Hi smooth,

you're asking to me for posting private details about a player. Even in that circumstance, I'll not break my privacy politic.


It's still possible to switch leverage and play that way. However since a recent patch the impact is lower. That's because the max profit rely now to the initial bankroll instead of bankroll with leverage.

Also, what's your guarantee that I'll not send you faked logs ? Nothing. And I'll be asked for more and more stuff. This is endless.
By the way, even the last logs I sent wasn't even monitored and compared with the site's bets, there is a 1M bet in it, nobody checked.

The site is providing tools that I keep updating, but at this state, there is no chart showing the bankroll with leverage second after second and no tool that pointing players who playing back coins from own investment, also no alerts when you starting to lost/win high on investment.

My bad is some peoples lost money from their invest on that run.

I would be thoroughly surprised if Bobbax comes around and actually provides information.

It's classic stall-technique. So far all we have seen is question dodging.

I'd like to share some thoughts

Say the bankroll is 10,000 XMR. I place 1,000 XMR, I have 10% of bankroll so if someone loses 50 XMR, I'm eligible to 5 XMR.

Now I leverage at 4:1 and the average leverage is 30:1. The bankrage is now 300,000 XMR and my own contribution is 4,000 XMR, which is 1,33%. So, if some wins 50 XMR, I only get 2,3%.

Conclusion: leverage does impact your APR. If you leverage less than the average, you'll get less interest (and less risk of losing). I tended to consider that casino offers a 50% APR, but leverage makes is harder to get this, since investors make it riskier. To stick with a 50% APR, you must match the average leverage. If you are surrounded by risk-takers (like it is the case for XMR), you end up with something not much less risky than trading.

Do I have something wrong here?

You are only somewhat correct. Your risk in the current system is determined by your leverage relative to average leverage. If everyone is levering high and so do you, you don't have much risk and your return is about the same as if the leverage feature didn't exist at all. The risk creeps in if you have your leverage set high and then other investors suddenly reduce there. You are then subject to being quickly wiped out.

Excellent update Bobbax!

Hey David,

I have multiple solutions, I'm still working to find which is the best (I personally like the (A) atm).
Note that the following numbers aren't definitive.

An important precision about the leverage: The leverage isn't only a factor of risks, it also allow investors to place less money on the site. You maybe don't want me to manage your 100 btc, but you'll be agree to send 10 with a leverage of 10:1 and keep 90 btc offsite.

A) Decreasing the max. profit multiplier
Your (1) is indeed the one that was used to get the max. profit (Bankrage * 0.005, 0.5%).
One solution could be to reduce that value to 0.05%, with a low limit depending of the initial bankroll.
The low limit would be the initial bankroll * 0.5%, so we make sure that the max. profit can't go below that value.

Example
Initial bankroll: 100 BTC
Bankrage: 2000 BTC
Average leverage: 20:1
Max. profit: 1 BTC (2000 * 0.0005).
Max. profit low limit: 0.5 BTC (100 * 0.005)

B) Decreasing the max. leverage
An other simple solution is to just decrease the max. leverage to 10, and bind back the max. profit to the bankrage.
The effects will be similar to the solution (A) and easier to understand.
Cons: less offsite coins.

Example
Initial bankroll: 100 BTC
Bankrage: 500 BTC
Average leverage: 5:1
Max. profit: 2.5 BTC (500 * 0.005).

C) Variable house edge with max. profit bind to the initial bankroll
The house edge remain 1% up to the 0.5% max. profit of the initial bankroll.
That system would allow the players to bet above the max. profit but with an increased house edge.
For example, betting 1% of the initial bankroll will result to a 2% house edge. The idea is to increase the house edge by 0.5% every 0.25% above the max. profit.
They will be a max. limit of course. It could be 3% of the initial bankroll, so a max house edge of 6%.
Cons: the max. profit will still be low and the high house edge looks scary.

Example
Initial bankroll: 100 BTC
Max. profit: 0.5 BTC (100 * 0.005).
House edge: 1% for all the bets below of equal to 0.5 BTC. 2% for a 1 BTC bet, etc...

D) Variable house edge with max. profit bind to the bankrage
To make that solution viable, the max. profit must be reduced according to the solution (A), with a lower max. profit (0.025% instead of 0.05%).
This solution is similar to the (C), except that the house edge increase by 0.5% every 0.025% above the max. profit.
The max. limit could be betting 0.2% of the bankrage, with an house edge of 6%.
Cons: the house edge looks scary again, but the difference with the solution (C) is that you need to bet higher to reach the max. house edge 'penalty'.

Example
Initial bankroll: 100 BTC
Bankrage: 2000 BTC
Average leverage: 20:1
Max. profit: 0.5 BTC (2000 * 0.00025).
Max. profit low limit: 0.5 BTC (100 * 0.005).
House edge: 1% for all the bets below of equal to 0.5 BTC. 2% for a 1.5 BTC bet, etc...

My recommendation is to stop trying to make high leverage "not risky". It is risky and that's partially the whole point of it (see end of second-to-last paragraph below).

Better:

1. Improve documentation/FAQ to clearly explain how 100x leverage means that if the house profit declines by 1% (not an unusual or unlikely event at all), you lose your entire (online) investment.

2. Improve transparency/auditability so that when people are highly leveraged and have big losses, they can see exactly what happened.

Increasing the house edge is silly, and will just drive bettors to other sites.

Reducing the max leverage to say 10x will inevitably mean everyone just maxes out at 10x, and to get a desired share of the bankroll will avoid keeping coins cold. Schemes like the current one (max bet tied to unlevered bankroll but investor share tied to levered) also discourage cold bankrolls and are create more complex, fragile, and non-intuitive failure modes for investors, as I described a few messages back.

Don't worry some of us may use high leverage but if we do it is because we have backup cold bankroll that will be redeposited after a big loss, assuming we are confident that the loss and the site are legit. Others may get cracked a few times but they will learn to stop or use lower leverage. The bankroll won't go broke; the site will be fine. Leverage is a fairly new concept in dice sites and successful investors need to climb the learning curve a bit. Be patient and it will happen. Furthermore some investors want to take silly high risks just because and some bettors want to try to wipe out over-leveraged investors. It is all part of the game and part of the fun. Treat your customers like adults who are capable of making adult decisions about what (potentially high) risks to take and for what reasons.

Thankfully, the work Bobbax is doing on transparency is exactly what is needed.

New version is up !

Investors will receive more CDP, chatters too.
The Rainbot will always send a few CDP even if nobody sent him funds.

Full Public changelogs - 1.1.9

This version is mostly a server-side upgrade to support the next upcoming features.

Seems like I'm going to be thoroughly surprised. 

Can you add Affiliate Program?