There are plenty of people that run their script and have been having success. I tried multiple times and have honestly failed over night... I get up in the morning and check my Account Balance to see its empty. =)

This is very disappointing. Retiring the offsite part is very bad, it reduces drastically the expected returns for those investors that have trusted in your project for a long time, before Bustabit had the impressive track record that it currently has. By simply not allowing people to add anything to the offsite portion, over time, the offsite/onsite ratio would decrease, without having to penalize those investors that helped you make this such a successful project. Increasing the fee last year was annoying enough, but this is effectively reducing expected returns by up to 2/3.

Other than not letting people increase their offsite portion, the fair way to approach this situation would have been to gradually increase the dilution fee. This should limit the bankroll's growth without harming early investors. Another more extreme approach, but that you could consider, is simply not allowing new investments at all, but I think increasing the dilution fee is the fairest method by far. I'd also expect some of that dilution fee being cashed out by investors receiving it, so that you'll also achieve your goal of limiting the bankroll's size (or you can keep the dilution fee yourself, or part of it, instead of it being distributed to all investors, that's fine too).

About making the comission variable, I think that's a mistake too, as it makes it harder to estimate which are the expected returns. And obviously, if we get over 5,000 BTC bankroll, fees would be even higher than now, on top of not even being able to keep our offsite portion.

Please reconsider this point, you can achieve the same goal without damaging previous investors. I'd suggest you to try increasing the dilution fee, so that new investments are still allowed but new investors at least pay a premium for the privilege of joining this project when it's already mature. What you are proposing here is the opposite, penalizing previous investors.

So it will incentive us to increase your on site liability on both sites for now. Don't you think that works against what you try to accomplish a bit?

Over 10 000 BTC in theory we would be paying over 100%... At least there should be some cap on the fee, at 50% for example, that's already a very nice profit for the casino (on top of whatever they make as investors themselves)...

Can someone explain the bankroll investment changes in layman's terms? I'm confused. Preferably comparing how it works now to how it now will work.

Personally removing the offsite part is not that bad for me as my offsite/onsite ratio is not that much higher than the average one. Assuming that removing it would probably discourage current "leveraged" investors to stay, it's probably neutral, so OK.

However, there must be a cap on the fee, which I think should be 50%, that's already a crazy profit for the casino, especially combined with their own investment in the bankroll. To keep things easier I'd just leave the fee at 50% instead of using that new formula which would require investors to keep looking at how big the bankroll is. Also if the fee was dynamic, the max profit should be dynamic too in relation to the fee. Otherwise, imagine the extreme scenario in which the bankroll got to 9,000. Then the kelly would be very high unless the max bet is adjusted to the much lower expected value per bet for investors. The maximum profit should be 2*bankroll*(0.01*(1-fee)) so that expected bankroll growth is at least 0.

If 10,000 is the number that Devans doesn't want to reach, what I'd do in his situation is becoming more aggressive with the dilution fee, starting with 5%.

Yeah, obviously people who do not know how bustabit works and how provably fair system works will always try to find a way to blame the casino when they lose, they can't accept the fact that they are a gambler that ended up losing something mathematically destined to make them lose in the end. Do not try to find a way or a system that helps the casinos "cheat you out of your money" because there is none that is hidden, it is right out in the front page and you end up having that as your reason to lose, it is called house edge and that is it.

Back on wang tang, do you guys think he will continue to gamble thousands of bitcoins again and try to recoup what he has lost? Or will he be smarter about his money this time around and not make the same mistakes he did last time?

Capping the fee would defeat the purpose as it would no longer provide a disincentive to invest once the bankroll reaches 5,000 BTC.

As the commission is only charged on net profits, it doesn't affect the Kelly criterion. The optimal risk for the bankroll according to the Kelly criterion is 1% (the house edge) regardless of the commission rate.

Unfortunately the dilution fee on its own is not effective in capping the bankroll size. Since the beginning of this year, there has been a net divestment of ~750 BTC, i.e. overall investors divested 700 BTC more than they invested. Despite that, the bankroll has grown nearly 900 BTC since then.



Nobody would invest money in something if they didn't stand to earn a profit, which is why the bankroll will never reach 10,000 BTC. In practice the bankroll will find an equilibrium at a much lower size where investors are content with the rate of return. For what it's worth this is already the case. All the dynamic commission does is nudge that point of equilibrium towards a smaller bankroll.



Having a large offsite bankroll can make the bankroll volatile. When an investor's onsite investment becomes too small to support their offsite investment they are margin-called, causing their offsite investment to be set to zero. As a result a lucky high roller might see the maximum profit collapse at the worst possible time, after they've just won a large amount.

i don't think he will add something like that the bustabit is already good enough and have already enough players i don't think any promotions will be needed anymore.