I like the site, but the new "app" they released is a joke.
It just opens a browser window to the mobile version of the website.
What's the point?
Are you referring to the sb live app or the actual betting app?! What's the sb live app? I'm referring to the Android app |
|
|
|
|
I like the site, but the new "app" they released is a joke.
It just opens a browser window to the mobile version of the website.
What's the point?
|
|
|
|
The security deposit for creating markets is prohibitively expensive at the current bitcoin prices, could you please reduce it?
You are right. We will reduce it to 1mBTC in the following days. This will apply for all past and future markets. You may already go ahead and create a market. Thanks, created. Where do you think Alexis Sanchez will sign? https://fairlay.com/market/football-transfers-alexis-sanchez/ |
|
|
|
|
The security deposit for creating markets is prohibitively expensive at the current bitcoin prices, could you please reduce it?
|
|
|
|
New UX when  betmoose and bitbet are rather primitive betting sites. Betfair, Betdaq, Smarkets and so on are more serious ones.
If by primitive you mean usable without needing a tutorial, then yes, they're primitive. You should make your own website fairlay.com more primitive. I find it hard to believe that you would bet without understanding backing/laying decimal odds. |
|
|
|
|
tfw the site is back but slow and they haven't rolled out the new design
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that clarifies it. Didn't realise the entire game was open source  |
|
|
|
Nice site, excellent idea!
I'd really like to see code for as much of the game as possible, because the current explanation is ambiguous at times (or at least, unclear).
Examples of things that aren't clear to me:
1) In the "What is the bonus?" section in the FAQ, what happens when the 100 bit player is the only player to cash out before bust? On the one hand, the explanation in the section claims the bonus rewarded to this player is 2.5 bits. On the other hand, it is claimed in another section that the entire bonus pool is always distributed.
The bonus pool is *always* given out on every single game (where the bust isn't 0x). If there's money left over after giving it to people who have cashed out, it is just equally divided amongst the remaining players based on their wager 2) Players A,B,C stake 100 bits each. The three of them cash out at the exact same multiplier (say via script). Once again, the "What is the bonus?" section in the FAQ does not adequately explain who gets what bonus. It seems intuitive that each would receive a bit.
Yeah, if two people cash out at the same multiplier they are given the same amount of bonuses. Now what happens if A instead staked 101 bits, and once again they all cashed out at the same multiplier? Does A now receive the entire bonus?
They would each be given exactly 1% of what they wagered. Which means B and C would get 1 bit, and A would get 1.01 bits. 3) In the game itself, what does the bonus % column indicate?
The amount of bonus they will get as a % of their wager Somehow I'm even more confused now. The fact that "if there's money left over after giving it to people who have cashed out, it is just equally divided amongst the remaining players based on their wager" doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere, and "equally divided amongst the remaining players based on their wager" seems like an oxymoron to me. The underlying issue is that I can't seem to extrapolate the general method from these examples. Would you care to address the general case, which I have outlined below (as I understand it)?  |
|
|
|
|
Nice site, excellent idea!
I'd really like to see code for as much of the game as possible, because the current explanation is ambiguous at times (or at least, unclear).
Examples of things that aren't clear to me:
1) In the "What is the bonus?" section in the FAQ, what happens when the 100 bit player is the only player to cash out before bust? On the one hand, the explanation in the section claims the bonus rewarded to this player is 2.5 bits. On the other hand, it is claimed in another section that the entire bonus pool is always distributed.
2) Players A,B,C stake 100 bits each. The three of them cash out at the exact same multiplier (say via script). Once again, the "What is the bonus?" section in the FAQ does not adequately explain who gets what bonus. It seems intuitive that each would receive a bit. Now what happens if A instead staked 101 bits, and once again they all cashed out at the same multiplier? Does A now receive the entire bonus?
3) In the game itself, what does the bonus % column indicate?
|
|
|
|
Glad to see that switching between Percentage and Decimal odds doesn't trigger a page refresh anymore |
|
|
|
|
Who's the guy in charge now? Is it not Martin?
|
|
|
|
Worth noting that the guy above runs http://www.btcwagering.com/ according to his profile, which appears to be a rather poor and thinly veiled advertising platform for competing sites. Thanks for the plug! Nothing is veiled about BTC Wagering -- we exist precisely for this reason; to recommend *reputable* BTC-based sites where people *won't have a problem getting their payouts.* NB. None of the sites we advertise suck. My experience with Fairlay most certainly sucked to the extreme. Thinking you got scammed out of your money for 2 days is the worst feeling in the world, trust me. And when your withdrawal isn't being processed and the operator isn't responding, I generally think I've been scammed. Nitrogen for example operates in Costa Rica where it's actually legal to run a sportsbook without a license. Is it legal in London? NO!!! And I was expecting more than 10mBTC based on the fact I was betting 2BTC and had such a bad experience. But it's fine and consistent with their "we don't give a crap" behavior that they said no. I think others will find value in the info I've presented based on actually using the site (and obviously wanting it to be good). As for you, thanks for the plug Nitrogen claims to operate out of Costa Rica, great. Say that tomorrow the site disappears, together with all of the funds. What will you do? Give it a bad rating on your website? Catch the soonest flight out of your home in the US to Costa Rica? I'm genuinely curious what you find so attractive about Nitrogen (apart from them paying you). The objective fact is that Fairlay offer better lines (odds) than Nitrogen do. To think that after two years and 30 pages of forum feedback the site operators would fake a server error to steal your 2BTC is hysterical and ridiculous. Why would the site operators need to bribe you? Are you also expecting reimbursement when you lose bets? |
|
|
|
Worth noting that the guy above runs http://www.btcwagering.com/ according to his profile, which appears to be a rather poor and thinly veiled advertising platform for competing sites. Plus all his "points" essentially boil down to: 1) The support is rather slow. Possibly, in the sense that perhaps the staff don't sit in a chatroom on the site spouting nonsense like on nitrogen or whatever, but in my experience it's not "weeks" slow. 2) It's not clear who the staff are and if/where they're licensed. Valid point, but valid for the majority of bitcoin-based platforms as I see it. 3) He didn't receive his precious 10mbtc bounty for pointing out that stuff is broken while the servers were down. |
|
|
|
|
Getting an error when trying to create a new market.
|
|
|
|
|
Deposited, bet some, withdrew some.
Works good overall.
A graph of odds/stake amount would be my immediate suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
A few years ago I remember reading in this thread that this bookmaker voids bets when they determine that the odds you chose were too good (even though they offer the odds themselves) - they called this "steam plays", or some other such bullshit. Obviously, this means this bookie is a joke.
Is this still the case?
|
|
|
|
|
Do moderators ever close threads here? Or are we going to wait for ActSeller to suddenly make up some more claims from 2013? It's been determined that everything is fine now...
|
|
|
|
New account with broken English... Couldn't possibly be ActSeller could it...?  What's also quite amusing is that I'm trying my best to transfer various signature campaign funds to Aleister, as I recognise that all this likely isn't his fault, whilst in the meantime he's grasping at straws to find evidence of some foul play. This despite him stating beforehand that he will recognise the owner of the address as the rightful owner of the account. |
|
|
|
Interesting to see that KWH, a "legendary" member of this site, has retained his trust rating on my account stating that it's bought/sold, despite the fact that the reference for the rating is this very thread which shows that I have regained control over my hacked account (as well as several unanswered PMs to him)  You should consider yourself lucky ending up with just a neutral after this situation. Badgering KWH with PMs and complaining publicly is unlikely to improve your position. You still haven't explained how you were able to regain access to the account despite the profile e-mail address having been changed multiple times since the alleged hack. I sent two (2) PMs with a space of a few days between them. This whole board category is intended as a forum for "public complaining". The email that is currently tied to the account is ctlaltdefeat@yahoo.com, which I created many years ago. I do not know if the hacker even changed the email registered to the account or not, but the fact of the matter is that if the email were not under my control in the first place I would not have been able to be writing this to you in the first place. |
|
|
|
Interesting to see that KWH, a "legendary" member of this site, has retained his trust rating on my account stating that it's bought/sold, despite the fact that the reference for the rating is this very thread which shows that I have regained control over my hacked account (as well as several unanswered PMs to him) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
