Quote from: itod on January 12, 2014, 10:13:25 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on January 12, 2014, 09:46:41 PM

Quote from: itod on January 12, 2014, 09:19:49 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on January 12, 2014, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: thebanker28 on January 12, 2014, 06:49:58 PM

Quote from: TheNuts23 on January 08, 2014, 07:40:55 PM

^This! Custom investor risk adjustment please

I second this. Please allow investor with higher risk appetite to increase our risk and possible return.

-J

I would donate for that possibility if dooglus would be willing to implement it. Perfectly would be a kelly percent you can chose freely, not even fixed values to chose from. For gamblers it wouldnt change anything than most probably the max profit. For investors wouldnt change anything either except they want to. And the calculation behind would be done automatically by the site.
To be on the sure side there should be a warning so that noobs dont complain later when the risk didnt work out.
At the end i believe anyone can only win with it. Gambler can play higher, investors can play riskier or play safe and the attracted gamblers would lead to dooglus getting more profit. Win-Win-Win.

I don't quite get what do you guys mean by "Custom investor risk adjustment" in practice. Do you mean some investors can arbitrarily raise max profit? How can this be calculated? Please give us one example of the parameters you propose to be investor-adjustable and how this should be calculated on average bet and high-volume bets.

To be honest this looks to me of much less importance to majority of investors than, for instance, API. Good API can lead to high-quality bots, which means higher betting volume - higher profit. All current bots are just quick hacks packed in the browser plugins. API and quality bots could also probably significantly reduce the load on the site, again leading to more satisfied users, higher volume, etc. I don't see why dooglus should devote his development resources to some esoteric ideas which are not described and documented well, when he can make something that we could be positive would make more profit for the investors.

It means adjusting the kelly percent. First just-dice ran with 1% kelly with is the optimum to get the most profits with the least risk. Now just-dice runs with 0.5% kelly which means 3/4 profit with much less variance. And the kelly value determines what amount of the house can be taken to play by gamblers. Since we only have a house advantage of 1% and 0.5% kelly that means 0.5% of the house can be won in one game. But some would like to risk more of their investment. That works like dicenow shows. Players that play a bigger investment then risk more of their investment and have the chance to lose more of course. At 2% kelly an investor should make no profit anymore when gamblers play full profit. Its not growing or shrinking in average.

At the end the only effekt of different kelly values would be the playable money is raised or lowered depending on the risk level the investors use.

Im not sure about API. Is there really such a demand for players that want to use a bot? I mean at the end they need bitcoins first to gamble with. I doubt a bit that this will lead to a significant more bitcoins gamed but of course it would be a feature.

Its nothing esoteric. Its already done at dicenow, only with fixed values to chose from. And its not really much to code in my eyes. Of course i dont know the website code here.

It could lead to more players when investors raise their kelly percent. Because then the max profit is rising and you could advertise with higher max wins.

You haven't answered my question, you keep explaining that 1% Kelly is better than 0.5% Kelly. Let me rephrase it: Suppose my investment setting is 0.5% Kelly, and yours is 1% Kelly, and we have invested the equal amount of BTC. The bettor bets 1BTC and looses. Does that mean that you get 2X the profit from that bet than I get? Or are you proposing something much more complicated? Once again - please give us one good example, it's far from obvious what exactly is your idea.

I would be interested in a more detailed explanation aswell, and also why the same thing you propose can not be achieved by individual investors changing their invested amounts to fit their preferences