Quote from: pawel7777 on April 18, 2016, 08:19:51 AM

Quote from: SafeDice on April 17, 2016, 05:26:06 PM

1) I already reached out to Anton, gave him my reasoning , what happened from my point of view, and another theory of this chaos

So what's the most likely scenario of what happened from your perspective? Is he simply lying, or was it a case of compromised account (and email?).

Quote from: SafeDice on April 17, 2016, 05:26:06 PM

4) I'll change the way the kelly system works to avoid similar things happened in the future

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't capping the max profit (at 20%, 30% or even 50% of current bankroll) solve the issue?

1) I will not accuse anyone without a solid proof as an operator. But whatever the scenario is, we've done throughout the procedure. Hugger's account has never been compromised, despite setting 2 factor auth few days ( not immediately ) after his huge winning

4) Thank you for your idea, but it is not that simple, investors may abuse it by always setting to 10x kelly, they will get a greater share while risking less. I think the only fair solution is to minimize maximum kelly to 2x - 5x. I was not very comfortable doing this before for a simple reason : some people will realize that his kelly was changed without the consent and thought that his account was compromised or I'm trying to keep them away from profiting

Quote from: Dogedigital on April 18, 2016, 08:35:25 PM

Quote from: wormat22 on April 18, 2016, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: Dogedigital on April 18, 2016, 06:10:40 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on April 18, 2016, 11:30:03 AM

Quote from: Sora Aoi on April 18, 2016, 11:00:14 AM

Quote

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't capping the max profit (at 20%, 30% or even 50% of current bankroll) solve the issue?

What is the issue exactly?

Player being able to win almost entire bankroll in a single bet.

The investor can't have both increased expected value and profits AND remain risk adverse.

With SafeDice's setup (up to 10x kelly), you need to realize that it's favouring investors who prefer the former rather than the latter and really there's no problem with that.

You can't expect to have fast and steady profits without taking a risk of ruin. It's not designed this way. IMO, these investment options are quite attractive and should provide a good return, however people shouldn't be regarding these investments as can't lose investments expecting them to never break.

Investors shouldn't be putting more than what they can afford to lose in this (or any) bankroll and instead should be adjusting according to their preferred balance of tolerance of risk and profit sought.

It's not the kelly system. SD disregards the kelly system at higher bets and adjusts the house edge to compensate. That's the issue here.

I believe it's a mixture of both. It used to be that the rate of the floating house edge variable would mean that you could only win that much % of the bankroll. When the Kelly was increased, it meant that investors were risking this to multiples depending on their settings (with most people opting for 10x).

The issue here is really simple : I was not aware that people are challenged to get more and more percentage of bankroll and most of them use 10x kelly. So instead of a house vs. player site , the site slowly became a player vs. player site. This makes the site too unstable and prone to variance