|
How can bad coding cause so many withdrawal issues?
Communicating with users and sending coins should be extremely easy to do, especially if all of the staff knows about serious code issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Casinos don't go bankrupt because of paying out jackpots, they go bankrupt because they have other expenses that are more than they win in gambling and they are unable to get people to walk in the door and hand them money.
|
|
|
|
They spent 100 million on advertising?  The business is booming! I think some other betting companies paid the gov officials to ban the competition  Shocking since these companies popped up after those companies paid the government to ban online poker and they found a loophole in the law allowing this. |
|
|
|
I doubt OP understands correctly what "the long run" means.
Nobody is luck or unlucky in the long run and the house always wins unless they have an incredibly poor bankroll management.
Well OP is right, mathematically it can happen, maybe you dont know what you are talking about. It's definitely unlikely to happen but it can. The house always wins but that doesn't mean someone can't profit in the long term. "It can happen" and "profitable in the long term" do not mean the same thing, and neither does "can profit in the long term." you can make a profit, making -ev bets is not profitable in the long term. |
|
|
|
Everyone on this site needs a dictionary.
It is POSSIBLE to win gambling on -ev bets (blackjack, roulette, dice) whatever.
That does not mean it is PROFITABLE LONG TERM. Words have meaning.
If you get a powerball ticket on your 18th birthday for free and win 100 million dollar jackpot and never spend a cent gambling for the rest of your life you will have made money on -ev bets. That doesn't mean powerball is profitable long term.
Self control has nothing to do with it, if a bet is -ev, it isn't profitable long term, if it's +ev it is.
Ok but it's still possible. I added a picture illustration so that it is easier to visualize what I`m talking about. Possible to make a profit and profitable do not mean the same thing. |
|
|
|
"Gambling can be profitable in the long run! It is possible!"
"Gambling is not profitable 90% of the time! It is possible!"
Yes, of course it is profitable. But most of the time it is NOT.
It is depends on how are you played on each gambling site. Play slowly and dont be greedy that is how people can manage to profitable in long run but until you achieve that goal you must stop it no matter what or you will be on losing again. That is why you need self control there Everyone on this site needs a dictionary. It is POSSIBLE to win gambling on -ev bets (blackjack, roulette, dice) whatever. That does not mean it is PROFITABLE LONG TERM. Words have meaning. If you get a powerball ticket on your 18th birthday for free and win 100 million dollar jackpot and never spend a cent gambling for the rest of your life you will have made money on -ev bets. That doesn't mean powerball is profitable long term. Self control has nothing to do with it, if a bet is -ev, it isn't profitable long term, if it's +ev it is. |
|
|
|
New York this year:
"Damn, look at all that revenue those two sites are raking in from our citizens and we aren't getting one red cent of it. We gotta stop this."
New York next year:
"New York is proud to announce Empire State Fantasy Football! State-run and regulated (and taxed) because we care about protecting and safeguarding our citizens."
Since these DFS sites popped out of a law that did exactly that I'm not sure why anyone is shocked, in particular the people running Draftkings and Fanduel. If they didn't expect something like this they are morons of epic proportion. |
|
|
|
it's impossible , when we talk about long term we aren't talking about one year where are talking about mathematical concepts
the house will keep making money and the players at the end will run out of funds , it's impossible to beat -EV games unless there is a +EV bounty or Jackpot
even Einstein said about roulette that No One Can Win at Roulette Unless He Steals Money from the Table While the Croupier Isn’t Looking
Yes we are talking about 5-10 years because nobody gambles infinitely many times. It is possible to beat negative expectancy if you have a favorable probability distribution. If you bet on Red chip in roulette and the distribution is this: R , R , R ,B , R , R , R , R , R , R , R , R , R , R , R , R ,B ... You just ended up a net winner. That is nowhere near the long term. It is certainly possible to win money by making -ev bets. That does not mean it is profitable long term. |
|
|
|
nobody has mentioned the big advertising for partnership with mintsy that ended up down the toilet. I've heard people in trollbox a while ago bitching about it. It was big for cryptsy and advertised on their site but there is basically no remaining info showing that partnership.
I think mintsy was a project by some Australian (makes me ashamed someone from my country is so half assed) that was full of promise that basically showed no real end result... honestly many have showed that cloud mining can't be profitable long term or sustained but this aussie guy obviously thought different.
Nobody remembers the mintsy thing? I think cryptsy should be careful on their partnerships... you can't pump something then wipe it and tell people to contact them. It impacts on your professionalism if you can't select partners that are a sure thing. If you can't you are exposing your customer base to poor investment choices which reflects on you.
I kind of just assumed it was cryptsy trying their hand at a cloud mining scam. |
|
|
|
I have not played a hand of poker in my life so I will take everybody's sound advice here and not go against these high rollers at all the poker sites. I will stick with blackjack cause it is fast paced and better to play for not so experienced card players. I believe this is where you learn the basics of how to play at any card game. But I always wondered: Does it matter in blackjack how many players are playing at your table? Does it lessen your odds to have a winning hand if there are more players sitting in at the table? 1st position or last position should matter either I would imagine. depends on how many decks and how often they shuffle. Most games I have seen online have an 8 deck shoe and it reshuffles all 8 decks after each hand. When that is done, you will not see enough cards in one game for it to change the strategy. In a real casino or with 1 deck, the more cards you see, the more you know about what cards are left and can use that to adjust your strategy accordingly. That's called counting cards and is very difficult. Number of players/order doesn't matter. If you beat the dealer you win, if you don't you lose. Doesn't matter what anyone else does, and the dealer's actions won't be impacted either because they hit or stay only based on their cards, they don't care what anyone else has. Some people (foolishly) would rather go last so they can do the "right" thing and not let someone else "screw up" the cards. this is foolish because they can "screw it up" just a badly from anywhere at the table, and in my experience the number of times someone "making a mistake" screws everyone over and saves everyone tends to balance out. But, if it makes you feel better, you should go last. 8 decks. But I have always thought the more people who are playing the better chances for you to see what face cards are left to distribute out to the players thus allowing you to make a better decision whether to hit or stand. If you are playing online they reshuffle all 8 decks every hand so it is highly unlikely that you will see enough of anything to make a difference. And while there are some strategy changes based on the count, knowing whether to bet bigger or smaller depending on what is left in the shoe is much more important, and you have to bet before you see anything. |
|
|
|
I have not played a hand of poker in my life so I will take everybody's sound advice here and not go against these high rollers at all the poker sites. I will stick with blackjack cause it is fast paced and better to play for not so experienced card players. I believe this is where you learn the basics of how to play at any card game. But I always wondered: Does it matter in blackjack how many players are playing at your table? Does it lessen your odds to have a winning hand if there are more players sitting in at the table? 1st position or last position should matter either I would imagine. depends on how many decks and how often they shuffle. Most games I have seen online have an 8 deck shoe and it reshuffles all 8 decks after each hand. When that is done, you will not see enough cards in one game for it to change the strategy. In a real casino or with 1 deck, the more cards you see, the more you know about what cards are left and can use that to adjust your strategy accordingly. That's called counting cards and is very difficult. Number of players/order doesn't matter. If you beat the dealer you win, if you don't you lose. Doesn't matter what anyone else does, and the dealer's actions won't be impacted either because they hit or stay only based on their cards, they don't care what anyone else has. Some people (foolishly) would rather go last so they can do the "right" thing and not let someone else "screw up" the cards. this is foolish because they can "screw it up" just a badly from anywhere at the table, and in my experience the number of times someone "making a mistake" screws everyone over and saves everyone tends to balance out. But, if it makes you feel better, you should go last. |
|
|
|
Always looking for more investors.
58% on -105 lines.. Do the math. It's been pretty good to us. The amount made is on a individual basis though. It matters how much each person invested.
We don't have a site. It's a spreadsheet that is updated daily
58% on -105 is insanely good. If that was true you wouldn't need our money, and I doubt they would let you bet much at -105 if you were that good. How does my money help you. You have 10k and bet 1k on a game and win 952 when you are correct. I give you 10k and you up your bet to 2k and and win 1904/2, which looks to be an awful lot like 952. I have read many false claims like this before, so sorry for being skeptical, but no one should believe you with just you saying you can hit that insanely high number over such a long time. It's trivially simple to prove how good you are at betting, post your picks before games start or soon after they start and keep track. You haven't been doing that all along and I don't expect that for what happened 7 years ago, but a legitimate better would have a lot more proof than "58% on -105 do the math" and a legitimate "investor" would need a ton more than that also. |
|
|
|
Blackjack is easier. Less variables and possible results.
Make the dealer bust. Like Phildo says, if the dealer busts, everyone else wins.
Play consistent. Figure out the 'laws' you want to play by and stick to them. For example, I stay on 16 rather than the textbook 17. My reasoning is only 5 (ace through 5) of 14 cards will not bust me. Let the dealer bust. Not you.
That's just bad advice. No textbook says to hit every 16 and stay on every 17, that's what the dealer does, not what you should do. The first key to winning at blackjack is realizing that when you have a 16 and the dealer has a 10 you are fucked. There is no difference in how much money you lose when you bust and how much money you lose when the dealer turns over a 17-20 while you are standing with a 16. The strategy for blackjack is out there. It doesn't guarantee that you will win, but people have looked at all the probabilities and expected values for every possible situation in blackjack and made tons of charts listing which option has the highest EV in every possible situation. There are many situations in blackjack where the option with the highest EV is still negative, but you are throwing even more money away than usual by not using basic strategy. I stand corrected. I am not a "card shark" by any measure. The only true advice I was offering to OP was play consistently and allow the dealer to bust rather than yourself. Letting the dealer bust is a good thing, but you don't need to be a card shark to look at the basic charts and basic math of the game. The dealer is a lot more likely to bust when they have a 4,5,6 showing than when they have a 7,8,9,10,a showing. Hoping the dealer will bust when they are showing an ace is a bad strategy because it won't happen enough. |
|
|
|
Blackjack is easier. Less variables and possible results.
Make the dealer bust. Like Phildo says, if the dealer busts, everyone else wins.
Play consistent. Figure out the 'laws' you want to play by and stick to them. For example, I stay on 16 rather than the textbook 17. My reasoning is only 5 (ace through 5) of 14 cards will not bust me. Let the dealer bust. Not you.
That's just bad advice. No textbook says to hit every 16 and stay on every 17, that's what the dealer does, not what you should do. The first key to winning at blackjack is realizing that when you have a 16 and the dealer has a 10 you are fucked. There is no difference in how much money you lose when you bust and how much money you lose when the dealer turns over a 17-20 while you are standing with a 16. The strategy for blackjack is out there. It doesn't guarantee that you will win, but people have looked at all the probabilities and expected values for every possible situation in blackjack and made tons of charts listing which option has the highest EV in every possible situation. There are many situations in blackjack where the option with the highest EV is still negative, but you are throwing even more money away than usual by not using basic strategy. |
|
|
|
|
58% is a meaningless number without telling us how much money you've won.
The goal is to make money, you should keep track of the amount of money won.
|
|
|
|
|
Blackjack is almost always -ev and you are going against someone (the casino) with the odds stacked against you that has way more money than you so it's difficult to win.
Poker CAN be +ev, but you need to beat everyone else at the table, so it's harder to win 1 hand of poker than 1 hand of blackjack. It's possible that you can be better than the people you are playing against and/or that luck may be on your side with that deal.
For the most part it's 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. if you have enough practice you can make money playing poker, but it takes lots of work, some luck, and enough money to survive the bad luck/better player that are inevitable.
Keep both as a type of entertainment until you figure out that you can't win or you feel that you might be good enough to continually win at poker.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how much profit he was able to gather for his investors throughout all this volatility thanks ot his years of bitcoin experience.
|
|
|
|
What ever happened to the baby brother? Has he been thrown into fuck me in the ass federal prison yet?
He's hiding because he's scared. Maybe he saw Josh's soul above? Doubt he has one doubt this too lol. I'm still wondering why no one went for Stuart Frazer (Uncle Stu) and the 9/11 scam... Because the people that lost real money (the few that there are) are scumbags who know that it will be easier to con other idiots out of money then get it from Garza, and the other people involved really actually lost small amounts and it isn't worth doing anything to get it back. The 9/11 scam was the way to get anyone done, and no one did anything. It was the easiest fraud to explain to the general public and the Uncle Stu/Cantor Fitzgerald/9/11 trifecta would have generated lots of publicity and pressure to get some sort of refund. |
|
|
|
Crap, now I have to hope that Cryptsy DOESN'T collapse because that would be a perfect excuse for cyberpinoy. He could easily "loose" 50 or 100 BTC of his fictional assets there.
That's been the problem since day 1. There are a ton of points of failure and you can't tell how true any of them are. How much of the pool is tied up in each coin? What's to stop him from fudging those numbers when he finally gets around to realizing that if he sells all his coins he won't have enough btc to pay everyone back? He has nearly half in Netcoin and it's gone from 200 to 120 sat in a month. This is based on his wallet addresses so he can't fudge that. He's now saying that he has some other unpublished assets but that seems to be mathematically impossible. If you look at the wallet balances and exchange rates over time you can see that he would have spent all or nearly all of the 100+ BTC deposits to buy those coins. Which then proceeded to depreciate by 40%+. Of course if he does indeed have a secret stash of coins it would be very easy to show it and put all this FUD to rest but for some reason cyberpinoy is not doing that. Perhaps he likes us talking about his collapsing scheme all the time. That's because he's an idiot and still trying to sucker people in. He will be singing the opposite tune when someone finally tries to withdraw more bitcoins than he has left. Somehow even more will be in netcoin or one of the other coins he is tied to that has dropped in value. |
|
|
|
Crap, now I have to hope that Cryptsy DOESN'T collapse because that would be a perfect excuse for cyberpinoy. He could easily "loose" 50 or 100 BTC of his fictional assets there.
That's been the problem since day 1. There are a ton of points of failure and you can't tell how true any of them are. How much of the pool is tied up in each coin? What's to stop him from fudging those numbers when he finally gets around to realizing that if he sells all his coins he won't have enough btc to pay everyone back? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
