Quote from: qxzn on January 13, 2014, 09:25:29 PM

Quote from: nimda on January 13, 2014, 03:19:19 AM

Quote from: qxzn on January 13, 2014, 02:05:19 AM

Quote from: itod on January 13, 2014, 12:55:12 AM

Quote

1b) An improved idea (and the one Doog was favoring) was to ask users to select one of a few options for maximum bet. For example, you would chose if you want 0.5% maximum wagered per bet or 1%. The site then just has to calculate the percentage of the bank roll owned collectively by those two bins after every roll since the percentage a single investor owns of either bins remains a constant unless there is an invest or divest event. This, for now, seems to be the way it may be implemented.

1b looks OK. If someone wants to go into higher risk bin and take on themselves percentage of all bets above current Max Profit it's fine with me.

This has all been hashed over before. Max profit should be returned to the kelly optimum of 1%, and investors should be encouraged to reduce their investment size until they no longer have hernias when a whale wins big. There is no need for an additional risk limit knob -- that's what your investment amount is for.

Not quite; there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind:

A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
A lack of bitcoins
Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)

Um. Leverage is a Very Bad Idea. If the investors don't have the full amount of bitcoins to back their position, then who's going to pay out if a whale were to win it all? Who would bet on a platform when you know they might not actually be able to pay out?

If you want to borrow bitcoins to invest on just-dice, that's fine, so long as you aren't implicitly borrowing them from other just-dice investors who never consented.

Upon rereading I think maybe what you are suggesting by "leverage" would be raising your individual kelly percent above 1%. In other words, saying you're willing to bet bigger than the optimal amount (because you like to gamble with a positive edge). I can sorta see some validity to that.