bustabit – The original crash game

[RHavar]

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.  

Nope. It's just your reading comprehension sucks.


Devans said "the most a single player can win"  ... he is talking about max profit, and I said "the max bet" referring to the most you can bet at once.

That's why bustadice only restricts the max profit because each bet is "single player", while bustabit needs to restrict both to protect both investors and not ruin the playing experience for other players.

Anyway, I really don't want to waste more energy on this. I'll let someone else waste their time with you

[1713513019]

1713513019

[1713513019]

1713513019

[1713513019]

1713513019

[1713513019]

1713513019

[devans]

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.

I did not "force investors into getting margin called". In fact, I recently lowered the allowed leverage to 2:1 to help prevent that from happening. In any case, an investor worried about margin calls can simply opt not to use the offsite system at all. No investor is forced to use it. But it's a moot point because the quote is from bustadice, not bustabit.

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!

The FAQ is very clear on the risk per round being 1.5 % of the bankroll. See the section on the bankroll and the section on forced cash-outs. If your argument boils down to "I thought player meant human, not account" then it's a pretty weak one.

As I have explained in my previous post, it's not necessary to prevent it from happening. Again: 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.

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

How can you possibly claim that I've "cost investors millions of dollars" when bustabit investors are up nearly $3 million at current Bitcoin prices?

[quickmaffs]

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.  

Nope. It's just your reading comprehension sucks.


Devans said "the most a single player can win"  ... he is talking about max profit, and I said "the max bet" referring to the most you can bet at once.

That's why bustadice only restricts the max profit because each bet is "single player", while bustabit needs to restrict both to protect both investors and not ruin the playing experience for other players.

Anyway, I really don't want to waste more energy on this. I'll let someone else waste their time with you

So, now that you've been proved to have been lying and your attempt to discredit me by insulting me has not worked, you run away?

Not only are you a dishonest and shameful human being, you are a coward and a criminal.

[Johnson2239]

Guys, I am new to this and really want to invest some. So if the margin is 2:1, it means I can place 20 BTC onsite, and 10 BTC offsite right? Let say the current Bank Roll is 3000 BTC, I will get margin call at 1000 BTC or -2000 BTC profit, right?

So let assume today profit is 100 BTC, so I will get 100*(30/3000) = 1BTC, right? (I understand that the commission is temporary 0% by now, but may change later)

In addition, I need to deposit first via CASHIER and then go to BANK ROLL to invest, right?

Thank you so much!

[devans]

Guys, I am new to this and really want to invest some. So if the margin is 2:1, it means I can place 20 BTC onsite, and 10 BTC offsite right? Let say the current Bank Roll is 3000 BTC, I will get margin call at 1000 BTC or -2000 BTC profit, right?

Leverage of 2:1 means that your onsite investment can "control" a total investment twice its size. In other words, your offsite can be up to the size of your onsite (10 BTC in your example).

It is worth mentioning that while it might be tempting to set your offsite to something higher than you actually have, by doing so you would most likely end up earning less than you would otherwise. I recommend only investing offsite if you actually have the funds and are prepared to deposit them quickly in order to avoid a margin call if necessary.

Assuming your onsite is 10 BTC, your offsite is 20 BTC and the total bankroll is initially 3000 BTC, you will be margin called if the bankroll reaches approximately 2,030 BTC. At this point the remainder of your onsite investment can no longer cover the risk of a single round.

So let assume today profit is 100 BTC, so I will get 100*(30/3000) = 1BTC, right? (I understand that the commission is temporary 0% by now, but may change later)

In addition, I need to deposit first via CASHIER and then go to BANK ROLL to invest, right?

Thank you so much!

That's right, just deposit as you would normally and then add to the bankroll under Bankroll > Change Bankroll.

Your profit isn't added to your account's balance directly. Instead your stake in the bankroll simply becomes worth more. You can divest to realize your profits at any time.

[quickmaffs]

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

How can you possibly claim that I've "cost investors millions of dollars" when bustabit investors are up nearly $3 million at current Bitcoin prices?

Cheese and Rice are you guys scumbags. 

Clearly I posted that when the site was NEGATIVE 550 Bitcoin (over 5 Million dollars) all while you were in profit in excess of 1 Million dollars.  Now you're trying to spin it like I'm talking about it now and because the profit has temporarily moved up, you guys try to defend yourselves by saying look the other way and ignore our lies because the bankroll is now positive.

I'll get to your other bullshit later.  You guys made several lies throughout this thread.  The fact remains you guys deceived investors about the potential risk and did not attempt to remedy the situation and directly profited off of it. 

[dooglus]

It is worth mentioning that while it might be tempting to set your offsite to something higher than you actually have, by doing so you would most likely end up earning less than you would otherwise.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Most likely the site will continue to profit overall with swings up and down along the way. It's possible that there will be a downswing large enough to cause a 2:1 leverage investor to lose their position, but "most likely" it won't happen, and so "most likely" the 2:1 leverage investor will do better than an investor with no leverage.

Or am I missing something?

I'm not saying there's no risk, but it's more like a small risk of catastrophe than a big risk of small loss.

As an analogy, a risky home owner might decide not to buy fire insurance. You would want to warn them that it's a risky move, but to tell them that they will "most likely" end up worse off that someone who did buy the insurance wouldn't be correct. Most homes don't burn down, and so in most cases paying for insurance is a waste of money.

I recommend only investing offsite if you actually have the funds and are prepared to deposit them quickly in order to avoid a margin call if necessary.

Or if you understand the risks, and want a higher risk, higher reward investment, right?

I'm also a bit confused by these two apparently contradictory statements you made:

Leverage of 2:1 means that your onsite investment can "control" a total investment twice its size. In other words, your offsite can be up to the size of your onsite (10 BTC in your example).

and:

Assuming your onsite is 10 BTC, your offsite is 20 BTC

If 2:1 means offsite amount is same as onsite amount, and 2:1 is the limit, how could he have 20 offsite and only 10 onsite?

[HiDevin]

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.

If your argument boils down to "I thought player meant human, not account" then it's a pretty weak one.

As I have explained in my previous post, it's not necessary to prevent it from happening. Again: 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.

Cheese and Rice are you guys scumbags.  

Clearly I posted that when the site was NEGATIVE 550 Bitcoin (over 5 Million dollars) all while you were in profit in excess of 1 Million dollars.  Now you're trying to spin it like I'm talking about it now and because the profit has temporarily moved up, you guys try to defend yourselves by saying look the other way and ignore our lies because the bankroll is now positive.

I'll get to your other bullshit later.  You guys made several lies throughout this thread.  The fact remains you guys deceived investors about the potential risk and did not attempt to remedy the situation and directly profited off of it.  

Clearly, Daniel has answered your question, he literally says "If your argument boils down to "I thought player meant human, not account" then it's a pretty weak one. "

Ryan answered your question too, players can have multiple accounts if they want to, heck what if that whales comes again opens 5 accounts and bet at 100 btc at the same time.

Let's make it more simpler, you can only bet 1% of the BR for each player, meaning account, would it be against the law for me to open 10 accounts and bet on all of them at once ( 1% of the BR ) each bet.

No, because the round would hit max profit, saving investors from the whales eating it up the bankroll (1.5%) ?? So, the last pages of threads really confused me from your part tbh.

[RHavar]

I'm not sure that's accurate. Most likely the site will continue to profit overall with swings up and down along the way. It's possible that there will be a downswing large enough to cause a 2:1 leverage investor to lose their position, but "most likely" it won't happen, and so "most likely" the 2:1 leverage investor will do better than an investor with no leverage.

Or am I missing something?

Well it completely depends on how you expect people to bet. If you are assuming the "worst case" of high-profit bets then Daniel is right. If there's more modest bets that aren't fully utilizing the bankroll, then the investor who decided to leverage will probably end up doing better (as their leverage will be closer to the kelly).

Probably Daniel should've added said: "Assuming an angry whale ..." to make it more correct, but honestly I think very few people really appreciate the harm in over-leveraging so I think the site has a duty to err on the side of pushing people into not using offsite for the purpose of leverage.


I remember after I sold MoneyPot to the current owners, they did a few little changes that resulted in the bankrollers risk being a worst-case going from a 1x kelly to a worst case 3.33x -- no matter how hard I tried (including even writing a simulator, that showed an angry whale would consistently bust them) they never listened. It's just not intuitive for people to realize that despite being +EV you can still expect to keep busting due to over-leverage (and funnily enough, even after they should've learnt the hard way and lost most of their bankroll they just resorted to hacks like limiting max-bet instead of addressing the core issue)

And to be honest, the whole idea of negative expected bankroll growth while having positive expected profit really screwed with my head. It took a lot of creating simulations to get a grasp on it. And 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?

[quickmaffs]

I'm not sure that's accurate. Most likely the site will continue to profit overall with swings up and down along the way. It's possible that there will be a downswing large enough to cause a 2:1 leverage investor to lose their position, but "most likely" it won't happen, and so "most likely" the 2:1 leverage investor will do better than an investor with no leverage.

Or am I missing something?

Well it completely depends on how you expect people to bet. If you are assuming the "worst case" of high-profit bets then Daniel is right. If there's more modest bets that aren't fully utilizing the bankroll, then the investor who decided to leverage will probably end up doing better (as their leverage will be closer to the kelly).

Probably Daniel should've added said: "Assuming an angry whale ..." to make it more correct, but honestly I think very few people really appreciate the harm in over-leveraging so I think the site has a duty to err on the side of pushing people into not using offsite for the purpose of leverage.


I remember after I sold MoneyPot to the current owners, they did a few little changes that resulted in the bankrollers risk being a worst-case going from a 1x kelly to a worst case 3.33x -- no matter how hard I tried (including even writing a simulator, that showed an angry whale would consistently bust them) they never listened. It's just not intuitive for people to realize that despite being +EV you can still expect to keep busting due to over-leverage (and funnily enough, even after they should've learnt the hard way and lost most of their bankroll they just resorted to hacks like limiting max-bet instead of addressing the core issue)

And to be honest, the whole idea of negative expected bankroll growth while having positive expected profit really screwed with my head. It took a lot of creating simulations to get a grasp on it. And 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?

Almost the entire betting volume consisted of one "angry whale" on bustabit.  How else did bustabit end up with record recording volumes wagered?

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

You lied about investors being in line with the kelly criterion when it was 1.5x kelly.  You realized that it was a single player behind it all.  You did nothing about it.  You lied about refunding investors.

[devans]

I'm also a bit confused by these two apparently contradictory statements you made:

Leverage of 2:1 means that your onsite investment can "control" a total investment twice its size. In other words, your offsite can be up to the size of your onsite (10 BTC in your example).

and:

Assuming your onsite is 10 BTC, your offsite is 20 BTC

If 2:1 means offsite amount is same as onsite amount, and 2:1 is the limit, how could he have 20 offsite and only 10 onsite?

2:1 is indeed the limit when adjusting your investment (although you won't be margin called if you later exceed it). I stuck with Johnson2239's example calculation anyway to show that it was off.

[quickmaffs]

I'm also a bit confused by these two apparently contradictory statements you made:

Leverage of 2:1 means that your onsite investment can "control" a total investment twice its size. In other words, your offsite can be up to the size of your onsite (10 BTC in your example).

and:

Assuming your onsite is 10 BTC, your offsite is 20 BTC

If 2:1 means offsite amount is same as onsite amount, and 2:1 is the limit, how could he have 20 offsite and only 10 onsite?

2:1 is indeed the limit when adjusting your investment (although you won't be margin called if you later exceed it). I stuck with Johnson2239's example calculation anyway to show that it was off.

Why did you only answer one small part of dooglus's questions?  Are you going to call him an idiot too to try and discredit him and ignore what he's saying?

You and RHavar are dishonest and shameless human beings.

[dragonmaster2]

It's just not intuitive for people to realize that despite being +EV you can still expect to keep busting due to over-leverage (and funnily enough, even after they should've learnt the hard way and lost most of their bankroll they just resorted to hacks like limiting max-bet instead of addressing the core issue)

One way to think about it that's intuitive to me, is to use extremes. So same +EV of 1% house edge, but increase allowed max profit to 100% of bankroll.

What's the chance the house will be bankrupt by a mega whale after the first bet? 49.5%

After 2 bets? 74.4975%
3 bets? 87.1212375%
4 bets? 93.496224937%
30 bets? 99.999999874%

Since anyone can challenge the house for 100% of it's bankroll at any time, bankruptcy is basically inevitable.

---

Another way to think about it that may be more intuitive, is what if max profit was 50% of the bankroll, but allowed max bet was 50x the bankroll. A whale could bet 50x the bankroll at 1.01, and basically have a 99% chance to win, and a 1% chance to lose.

Even though the whale could lose on the first round, and increase the house's bankroll by 50x, what will most likely happen is the whale will win about 50 times first. Each time the whale wins, the house bankroll will decrease by half. So by the time the whale actually loses, 50x the house bankroll will basically be nothing (1/22,517,998,136,852 of original bankroll).

---

A +EV edge has the largest impact if spread out over a large number of rolls; the lower the edge, the more it should be spread out. Let's say you played a coin toss game that's weighted 60:40 in your favor, you had $1000, and your opponent had $1000. You can choose how much you wager each toss, and you keep playing until either you or your opponent is bankrupt.

If you bet $1000 on 1 toss, that's basically a 60% you'll end up finishing the game with $2000, and 40% you finish with $0. Only an idiot would play like this (if you happened to only have 40% to win instead (-EV), then this is actually the optimal way to play).

If however, you bet $1 over several thousands of tosses, it's basically statistically guaranteed you'll bankrupt your opponent and finish the game with $2000.

[dooglus]

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? If the house expects to lose money because it's over leveraged, and the player expects to lose money because of the house edge, where is all the money expected to end up???

My guess is that the house never "expects to lose money". It's just that the probability of going bust gets higher. For example if the house has no maximum bet, and is always willing to risk its entire bankroll every roll, it will go bankrupt as soon as a suitably rich whale wins a single bet. But if the house is paying only 2x for a 49.5% bet, the house still expects to profit by 1% of the amount wagered. Consider the case where the house starts with 1 unit, and the whale bets the whole bankroll against the house up to 3 times in a row or until the house goes bust:

There's a 0.495% chance that the house goes bust on the first bet, losing 1 unit.
There's a 0.505*0.495 chance that the house goes bust on the 2nd bet, losing 1 unit.
There's a 0.505*0.505*0.495 chance that the house goes bust on the 3rd bet, losing 1 unit.
There's a 0.505*0.505*0.505 chance that the house wins all 3 bets, profiting 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 units.

Expected profit = (0.495 + 0.505*0.495 + 0.505*0.505*0.495) * -1 + (0.505*0.505*0.505) * 7 = 0.030301 units.

So while there's a 87.12% chance that the house goes bust in the first 3 bets, there's a 12.88% chance that it wins 1+2+4 from the first 3 bets, which means the expected profit is positive.

[dooglus]

What's the chance the house will be bankrupt by a mega whale after the first bet? 49.5%

After 2 bets? 74.4975%
3 bets? 87.1212375%
4 bets? 93.496224937%
30 bets? 99.999999874%

Since anyone can challenge the house for 100% of it's bankroll at any time, bankruptcy is basically inevitable.

I just read your post. It's very similar to mine. What you're missing though is that in the rare chance that the house doesn't bust it has made such a massive profit that its expected profit is still positive.

Let's say you played a coin toss game that's weighted 60:40 in your favor, you had $1000, and your opponent had $1000. You can choose how much you wager each toss, and you keep playing until either you or your opponent is bankrupt.

If you bet $1000 on 1 toss, that's basically a 60% you'll end up finishing the game with $2000, and 40% you finish with $0. Only an idiot would play like this (if you happened to only have 40% to win instead (-EV), then this is actually the optimal way to play).

The problem with these investing games is that we don't get to "keep playing until either you or your opponent is bankrupt". We only get to play for as long as the whale wants to play. He might only make a single large bet. What if you're playing the 60:40 coin toss game against an opponent who will call "game over" at some unknown point in the future? Would that change your strategy?

[dooglus]

Why did you only answer one small part of dooglus's questions?

Ryan had already answered the other parts.

[Luxo42]

Also, too big Kelly criterion does not necessarily lead to casino's loss.
Usually, to attack a such buggy casino, attacker will need much more money than a casino's bankroll. With no any garanties.
I think, it's more risky for attacker, than for a casino.

[JackpotRacer]

Also, too big Kelly criterion does not necessarily lead to casino's loss.
Usually, to attack a such buggy casino, attacker will need much more money than a casino's bankroll. With no any garanties.
I think, it's more risky for attacker, than for a casino.

please explain in numbers what is "too big Kelly Criterion"? there are KC numbers which will ruin the casino as RHavar explained very well

[Luxo42]

Also, too big Kelly criterion does not necessarily lead to casino's loss.
Usually, to attack a such buggy casino, attacker will need much more money than a casino's bankroll. With no any garanties.
I think, it's more risky for attacker, than for a casino.

please explain in numbers what is "too big Kelly Criterion"? there are KC numbers which will ruin the casino as RHavar explained very well

more than 2 house edges.

[dragonmaster2]

Also, too big Kelly criterion does not necessarily lead to casino's loss.
Usually, to attack a such buggy casino, attacker will need much more money than a casino's bankroll. With no any garanties.
I think, it's more risky for attacker, than for a casino.

please explain in numbers what is "too big Kelly Criterion"? there are KC numbers which will ruin the casino as RHavar explained very well

2x kelly will have no growth or decline in the bankroll on average long term (although incredibly wild swings in bankroll are expected). Anything greater than 2x kelly, and you can expect bankroll to decline; the larger the kelly, the faster the decline.