bustabit – The original crash game

[JasonFC]

It's an interesting change, which appears to me to be purely motivated by making more money. Nothing wrong with that, of course (and I'm sure bustabit and investing in the bankroll will remain profitable for years to come). However, 50% is squeezing investors a bit, and it hamstrings the potential significantly. bustabit has been my go-to recommendation for Bitcoin investing, but it appears I may have to reconsider. I'll be divesting my small stake in bustabit and deploying it back into flashflip, which keeps the commission model (thus giving investors a 25% greater expected profit on each coin wagered).

Nevertheless, good luck with everything.

[1713564940]

1713564940

[1713564940]

1713564940

[1713564940]

1713564940

[devans]

It's an interesting change, which appears to me to be purely motivated by making more money. Nothing wrong with that, of course (and I'm sure bustabit and investing in the bankroll will remain profitable for years to come). However, 50% is squeezing investors a bit, and it hamstrings the potential significantly. bustabit has been my go-to recommendation for Bitcoin investing, but it appears I may have to reconsider. I'll be divesting my small stake in bustabit and deploying it back into flashflip, which keeps the commission model (thus giving investors a 25% greater expected profit on each coin wagered).

Nevertheless, good luck with everything.

Their EV isn't investors' only consideration when choosing a casino. A casino might have more favorable investment terms than another and still offer less expected bankroll growth if it can't match its competitor's wager volume. And in terms of wager volume, bustabit is one of the most popular Bitcoin casinos today. I couldn't find your game's wager volume anywhere but I'm confident that in terms of expected bankroll growth bustabit is still very much competitive despite the lower EV.

With that in mind, I don't believe that 50% is unreasonable at all and bustabit is still a very attractive investment.

[JasonFC]

It's an interesting change, which appears to me to be purely motivated by making more money. Nothing wrong with that, of course (and I'm sure bustabit and investing in the bankroll will remain profitable for years to come). However, 50% is squeezing investors a bit, and it hamstrings the potential significantly. bustabit has been my go-to recommendation for Bitcoin investing, but it appears I may have to reconsider. I'll be divesting my small stake in bustabit and deploying it back into flashflip, which keeps the commission model (thus giving investors a 25% greater expected profit on each coin wagered).

Nevertheless, good luck with everything.

Their EV isn't investors' only consideration when choosing a casino. A casino might have more favorable investment terms than another and still offer less expected bankroll growth if it can't match its competitor's wager volume. And in terms of wager volume, bustabit is one of the most popular Bitcoin casinos today. I couldn't find your game's wager volume anywhere but I'm confident that in terms of expected bankroll growth bustabit is still very much competitive despite the lower EV.

With that in mind, I don't believe that 50% is unreasonable at all and bustabit is still a very attractive investment.

In terms of absolute bankroll growth, I'm sure yours excels, but in terms of percentage growth, maybe not. bustabit remains a great investment, but for smaller fish looking for a growth opportunity, bustabit has become 50% less attractive.

Also, the iPhone is one of the best products out there, and Apple charging $1,800 instead of $900 isn't unreasonable, but it's definitely a fuck you to consumers.

[RHavar]

In terms of absolute bankroll growth, I'm sure yours excels, but in terms of percentage growth, maybe not. bustabit remains a great investment, but for smaller fish looking for a growth opportunity, bustabit has become 50% less attractive.

Hmm, I don't think that's the way investors look at it -- or at least not how I do.

When I look at a bankroll investment, I try calculate if I invest X ... what is my expected return? What is the expected variance? And how would I (roughly) quantify the counter-party risk (i.e. malicious or screw up sort of problems).

---

So trying to do rough calculations against BaB, I'd eye-ball the average volume as 400 BTC/day, which would give investors (after commission) an expected 730 BTC per year. 1 BTC would buy you ~0.015279% of the bankroll, so an investment has a rough expected return of 11.15% a year?



So it's considerably worse than yesterday (which was double that) and even less than when i originally invested (I was estimating 30-40% p.a. returns)  but counter-party risk is the real thing that scares me (i.e. is the real reason I have only invested a small fraction of my bitcoin in the bankroll and not the whole thing).

I also think all the smart investors appreciate the importance of diversification (especially in something ultra-high-risk like bitcoin-casino-bankrolling) so I imagine it's going to more just be an issue of changing how much they invest, as opposed to investing or not investing.

[JasonFC]

In terms of absolute bankroll growth, I'm sure yours excels, but in terms of percentage growth, maybe not. bustabit remains a great investment, but for smaller fish looking for a growth opportunity, bustabit has become 50% less attractive.

Hmm, I don't think that's the way investors look at it -- or at least not how I do.

When I look at a bankroll investment, I try calculate if I invest X ... what is my expected return? What is the expected variance? And how would I (roughly) quantify the counter-party risk (i.e. malicious or screw up sort of problems).

---

So trying to do rough calculations against BaB, I'd eye-ball the average volume as 400 BTC/day, which would give investors (after commission) an expected 730 BTC per year. 1 BTC would buy you ~0.015279% of the bankroll, so an investment has a rough expected return of 11.15% a year?



So it's considerably worse than yesterday (which was double that) and even less than when i originally invested (I was estimating 30-40% p.a. returns)  but counter-party risk is the real thing that scares me (i.e. is the real reason I have only invested a small fraction of my bitcoin in the bankroll and not the whole thing).

I also think all the smart investors appreciate the importance of diversification (especially in something ultra-high-risk like bitcoin-casino-bankrolling) so I imagine it's going to more just be an issue of changing how much they invest, as opposed to investing or not investing.

The EV compared to other sites is now lower, and you're right in that it comes with a lot of added security, trust, and peace of mind. devans is risking little to nothing (he loses nothing when players win, but takes 50% of the profit when players lose). At this point in time, I think that trade-off is worth it. The returns may not be excellent (10% a month is not that far from less risky cryptocurreny lending sites) but it's worth the name that bustabit has made for itself.

That being said, I don't think this will last long. I think as other casinos such as EtherCrash develop names for themselves and keep their EV attractive, investing in bustabit wouldn't remain the smartest idea. Another point to note is that investing in bustabit for most people has now become a lot less risky (judging by the percentage that the average investor will acquire and the recent monthly bankroll growth). That doesn't make it inherently bad, but it has started to fit a different investing profile, and not one usually associated the the risk of a casino bankroll. I personally am more of a risk taker, and when I invest in casino bankrolls, I look for moderate risks and a commensurate reward. I don't think this (albeit low-risk) investment is worth it if I get only half the reward (regardless of the safety aspect).

[RHavar]

That being said, I don't think this will last long. I think as other casinos such as EtherCrash develop names for themselves and keep their EV attractive, investing in bustabit wouldn't remain the smartest idea.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Daniel probably doesn't care. The people that are really important, and that he really needs to please are gamblers, which are his actual customers. Bankroll investors are just a means to that end (i.e. make sure the limits are high enough, and the site can smoothly operate through huge profit swings, etc). And according to the stats, Daniel has already paid  investors  3875 BTC  for their services (i.e. averaged out to 176 BTC a month?).

Since I have no shame, and don't mind making an ass of my self speculating -- I'm going to guess he looked at that number, and realized since the size of the bankroll is already bigger than it needs to be -- and decided he'd rather just keep some of that money for himself. He probably realized he couldn't easily raise the %-of-wagered commission, because that would lower the max-profit by a lot, and put too much variance on investors who would be tempted to divest, which could create a vicious feedback cycle.  So switching to % of profit, makes a lot of sense. It means that max-profit will go *up* unless more than 1/3rd of the investors divest -- which seems highly unlikely (afaict, actually there's been 1 more btc invested than divested since he announced the change).

---


From a personal perspective, I'm a bit of two minds about it. It's sad to watch these great investing opportunities diminish (or even go away, like yolodice recently) but it's also nice to see these businesses mature too. The vast majority of crypto projects that ask for "investments" are so focused on getting investor money, that they lose sight of creating a viable business.

[JasonFC]

since the size of the bankroll is already bigger than it needs to be -- and decided he'd rather just keep some of that money for himself.

Sums it up very succinctly. I agree with most of what you said, especially about the dwindling number of worthwhile bitcoin investing platforms. Oh well, nothing good ever lasts.

[Timetwister]

Effective immediately bustabit will charge the bankroll a 50% commission on future net profits instead of the previous 0.25% commission on all wagers. This will have the immediate effect of increasing the wager and profit limits for players while simultaneously decreasing variance for investors at the the expense of reducing their expected value.

Whenever the bankroll's profit exceeds its previous high point, bustabit will receive 50% of the profits beyond the high point. No commission is collected on profits below the high point. For example, say the bankroll's profit high point is 100 BTC, its current profit is 99 BTC and players combined lose a total of 4 BTC in a round. 3 BTC of that is net profit (exceeding the previous all-time high), so bustabit would receive 1.5 BTC and the remaining 2.5 BTC would go to the bankroll. The commission is charged in real time, so investors can continue to invest and divest whenever they like.

For players, nothing changes other than the wager and profit limits increasing by a third as mentioned above.

Terrible news. And that's while daily wagered average keeps dropping (https://dicesites.com/bustabit). Bustabit was my favourite investment in crypto by far. Now expected returns are suddenly half, so I'll have to consider whether I even want to invest at all.

At least, as a token of appreciation to those of us that helped make your casino grow (and already got charged a lot in comissions), you could had increased the dilution fee or some other measure that didn't affect people that wanted to keep their investment.

[devans]

Terrible news. And that's while daily wagered average keeps dropping (https://dicesites.com/bustabit). Bustabit was my favourite investment in crypto by far. Now expected returns are suddenly half, so I'll have to consider whether I even want to invest at all.

At least, as a token of appreciation to those of us that helped make your casino grow (and already got charged a lot in comissions), you could had increased the dilution fee or some other measure that didn't affect people that wanted to keep their investment.

The reason the wager volume appears to be dropping over the last few months is primarily because of Bitcoin increasing in price. In terms of purchasing power it tends to stay fairly constant:

Code:

  month  |     wagered
---------+-----------------
 2018-02 | $996,376,713.89
 2018-03 |  $62,256,276.80
 2018-04 |  $55,414,979.31
 2018-05 |  $64,872,011.18
 2018-06 |  $64,930,742.48
 2018-07 | $398,807,398.10
 2018-08 | $113,090,361.89
 2018-09 |  $73,694,508.50
 2018-10 | $105,458,904.53
 2018-11 | $123,457,666.00
 2018-12 | $146,456,440.29
 2019-01 |  $73,070,953.46
 2019-02 |  $87,914,651.62
 2019-03 |  $84,647,544.76
 2019-04 |  $98,037,393.96
 2019-05 | $141,976,857.91
 2019-06 | $153,353,497.08
 2019-07 | $134,437,656.74
 2019-08 | $112,786,472.89

I do expect the bankroll to decrease in size a little, but that's okay as long as the wager and profit limits remain high enough to accommodate all players. And it's unlikely that the limits will fall below what they were with the previous commission structure given that the new one allows them to safely be increased by a third.

[Timetwister]

Terrible news. And that's while daily wagered average keeps dropping (https://dicesites.com/bustabit). Bustabit was my favourite investment in crypto by far. Now expected returns are suddenly half, so I'll have to consider whether I even want to invest at all.

At least, as a token of appreciation to those of us that helped make your casino grow (and already got charged a lot in comissions), you could had increased the dilution fee or some other measure that didn't affect people that wanted to keep their investment.

The reason the wager volume appears to be dropping over the last few months is primarily because of Bitcoin increasing in price. In terms of purchasing power it tends to stay fairly constant:

Code:

  month  |     wagered
---------+-----------------
 2018-02 | $996,376,713.89
 2018-03 |  $62,256,276.80
 2018-04 |  $55,414,979.31
 2018-05 |  $64,872,011.18
 2018-06 |  $64,930,742.48
 2018-07 | $398,807,398.10
 2018-08 | $113,090,361.89
 2018-09 |  $73,694,508.50
 2018-10 | $105,458,904.53
 2018-11 | $123,457,666.00
 2018-12 | $146,456,440.29
 2019-01 |  $73,070,953.46
 2019-02 |  $87,914,651.62
 2019-03 |  $84,647,544.76
 2019-04 |  $98,037,393.96
 2019-05 | $141,976,857.91
 2019-06 | $153,353,497.08
 2019-07 | $134,437,656.74
 2019-08 | $112,786,472.89

I do expect the bankroll to decrease in size a little, but that's okay as long as the wager and profit limits remain high enough to accommodate all players. And it's unlikely that the limits will fall below what they were with the previous commission structure given that the new one allows them to safely be increased by a third.

It may not be dropping in USD, but it is in BTC, which is the currency we are investing. It makes no sense to talk in USD terms when we are investing in a different currency.

[devans]

It may not be dropping in USD, but it is in BTC, which is the currency we are investing. It makes no sense to talk in USD terms when we are investing in a different currency.

Your previous comments implied that bustabit was losing popularity and I want to show you that that's not the case. It makes sense to think in terms of purchasing power (or USD as a proxy) when discussing the wager volume because a large number of bustabit's players need to purchase Bitcoin in order to gamble. A player that is used to spending $10 a month on gambling won't suddenly starting spending $30 on gambling just because the price has tripled, for example–he'll just buy and wager less Bitcoin instead.

So while investments–like bets–are denominated solely in Bitcoin, you cannot discount that the price of Bitcoin directly affects the wager volume.

[juzam1337]

In terms of absolute bankroll growth, I'm sure yours excels, but in terms of percentage growth, maybe not. bustabit remains a great investment, but for smaller fish looking for a growth opportunity, bustabit has become 50% less attractive.

Hmm, I don't think that's the way investors look at it -- or at least not how I do.

When I look at a bankroll investment, I try calculate if I invest X ... what is my expected return? What is the expected variance? And how would I (roughly) quantify the counter-party risk (i.e. malicious or screw up sort of problems).

---

So trying to do rough calculations against BaB, I'd eye-ball the average volume as 400 BTC/day, which would give investors (after commission) an expected 730 BTC per year. 1 BTC would buy you ~0.015279% of the bankroll, so an investment has a rough expected return of 11.15% a year?



So it's considerably worse than yesterday (which was double that) and even less than when i originally invested (I was estimating 30-40% p.a. returns)  but counter-party risk is the real thing that scares me (i.e. is the real reason I have only invested a small fraction of my bitcoin in the bankroll and not the whole thing).

I also think all the smart investors appreciate the importance of diversification (especially in something ultra-high-risk like bitcoin-casino-bankrolling) so I imagine it's going to more just be an issue of changing how much they invest, as opposed to investing or not investing.

The EV compared to other sites is now lower, and you're right in that it comes with a lot of added security, trust, and peace of mind. devans is risking little to nothing (he loses nothing when players win, but takes 50% of the profit when players lose). At this point in time, I think that trade-off is worth it. The returns may not be excellent (10% a month is not that far from less risky cryptocurreny lending sites) but it's worth the name that bustabit has made for itself.

That being said, I don't think this will last long. I think as other casinos such as EtherCrash develop names for themselves and keep their EV attractive, investing in bustabit wouldn't remain the smartest idea. Another point to note is that investing in bustabit for most people has now become a lot less risky (judging by the percentage that the average investor will acquire and the recent monthly bankroll growth). That doesn't make it inherently bad, but it has started to fit a different investing profile, and not one usually associated the the risk of a casino bankroll. I personally am more of a risk taker, and when I invest in casino bankrolls, I look for moderate risks and a commensurate reward. I don't think this (albeit low-risk) investment is worth it if I get only half the reward (regardless of the safety aspect).

Well said. As someone who has a decent % of the bankroll I am very disappointed.

A also dislike that the changes were made immediately. I think users should have been given a heads up and time to decide if they wanna invest under the new terms or not.
If I understand the new terms correctly the fee is also over 50% unless you withdraw from the bankroll at an all time high.

I will analyse other casinos and see how high the EV is there.


 

[SyGambler]

I was really pissed when I saw the news but after an hour or so I realized that it's not that bad after all
we are all here to make money I assume and bustabit still yielding more than the other bitcoin casinos , even we are making less money now it's still the best choice

I do agree that devans should had made an announcement before the new change , maybe like a month ago or so
it really sucks for new investors who paid the 2% few days ago to see that they will start getting 50% of profit instead of 75%

[devans]

A also dislike that the changes were made immediately. I think users should have been given a heads up and time to decide if they wanna invest under the new terms or not.

Giving an advance notice is something I considered, but ultimately decided against because it would have made virtually no difference to existing investors. Had I announced the change a few months ago your only options would have been to remain invested or divest, the same options you have now.

If I understand the new terms correctly the fee is also over 50% unless you withdraw from the bankroll at an all time high.

The commission is only charged on net profits, i.e. whenever the bankroll earns "new" profits above its all-time high. In fact a commission on profits is favorable for investors in this regard: You only pay a commission on the actual profits you have earned, whereas with the commission on wagers it was possible to have paid commission on expected profits that you never ended up earning.

I do agree that devans should had made an announcement before the new change , maybe like a month ago or so
it really sucks for new investors who paid the 2% few days ago to see that they will start getting 50% of profit instead of 75%

I concede that someone who invested shortly before the change might not have wanted to had they known about the new commission structure in advance. If anyone is in that situation and they would like to divest (or already have) I would be happy to reimburse them for their net dilution fee (fees they paid minus fees they received).

[juzam1337]

If I understand the new terms correctly the fee is also over 50% unless you withdraw from the bankroll at an all time high.

The commission is only charged on net profits, i.e. whenever the bankroll earns "new" profits above its all-time high. In fact a commission on profits is favorable for investors in this regard: You only pay a commission on the actual profits you have earned, whereas with the commission on wagers it was possible to have paid commission on expected profits that you never ended up earning.

Well,

I think you understood what I was trying to say very well.

Lets say a customer loses 100 btc, you charge investors 0.5 btc. Now the customer wins 100 btc back. Result: customer is breakeven, investors lost 0.5 btc, you gained 0.5 btc.

Yolodice had a similar system with with 15% and then 25% fee IIRC, but only took the fee once a week, which makes it much better for investors.

[devans]

Well,

I think you understood what I was trying to say very well.

Lets say a customer loses 100 btc, you charge investors 0.5 btc. Now the customer wins 100 btc back. Result: customer is breakeven, investors lost 0.5 btc, you gained 0.5 btc.

Yolodice had a similar system with with 15% and then 25% fee IIRC, but only took the fee once a week, which makes it much better for investors.

We're on the same page with regards to what you meant, but my point didn't come across well: Your example could happen with the old commission on wagers as well. If a player loses 100 BTC and wins it again, the player would have broken even and investors would have paid at least 0.25 BTC in commission to bustabit. More so, unlike with a commission on profits it was possible for investors to have paid a commission without ever having earned a net profit at all. For example, if a player won 100 BTC without losing it again, investors would have been down 100 BTC and still paid the commission.

So while increasing the commission isn't, switching to a commission on profits vs wagers itself is strictly better for investors.

[devans]

For players, nothing changes other than the wager and profit limits increasing by a third as mentioned above.

How are those wager limits relevant? I think we reached a point where it is highly unlikely anyone will ever bet anything close to the max.

As far as I know the last time that happened was in December 2018, profit limit was 35ish btc back then IIRC.

It's relevant to players who might be wondering how the change affects them if at all.

[darewaller]

If you want to calculate this new version and the old version you have all the data in your hands, just do the math on how much house wins, how much investors wins and how much gamblers loses/wins in general and see what happens, try to calculate both gamblers losing and gamblers winning to see differences as well.

However, devans not notifying is something else, saying "you still have the same options as months ago so nothing changed" is a bit disingenious, you could have literally let people know and let them decide their own actions, maybe they wanted to get out earlier, maybe they wanted to invest a lot more for the last couple months before this happens, you shouldn't have decided what they wanted to do about this yourself, should have given that freedom to the investors.

[JasonFC]

If you want to calculate this new version and the old version you have all the data in your hands, just do the math on how much house wins, how much investors wins and how much gamblers loses/wins in general and see what happens, try to calculate both gamblers losing and gamblers winning to see differences as well.

However, devans not notifying is something else, saying "you still have the same options as months ago so nothing changed" is a bit disingenious, you could have literally let people know and let them decide their own actions, maybe they wanted to get out earlier, maybe they wanted to invest a lot more for the last couple months before this happens, you shouldn't have decided what they wanted to do about this yourself, should have given that freedom to the investors.

The fact that he is willing to reimburse users on their dilution fees means that giving an advanced notice would have changed nothing.

[JollyGood]

However, devans not notifying is something else, saying "you still have the same options as months ago so nothing changed" is a bit disingenious, you could have literally let people know and let them decide their own actions, maybe they wanted to get out earlier, maybe they wanted to invest a lot more for the last couple months before this happens, you shouldn't have decided what they wanted to do about this yourself, should have given that freedom to the investors.

This is the part troubles several users, I also think he should have announced his intentions earlier by giving notice to investors and any investors could have made a decision after contemplating the matter over several days but he has already given his reasons for not doing so therefore it is probably time to let put that in the past.

Regarding bother Bustabit and Bustadice, it will be interesting to see what happens to the bankroll with regards to any increases and decreases. I think most investors will be staying put and it will not affect the size of he bankroll but a very small number might leave because of the point you raised above.