 1% of the bankroll amount. It's just that site never promised to stop it, and that it's irrelevant for the reasons I explained.

tldr; RHavar has lied multiple times.  quickmaffs has not.

It's not irrelevant at all.  My problem is that you lied.  My problem is that in an attempt to cover up this lie, you tried to discredit me.  You are a dishonest and shameful human being.

Higher bet limits
To protect investors, the most a single player can win in one game is 1 % of the bankroll, in line with the Kelly criterion. If a player were to win more than that, he will be forced to cash out.

tldr; the max bet restriction exists to protect the experience of other players, not investors/the house

It's clear as day that these are totally different things. Thanks for proving my point.