Quote from: Deprived on September 25, 2013, 09:24:14 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 25, 2013, 09:18:14 PM

Quote from: tucenaber on September 25, 2013, 09:11:37 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 25, 2013, 09:04:01 PM

Quote from: mughat on September 25, 2013, 08:58:49 PM

Quote from: integrity42 on September 25, 2013, 08:54:42 PM

The number of people disagreeing with Dooglus outnumbers those agreeing by 2:1.

I hope he reconsiders what he's done. He listened to mechs instead of listening to 30,000BTC in investors who left their money in at 1%.

+1
Setting your own risk % is the solution to this madness.

What would happen then if I always increased my risk % to something high like 2.5% when the fishes were playing, and then decreased back to 0.25% when a whale comes along?

You will lose the big wins. Think of it as a less extreme version of divesting when the whale comes along.

OK that makes sense. But what if I also increase to *over* 1% when the fishes are playing? Like Oleander pointed out, would I not be diluting all the other investors that don't actively manage their account?

Easily fixed - only allow people to change their risk level once per day. Then people can't game it - and have to pick the risk level they'll take for ALL action. The house doesn't need backing for the small bets - so if you want a share of those you should also have to take a similar part of the big action. People could still divest/reinvest when whales were around - but there's no stopping that whilst giving people control of their money. And the people who routinely divested when he bet before at 1% risk will likely do the same at .25% risk if a whale starts winning again - so it's not a new problem.

I think you guys are missing the point. We're talking about the max risk, which, assuming a fixed payout of 1:1 (which is how Nakowa always gambles), is essentially the same as a max bet size. If you have your risk tolerance set to 0.25%, you will be invested in all bets below 0.25%. Increasing this to 2% when there is no one betting > 0.25% of the roll will not give you increased returns. So the max bet would actually be a weighted average of people's investment and tolerance, but everyone would get equal returns on all bets, with the return being capped on large bets to the level of their risk tolerance; i.e. every bet on the site other than Nakowa's.

This actually wouldn't be that difficult to implement mathematically, only slightly more so than the current investment math. You could even set it up with two or more baskets of risk like the design of Betterment: one basket where you're willing to risk say 0.25% and another where you're willing to risk maybe 10%.

Two more points of emphasis:
1. In gambling, specifically poker, a whale is a "big fish." This is not the same as a "shark," who eats fish and whales. <-- Point being they're both prey animals
2. You guys are all barking about how we've chased Nakowa away, yet most of these posts came after he shipped 3k back today at the lower levels; there was only one post in the whole thread that acknowledged this. Now, the losing might scare him off, but if he's as addicted as we all believe he is he'll be back, he has nowhere else to go. Where else will he be able to get such high max bets with such low edge.

P.S. For the record, I voted "No" to the thread poll, I don't think the size should have changed
P.P.S. Kupsi made this point as well before I published, but I'd already type it up so maybe some people will benefit from my explanation vs his.