Quote from: 01010100b on March 04, 2018, 06:49:31 PM

Quote from: dooglus on March 04, 2018, 07:31:14 AM

Quote from: 01010100b on March 04, 2018, 05:18:02 AM

This statement is false, just think about it. Suppose there are two investors, A and B, and each have 50 btc onsite and 50 btc offsite. A is lying about it but B isn't. Why would A have -EBG but B have +EBG?

Great question.

These are the situations of your two investors:

* A has 50 BTC in total, it's all on-site, but he lies about having another 50 BTC offsite just to get more exposure to the action. He is willing to risk 2% of his 50 BTC on every bet. He's risking 1 BTC per bet of his 50 BTC.

* B has 100 BTC in total, He is willing to risk 1% of his 100 BTC on every bet. He's risking 1 BTC per bet of his 100 BTC.

Immediately it should be obvious that A's position is riskier than B's. A is risking 2% of his bankroll on the first bet, whereas B is only risking 1% of his bankroll.

Quote from: 01010100b on March 04, 2018, 06:13:37 AM

The "realness" of your offsite has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your onsite will go up (+EBG) or down (-EBG).

But we're not concerned with whether our "onsite" grows. We only care about our net worth. (EBG = expected *bankroll* growth, where "bankroll" means "coins you actually own"). In A's case his onsite is the same as his net worth, whereas in B's case his net worth is the sum of his onsite and offsite. I think that's the point you're missing. As A loses his onsite he risks an ever increasing percentage of his net worth until he ends up being margin called. As B loses his onsite he tops it up with the coins which were offsite until now, and avoids the margin call. A goes bust, B doesn't.

Well yes, but as B moves coins from his offsite to his onsite then his L (as per post above) changes. Let's consider the simplified situation where A and B have the same investment (say 50 btc onsite and 50 btc offsite), A is lying and B isn't, and B will move his offsite to his onsite when he gets margin called (ie when his onsite reaches 0) and not before. While it is true that B will be able to recover whereas A won't, the probability of their onsite going to 0 is the same since they have the same investment, up until the point where B actually starts moving his offsite to his onsite both A and B will evolve in tandem. So if A has the expectation of negative bankroll growth and going bust then B has the same expectation of his onsite going down too.

Sure, the moment B actually moves some coins from his offsite to his onsite the analysis changes since A and B won't have the same investment anymore, but as long as that doesn't happen B has the same (short-term) expectation of losing his onsite as A does. If A can expect to go bust then B can expect to lose his onsite as well, irrespective of whether B will be able to recover again afterwards or not.

The assumption that B will replenish his onsite with his offsite as he takes losses doesn't hold in real life, there will be a delay before B logs in and makes those changes, and the bankroll can change by a lot very fast - before B might be able to react by moving coins from offsite to onsite. My argument above applies to a constant offsite.

I'm surprised that nobody has accused me of being you yet. I had a lot of similar material being written up into my scam accusation against them.

I find it weird that they keep purposely avoiding the question you seem to be asking which is what makes 10 separate negative growth bankroll scenarios turn into a positive one if all combined?