Why adjustable chances when just-dice could be a simple even bet site?
And what confusion? The gambler wouldnt see a difference at all and for investors that dont care wouldnt change anything at all too. They would stay at 0.5% as usual. But for all others there is a chance to adjust.
Its not hard to implement. When the profit per person really is calculated while divesting then the profit would be calculated by the set risk level. Before that at investing the playable max profit is adjusted matching the investors risk level too. Doesnt sound like many more calculations to me. I think even fully free setable risk levels could be possible. Though im not sure why someone wrote about too much calculations then. As far as i see it at the moment its only an adjustment in code, a database entry for risk level of every investor and a database field for the playable max profit for the house is new. Adjusted at every in- or divestment.
By investor risk I was referring to the max profit per roll percentage, currently 0.5%. I would not want to create different betting pools as dicenow has, for example.
Right now the site takes the results of any bet and distributes it based on each investor's portion of the bankroll. Only investing or divesting causes that percentage to change. If investors were able to adjust their risk (their portion of the max profit per roll), then the site would have to recalculate investor's percentage of ownership much more frequently. Not to mention implementing a different method to properly account for wins/losses.
Imagine we had many investors all with various amounts of risk (0.1% to 1% profit per bet, for example). Now think of how the site would handle bets of different sizes, not just max profit bets. As far as I know, there is no easy calculation to solve this problem. If you do have one I'd love to hear it.
Now I am not very familiar with server management, but I could see how a significantly more complex calculation for each bet could greatly increase the server's load.
This issue was discussed in great detail awhile back in this thread. I assume nothing has happened yet because it is not an easy change to make, nor is there an consensus in the implementation.
Edit: I've looked at dicenow, but don't really see how they are calculating the variable risk. It mentions leverage and I don't know why. The variable risk should have nothing to do with leverage.