The issue here is that you will rarely get close to even 10% action on your invested coins, even at 100% risk level. If selectable risk % is implemented, max bet will go to 1,000BTC. Mean bet size is currently .0035 BTC. So even at 100% risk, only a miniscule amount of your investment will be at risk.
The goal is to maximize TOTAL exposure relative to TOTAL house BR on each bet with minimal risk of ruin. For the first bet, 100% of BR at 5% risk gets you the exact same amount of action as 5% of BR at 100% risk using model 2. There are some interesting differences in variance after bet #1 though. One problem I see is that 5% BR at 100% risk will likely blow that investment portion in a large fraction of max bet events, forcing a manual reinvestment at stochastically determined timepoints. Which would be a PITA.
I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a more private venue. Tipping off people to superior risk and coin-management approaches seems self-defeating.
Looks like I need to read up on max bet - I'd assumed max bet varied based on the bet so as to be whatever the maximum was that would incur loss to the house of 1% of capital. From what you're saying it's a fixed amount regardless of which bet is chosen (so X BTC whether they go for a 1 in a million shot or a a 98% shot). I'd assumed the main exposure would be on people gambling the max they could on the most extreme odds bets. So if there was 100k of capital (and 1% risk exposure) then 1 BTC would be the max bet with a 1/1000 chance of winning and .001 BTC the max bet on the 1 million to 1 shot. Mean bet size doesn't mean much (in terms of exposure) without accounting for the odds at which the bets occurred.
And yeah - little point discussing details. Personally I'd like a very complicated system as the more options there are the more advantage there is to be gained.