Quote from: RHavar on January 31, 2016, 06:07:21 AM

Quote from: ranlo on January 31, 2016, 05:52:38 AM

Can you please tl;dr this for me then? Something I'm not catching on to I guess. If the risked amount is a % of the bankroll (as per Dooglus), that % remains the same. So let's say there's 100 BTC in the BR, and 99.84% can be lost (99.84). Player loses 100 BTC chasing it. Now there's 200 BTC there, but he can chase after 199.68 of it (meaning his 100 + 99.68/99.84 of what he was chasing), and this could go on forever.

So for argument sake, lets use a gambler with infinite money.

The site starts with a 100 BTC bankroll, this means using Dooglus' payouts the gambler would have to bet 1524 BTC to aim at winning the 99.97% of the bankroll. As the gambler loses money, to the house, the more and more he needs to bet. By the time the gambler wins the 99.97% of the bankroll, he will have probably grown the bankroll so much that the remaining 0.03% is far bigger than the initial bankroll.

So even with infinite money, the gambler is still -EV and the casino still have +expected bankroll growth

Ahh, I see now. He had said that Plinkopot didn't allow higher multipliers but MP does, which led me to believe that the bet needed would be much, much smaller than that. This makes sense. So essentially, a median needs to be reached between BR risk and allowing that thrilling chance (likely through a capped "if max. win > x% BR, decline, even if it meets Kelly" setup), so as to protect investors and still allow risk-takers to get their fix. And we can essentially classify the bet in question as being a rare event, but still something that's concerning solely because of its impact.