Quote from: wachtwoord on October 02, 2013, 09:33:42 AM

Thanks for this answer. It gave me some insight why someone like you (highly intelligent and rational) could make such an irrational decision. Try not to care about the ups and downs of the bankroll and if you can't help yourself from caring, don't watch. It's like managing a stock portfolio and selling a stock because it is down .... ;)

Variance can get to the best of us :)

Wachtwoord? Shut the fuck up.

I've said it before, and I mean it: insulting other people's intelligence because they disagree with you on a non-trivial problem is about as neckbeardy as it gets.

Quote from: dooglus on October 02, 2013, 09:11:15 AM

Quote from: Rampion on October 02, 2013, 08:57:57 AM

Doog, let me ask you a question just made to you on the chat and that peaked my interest:

Quote

are you acting like the funds on the bankroll were 100% yours, or not?

[snip]

I missed that question in the chat so thanks for pointing it out.

If the funds on the bankroll were 100% my own, I would have shut the site down by now. I would have lost enough already. I wasn't expecting variance to be this much of a bitch at all. I was expecting ups and downs, but not like this.

[snip]

Thanks for an excellent question, Rampion. And thanks for an honest reply dooglus.

I think your reasons for how you handle the situation (divest, because too much risk, but let the site run, because investors ask for it) very understandable. On the other hand, I think some of your reactions don't really fit together with those reasons.

Example: a number of investors, including me, point out that they're unhappy with concentration of losses and dilution of profits through "daygambling". Your answer: it should be -EV long-term, so it's a non-issue. Another example: some investors point out that they believe that maybe 1% house edge is too low. Your reaction (at least the one I've seen so far): edge shouldn't be raised, will drive gamblers to the competition.

Can you see where I'm going? If you feel somewhat disattached from the investor's bankroll, that's okay. But as a consequence, that also means (in my opinion) that investors' opinions should hold a greater weight in determining how to make the site profitable again.

Note please that I'm not claiming that there necessarily is a majority for the two proposals I mentioned, but I *do* think we need a way for investors to make their opinions heard in a more formal way, and a way for you to determine what a majority of investors wants. I really think a voting mechanism for investors, on-site, is needed. The final decision, as alway, is yours, but at least you can say with more certainty what the "collective decision" of investors really is.

Ideally, vote weight would be a function of amount invested and time the amount has been invested (or something similar), to reward the early investors who stuck through the period of losses, and who have shown they really have the interests of the site in mind (as well as their own :D). The voting mechanism details still need to be worked out, but I do think something along those lines would make sense.

tl;dr Good idea to not care too much about the investors' bankroll, dooglus. But as a result, please give investors a way to form a collective decision (i.e. voting based on amount invested and duration of investment), and seriously consider implementing the results of that collective decision making.