[POLL] Just-Dice INVESTORS: Do you agree with lowering the max bet?

[integrity42]

As many of you know, Just-dice investors lost a lot of BTC to Nakowa.  He currently has 13,000BTC of investor money in his hands. As a result, dooglus lowered the max bet to 0.25%

Nakowa has stated that he will never play again since the max bet has been lowered.

As an investor, Are you happy with lowering the max bet?


EDIT: Some things to consider

PROS:
-- Less variance for investors.

CONS:
-- We must assume for now that Nakowa will not play again (this might change, but he said he won'y play again at this bet size). This means there is no way for investors to recover the 13,000BTC losses.
-- As BTC exchange rate rises bet sizes will drop. As time goes on without nakowa, its possible that the site will never hit +6000 profit making it impossible for some investors to recover their losses.
-- Changing bet size without notice wasn't good for gambler confidence.

[theskillzdatklls]

nope. 1% was good.  0.5% if something has to be done.  Investors need to realize they can lose money /story.

[dmcurser]

should never have been changed without notice.

[mechs]

Who cares what anyone thinks except investors or gamblers? 

99.99% of gamblers are not effecting by a 80 BTC profit max (as it currently is and will continue to go up)
Investors did not want the variance, risk of ruin had become too high

Results of this poll are meaningless, and will probably be 1% since it makes for a more interesting show to see 400 BTC bets than 80 BTC ones.

[DebitMe]

As many of you know, Just-dice investors lost a lot of BTC to Nakowa.  He currently has 13,000BTC of investor money in his hands. As a result, dooglus lowered the max bet to 0.25%

Nakowa has stated that he will never play again since the max bet has been lowered.

As an investor, Are you happy with lowering the max bet?

You say that he has 13,000 BTC of investor's money, did he win that or steal it?  If it was won, then it is wrong to call tha tinvestor's money, if it was stolen, then you are correct.  The investor's knew the risk of where that money was going and chose to make the deposit anyway, therefor it is his money and not the investor's.  If he had lost, would you have said that you had his money?  No, it would have been your money.

But back on subject, I did not quite follow what happened and the events that led up to the max bet being dropped.  This is a weird instance though.  Technically the owners of the site are the investors and should be able to make decisions like that based on proportion of money invested.  But this is bitcoinland where company officials are not elected, and can do whatever they want with investors money, with little to no repurcussions.

Since this is bitcoinland I would say that since Dooglas started the site, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants with it.  That is not how the world is normally run, and he should probably have asked or created some polling system to get an idea of wha this investors thought.

[RationalSpeculator]

 When I discovered the max bet today:

[joesmoe2012]

A poll, discussion, or at the least notification prior to making the change should have taken place for the investors and gamblers alike. Was very impressed with the site until this. 

[mechs]

Who cares what anyone thinks except investors or gamblers?  

99.99% of gamblers are not effecting by a 80 BTC profit max (as it currently is and will continue to go up)
Investors did not want the variance, risk of ruin had become too high

Results of this poll are meaningless, and will probably be 1% since it makes for a more interesting show to see 400 BTC bets than 80 BTC ones.

Have Doog email the top 10-15 investors and let them tell you that you are out numbered 5-1, you where most vocal on this and got in Doog's ear others did not want this.

I am fine with that.

[RationalSpeculator]

Who cares what anyone thinks except investors or gamblers?  

99.99% of gamblers are not effecting by a 80 BTC profit max (as it currently is and will continue to go up)
Investors did not want the variance, risk of ruin had become too high

Results of this poll are meaningless, and will probably be 1% since it makes for a more interesting show to see 400 BTC bets than 80 BTC ones.

You are starting to resort to untrue statements.

After whale winning big 30,000 btc chose to stay invested, only 10,000 btc chose to withdraw investment.

That's how the money voted. 75% for 1% max bet and high variance in return for high potential return.

[mechs]

Who cares what anyone thinks except investors or gamblers? 

99.99% of gamblers are not effecting by a 80 BTC profit max (as it currently is and will continue to go up)
Investors did not want the variance, risk of ruin had become too high

Results of this poll are meaningless, and will probably be 1% since it makes for a more interesting show to see 400 BTC bets than 80 BTC ones.

You are starting to resort to untrue statements.

After whale winning big 30,000 btc chose to stay invested, only 10,000 btc chose to withdraw investment.

That's how the money voted. 75% for 1% edge.

I was invested and have never divested.  I am happy with the change.  I wanted less variance and so do many other investors.  Others, like me, stayed invested since so deep in the hole, was an act of desperation. Not rational but that is what it is.

[RationalSpeculator]

Who cares what anyone thinks except investors or gamblers?  

99.99% of gamblers are not effecting by a 80 BTC profit max (as it currently is and will continue to go up)
Investors did not want the variance, risk of ruin had become too high

Results of this poll are meaningless, and will probably be 1% since it makes for a more interesting show to see 400 BTC bets than 80 BTC ones.

You are starting to resort to untrue statements.

After whale winning big 30,000 btc chose to stay invested, only 10,000 btc chose to withdraw investment.

That's how the money voted. 75% for 1% edge.

I was invested and have never divested.  I am happy with the change.  I wanted less variance and so do many other investors.  Others, like me, stayed invested since so deep in the hole, was an act of desperation. Not rational but that is what it is.

Ok, but you are not all investors, please don't speak for them. You are also spamming the boards by repeating continuously the same arguments.

[integrity42]

It seems like most investors disagree with mechs.

Mechs doesn't seem to care that some investors will never recover with a 0.25% max bet and Nakowa leaving.  He's pretty selfish to be honest.   If he didn't like the 1% and variance he could have divested.  30,000BTC were happy with it. They stayed in.

Instead, mechs is happy with forcefully implementing 0.25% without consultation to other investors who are massively in the hole.

Very nice.

[Rampion]

When I discovered the max bet today:

I was watching Nakowa playing, losing big time. It was just a matter of minutes for him to go berserk and push max bet to recover his losses. When I saw the max bet going to 0.25%, I thought "OH NO!!!"

IMO Dooglus got overemotional, he was scared by the thought Nakowa could have won another big % of the bankroll. But that was unlikely. Plus, I don't understand all this talk about "making Nakowa stop playing". Nakowa was OUR BEST CUSTOMER. Every casino in the world wants the biggest whales to keep playing. If you need to change things, you do it right, you just do not take a rushed decision to STOP your best customer from playing. That's unfair and totally counter-productive.

Plus, the only chance to recoup the 25% losses we had in a few days was precisely to let Nakowa do his things. Math was on our side. Now, we will probably do not reach break even for months.

Anyhow, respect to dooglus - and full support. It might be a mistake, but he is honest, trustworthy, and very capable. I'm glad I'm invested in his product.

[integrity42]

Uhh..  Is that true?  Mechs convinced dooglus privately to drop the investment %???

If thats true it's totally unfair to other investors without consulting them. 

[Oleander]

This is a matter of math and logic.  Some people argued that the max bet was too high and the variance allowed a whale with a large enough bankroll to win despite the house edge.  There is plenty of evidence lately that this is the case.  Nakowa himself agrees with this and has said so.  Others argued that the max bet had to kept at 1% to give them a chance to recoup their losses.  But this sounds like gambler's fallacy... what's lost is lost, and there is no reversion to the mean to make things right again.

My point is that math is not a democracy.  Voting to set pi equal to 3 does not make it so.

JD is an experiment.  Let's see what happens, analyze some more data and reconsider the max bet.

[mughat]

As many of you know, Just-dice investors lost a lot of BTC to Nakowa.  He currently has 13,000BTC of investor money in his hands. As a result, dooglus lowered the max bet to 0.25%

Nakowa has stated that he will never play again since the max bet has been lowered.

As an investor, Are you happy with lowering the max bet?


EDIT: Some things to consider

PROS:
-- Less variance for investors.

CONS:
-- We must assume for now that Nakowa will not play again (this might change, but he said he won'y play again at this bet size). This means there is no way for investors to recover the 13,000BTC losses.
-- As BTC exchange rate rises bet sizes will drop. As time goes on without nakowa, its possible that the site will never hit +6000 profit making it impossible for some investors to recover their losses.
-- Changing bet size without notice wasn't good for gambler confidence.

If you want less risk simply invest less money. Simple as that. Think about it....

There is no good reason to change the max bet.

[integrity42]

Also Mechs in chat said to Nakowa , he personally does not want him betting there anymore win or lose because hes an asshole. Is this the type of investors other investors want?

+1

Can you imagine a vegas casino running at optimal kelly criterion turning away whales??  Whoever was responsible for that would probably be fired.

[Rampion]

Also Mechs in chat said to Nakowa , he personally does not want him betting there anymore win or lose because hes an asshole. Is this the type of investors other investors want?

Wow, amazing. From one side, if your only chance to quickly recoup those HUGE losses is variance, you don't want to screw up variance. Math and Nakowa's delusional attitude was on our side. From the other side, you just do not scare away the best customer you have (and that probably you will EVER have).

Nakowa has incredibly deep pockets, he is completely delusional and probably sick ("i'm not a gambler", "i found a system", "i spot patterns", "i cannot quit because i always win"), and we scare it away from "our" casino? Are we crazy?

That said, I understand Dooglus, even if I don't approve what he did. I have this attitude towards Nakowa because I am 100% ready to lose all my investment in JD, and that makes me calm and confident. On the other side, Doog has invested a HUGE amount of work on this project. Even if the chance of Nakowa winning the whole bankroll is extremely low, I guess for Dooglus that extremely low probability is high enough to make him VERY nervous. My guess is that he couldn't even stand the thought of seeing another big chunk of the roll go to Nakowa's pockets, so he took a rushed and IMO unfortunate decision.

This is a matter of math and logic.  Some people argued that the max bet was too high and the variance allowed a whale with a large enough bankroll to win despite the house edge.  There is plenty of evidence lately that this is the case.  Nakowa himself agrees with this and has said so.  Others argued that the max bet had to kept at 1% to give them a chance to recoup their losses.  But this sounds like gambler's fallacy... what's lost is lost, and there is no reversion to the mean to make things right again.

My point is that math is not a democracy.  Voting to set pi equal to 3 does not make it so.

JD is an experiment.  Let's see what happens, analyze some more data and reconsider the max bet.

No gamblers fallacy here. Nakowa was lucky, very lucky, unlikely lucky - if he had played long enough, he would have ended up losing. That's no fallacy, that's math, because you do realize that the house has an edge - right?

[Sterling]

How about .5%? Or like, .65%?

[galbros]

should never have been changed without notice.

While I understand how doing this undercut the whale's strategy since it lowered variance... +1 to the above.

It would have been nice to have seen a poll like this BEFORE the change for investors.