I'm definitely for being able to choose the max kelly risk. The only thing keeping me from investing into the site is the crazy amount of potential volatility when a whale/whales bets for max profit (as many have seen with that multi account mega whale). There are huge potential swings in the bankroll that can occur at 1.5x kelly and even at 1x kelly. I would personally like to invest at 0.5x kelly and I'm sure many investors probably feel the same.

Also I think a per game max profit of 0.5x, 1x, and 1.5x kelly (current) should be sufficient.

Yes your % share of overall bankroll would change according to the kelly you set. The max profit would also be a variable % of overall bankroll (wouldn't really make a difference to players as they only see the max profit value).

Kelly is the same for both, but the chance to go bankrupt goes from 0 to X% depending on the amount of leverage. At high enough leverage, going bankrupt is almost a certainty because of variance.

It's the bankroll that goes negative. The casino starts losing money if the allowed bet is too high, it's a statistical certainty long term.

Here's a simple script I made that may help you wrap your head around it:
https://jsfiddle.net/089vv8wh/

It's set to 50% max profit so you can see how quickly it goes down.
Try setting it to 1x kelly or lower (and ramping up the loop count) to see positive growth.

2x kelly will have no growth or decline in the bankroll on average long term (although incredibly wild swings in bankroll are expected). Anything greater than 2x kelly, and you can expect bankroll to decline; the larger the kelly, the faster the decline.

One way to think about it that's intuitive to me, is to use extremes. So same +EV of 1% house edge, but increase allowed max profit to 100% of bankroll.

What's the chance the house will be bankrupt by a mega whale after the first bet? 49.5%

After 2 bets? 74.4975%
3 bets? 87.1212375%
4 bets? 93.496224937%
30 bets? 99.999999874%

Since anyone can challenge the house for 100% of it's bankroll at any time, bankruptcy is basically inevitable.

---

Another way to think about it that may be more intuitive, is what if max profit was 50% of the bankroll, but allowed max bet was 50x the bankroll. A whale could bet 50x the bankroll at 1.01, and basically have a 99% chance to win, and a 1% chance to lose.

Even though the whale could lose on the first round, and increase the house's bankroll by 50x, what will most likely happen is the whale will win about 50 times first. Each time the whale wins, the house bankroll will decrease by half. So by the time the whale actually loses, 50x the house bankroll will basically be nothing (1/22,517,998,136,852 of original bankroll).

---

A +EV edge has the largest impact if spread out over a large number of rolls; the lower the edge, the more it should be spread out. Let's say you played a coin toss game that's weighted 60:40 in your favor, you had $1000, and your opponent had $1000. You can choose how much you wager each toss, and you keep playing until either you or your opponent is bankrupt.

If you bet $1000 on 1 toss, that's basically a 60% you'll end up finishing the game with $2000, and 40% you finish with $0. Only an idiot would play like this (if you happened to only have 40% to win instead (-EV), then this is actually the optimal way to play).

If however, you bet $1 over several thousands of tosses, it's basically statistically guaranteed you'll bankrupt your opponent and finish the game with $2000.

0.75%/1% is the max bet per account. 1.5% is the max bet per game. This was known since the beginning of V2.

Furthermore, a player isn't limited to playing on one account, that's been known since V1 and hasn't changed for V2.

You claim they are "lying", but they never claimed that 1% is the max bet a single person over multiple accounts can hit. That doesn't even make sense with the current game logic, and I can't even begin to think how that would even be possible.

It was made pretty clear that the onsite/offsite is meant to represent your investment onsite and offsite. Pretty sure both Daniel and Ryan also made it clear that you probably shouldn't set the offsite to something you don't have, otherwise you would be over-risking yourself.

A single player/account can only win 0.75/1% of the bankroll before automatically being cashed out. It was always clear that the max profit for the entire game was 1.5%, before everyone is cashed out. This info has always been in the FAQs.

Site just dropped another 500 btc. It dropped over 700 at one point (over 35% of the bankroll)!

I think another thing to take note of is that max profit was much harder to hit in V1 as the maxBet was capped at 1 btc. So hitting 60 btc only happened roughly 1/60 times. Even assuming max profit was 0.75% instead of 3% and max profit was 20 btc, that's still 1/20 times.

With the new system, you can bet the max profit and hit it roughly 1/2 times. That's 30x higher than before, 10x higher if you assume V1 max profit was 20 btc at 0.75%. V1 was an order of magnitude safer in terms of bankroll fluctuation since kelly/double kelly were hit that much less often.

I still feel that it's not great that double kelly is possible + hit so often when there's 2 accounts used. Yesterday there were 2 sets of 2 accounts that hit double kelly repeatedly: pineappleswrl & offtheshits, xxxrip & perrrrs (all the same guy)

I feel that because max bet isn't 1 BTC but always scales with the max profit, that no matter how large the bankroll, as long as there are whales willing to repeatedly hit double kelly, the bankroll will always be at risk of large fluctuations.

If 0.75% is the kelly, are you not worried that double that might be too high? The bankroll just lost over 200 btc to a player running 2 accounts to repeatedly hit that combined 1.5%.