Chance, that's chance, not luck.

Once again, chance is buying 80 out of 100 entries and come out as the winner. Luck is buying 1 and nothing else, and still come out as the winner. Chance and entries are effort-related. You buy more in order to get more chance to win. Luck is being unable to care less. One is enough. No more action taken, and still come as the winner.


And you're the one who first asked me to have an open mind.

So I have to have an open mind, which I did by trying to understand your point of view and your definition of luck, of which helped me to understand that you misused the proper term, but when it's your turn to consider whether you made a mistake [which rather obvious by anyone reading your multi-thread explanation], it become "stop trying to argue with me"?


That's the problem, it does not make sense.

How do I have to convey this to make you see the simple problem?

You can not manipulate luck. Ever. Saying that you can will only make people think you're a liar. I am helping you to understand one of the root of your problem here. The sooner you see that you misused the word and marketed it badly, the faster people will reconsider that you're not a scammer that they already think you are.

Let me try to put it this way, perhaps the exaggerated "equivalent" to "I can manipulate luck" is "I can raise from death". No one can. They're things outside our control.


That's not update, that's revision. The original text and the one available now holds different context.

I was thinking the same and took a quick search on the net, trying to find old article with this occupation field being exist, I initially thought that was added when they revamped their KYC system [the now mandatory to perform KYC prior to any play, and those suddenly revoked verified status], but apparently they've been around since at least one year ago.


https://www.casinokrypto.com/en/review/stake-casino/

Another image showing that field was also provided [accidentally] by a redditor who posted around three months ago.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Stake/comments/1bjpurr/verification/?rdt=36013


I am in agreement with this.

Previously, with my post about having the occupation info supplied during level-1 KYC, I wanted to say that I guess if the root of OP's case is indeed this simple problem, it tells us that Stake does not only check if our fund come from legit source, it also confirms whether it matched the information we gave previously, which a bit inconvenient [an understatement, I know], if such minor misunderstanding can grant for our account being completely locked, given people change occupation from time to time, and not strictly speaking the nature of their employer, but can also cover a wider scope of change-of-occupation as in the field that they work for.

This reminds me... what's the number, again? The visitors of your site, and where are they coming from? I believe you have the statistic that you confidently said numerous times that the forum contribute very little to your traffic? Can we get the number?

That statement above, though, I somewhat feel them to be a bit contradictive. If you have a big traffic, I don't think you'll need the pvb for the time being and having full pvp in later time. Your site already have enough visitors for a steady pvp. So, the existence of pvb, for the time being, to increase player count, indicate a small traffic, which contradict the previous statements made.


His main account got a warning from the admin, Cyrus, and was asked to lower his spam frequency. So he made a new account to do the spam. Like I said here, it looks like a ban-evasion with extra step.

Just... stop? If you can?

At this point, you're not digging your own grave, you're operating an excavator.

Most of your statements and lash out are not really necessary because there are different [better] approach. What you did with controversial statements like you'll continue spamming [note: you've been warned by the admin to keep your post in control] or that you have no guilt conscience, are they really necessary? Unless, of course, if your aim is getting a perma-ban. If that's it, then I'll say fly and seize that opportunity, go harder.

Because, in case you're not aware despite all of what happens so far, all you did were discouraging people from engaging to your platform. Add that to the username you choose, which you admitted yourself will raise some question, and the way you lashed out to criticism, I have to say that everybody's reaction towards your platform is justified.

There is another user created a thread about you [and I can't help but roll my eyes and think, "great, another UMG thread"], use that to show that you can be civil.


Aannddd... we're going back to square one. The term you use to describe "luck" is a misconception, no one can control luck, not unless that someone has Tyche or Lakshmi on their speed dial. No one can invent luck. It's "entries", or "tickets" if you will. And as I previously explained, quoting Oxford's dictionary, luck is good things that happen to you by chance, not because of your own efforts or abilities.

It happens out of your control, without any efforts made or any possessed abilities intervening the outcome. The act of "user manipulate or alter their probability" itself is an effort, an action, thus negate the essence of luck.

Risking to sound redundant, luck is buying one ticket and come out as a winner. Effort or entries or tickets or probability or whatever is the thing you do for a better chance to have an outcome where you're the winner.

As established [or at least being in an ongoing discussion] on the thread which post you linked above, you're not inventing "luck" based system, it's "entry". So yeah, if I may borrow what I said previously --somewhere-- about luck, that you can't obtain more luck, i.e. manipulate them, isolating the case as described above, PP isn't wrong to be sceptical to someone who claimed he invented a luck based system.

Then rephrase, simple as that.

What I did when I replace your "luck" with "entry" was simply to point out the misconception. As such, some statement probably need to be rephrased to fit the better term. You previously made a statement, describing "luck" and how it applies in your system, which later revealed that what you mean is "entry", with one paragraph out of your entire statement became incoherent, out of place, while the rest of the passage still does.


The whole point of the post above was not to simply replace the word with a better fitting term and make it sounds poetic, it's to let you see that you use the wrong term to describe something. It's not luck, it's entry.

Thus, with this knowledge, re-define what you previously describe as your system.

You provide that piece of information during your level-1 KYC.

I wonder the ingenuity of the information being provided that they were referring to was the situation of your occupation, tamadeus? Do you mind to perhaps clarify that matter to them?

For those who follow this case and seemingly [yet understandably] lost the context, OP supplied me with additional, seemingly mundane at that time, information when he gave me his username through PM, that he changed job and this fact was not updated [a mistake from his side, as he forgot to do so] on his Stake account. I wonder if what they refer as incorrect documentation [especially given the documentation being referred here is the level-4 KYC, Source of Wealth] was that your payslips said that you get your wealth from a source that's completely different from what you previously stated.

Thank you for this.


Yet you're the one who previously said it's the most incriminating facts. So which one is it? The link doesn't matter that you don't have to establish it [and prove it's existence], or it is the most incriminating that it became the reason why newfish1 faced this current situation?

---

Nope, I'm pretty much sure fairlay just voted efialtis and me out,

That is the definition of "entry",



Likewise, when we replace the word "luck" in your explanation above with entry, I somewhat tend to believe that I am not the only one who think the passage will significantly make more sense.

Have you heard from your side about anything regarding this matter? I can page someone from their team to look into this, but I don't think that's a good idea, having two simultaneous staff to look into one same matter.

Meanwhile, OP, as yhiaali3 suggested, casino usually tell you the specific clause on their ToS that you breached. Have you not received such email consisting an explanation of the points being violated? Do you mind to perhaps show us the screenshot of their email regarding your account being disabled?

I will guess that you're not reading the thread carefully. All the information from OP's side are there, explained within 20 posts in page one, as well as that whole tagging their representative and linking this thread on their ANN. Do us a favor and read before you post?

If I may clarify the part of your post that I underlined, your team put him on the list because he shares the same strategy like other abusers, i.e. betting pattern and preferences? How possible is it that your team detected wrongly? Has the similarity been confirmed with other "incriminating" evidence like similar IP and device fingerprints?

Let's give it another shot, this time through different way, a simpler one, kindly define luck according to your own words and what you have in mind when you create the platform and that "luck-based system".

Hi, sorry that I was a bit late than what I promised earlier, I was rather busy handling my IRL situation and got engaged in other matter with other forum members when I got chance to get back to the forum. I've sent the notification just now. Let's hope she can help us and... doesn't block me instead, LOL.

---

Edit: got a reply that she'll try to pass my message to the person in charge to handle this.

Then I think you're mixing up chance, luck, and probability. Those things you described above called chance.

Luck does intervene and influence chance, but chance does not equal to luck. If probability shows the ratio of the likelihood of something to happen, chance is that likelihood itself. And like probability, chance can be altered and controlled by action. Luck can not.

If I may borrow the illustration of 100 entries I previously mentioned, buying 1 entries means you have 1 chance of winning, the probability of winning the lottery is 1/100, and if you win means you're lucky. Buying 80 entries means you buy 80 chance, with probability, 80/100 [simplified, although it's actually much more complicated], and if you win, one can argue that it is not because you're lucky, you won not because of your luck, but rather because of your resources and effort in buying 80 entries.

Talking about numbers... I believe there is one question of mine that's yet again being missed? About certain number?

One question answered, that you cancelled the bets by your own initiative. May I know the answer to the second question? Under the basis of which rule do this decision carried out? I can't find any on your ToS and will highly appreciate if you can point us to it.


Those things, player's nationality and team's nationality, as well as former allegations against the team, are not necessarily correlative, let alone causative. Thus, I don't think that fact can be said as "incriminating" in the sense that it holds no weight, since it's hearsay at best. Unless you can produce an evidence of an established communication between newfish1 and other party [the insider].

Shortened, it brought us to my next question: where do you know that newfish1 know in advance of the outcome of the match? As I said previously, as well as what's pointed by others, his betting history seems show a normal bets, none being indicative that he knows about specific match.

Perhaps it's time for you to spill all of the evidence you have against him? Spare no mercy, go full throttle, YOLO and all.

---

They could, as evident by the existence of this thread, but they shouldn't.

---

By this standard, then when you give your will, I am a part of that "team" too, given Fairlay also reached me as well.

Two things to note that will rather be familiar by those who follows my track on scam accusations board, "mediating" things between players and casinos, I don't take payment and I don't make the final call.

Payment, as I said numerous times [usually by those who accuse me of taking advantage of a case or being in the bed with the casinos], the benefit I get from getting those cases resolved are simply knowing that someone [be it the casino or the player, whoever actually the victim] get what's rightfully theirs, either the fund or a clean reputation.

Final call, because as I said to someone before, I don't have the wisdom of Solomon, who am I to make the final call? Who pass a judgment that other has to follow? Instead, as evident by my post history, I simply pushing for questions until things become clear and it become obvious to anyone who read which side is the victim.

That said, to eliminate any doubt that you specifically tailor your betting history on fairlay as a fail-safe, do you mind to provide your betting history of the same period from other platforms?

UMG is OP's alt-slash-main-account, unlimitedmoneygenerator and his platform, unlimited-money-glitch. We shorten it. I personally do that for simplicity. Nowhere on the entire forum [this need to be stressed because OP and his main-account have way too many threads across many boards] he claimed the identifier is related to any older and bigger brand.

In short, "I do that because PP do that first"?

Then on this case, I'll beg to challenge your opinion and that what yahoo said is indeed correct. Spamming the forum and breaking its rules with sole purpose to revolt against those who claimed your platform is scam [read: lashing out] is the textbook example of two wrongs fallacy.

Further, your decision to spam the forum just to retaliate does not only show signs of immaturity, which ultimately lead to questions your reputation, it is also pointless, in a sense that "no spamming" rule can still be hold intact while achieving the "virtue".

So, in this specific case, two wrongs does not make a right.


Viewed from an angle of someone who are extremely sure his innovation is revolutionary and already invites a lot of attention [that he doesn't need this forum, because his platform already gather enough visitors from other platforms], it is rather pessimistic statement, is it not? Predeterminedly sure that other will be swayed and led to believe a narrative pushed by someone?

I don't think the two can coexist; the cocky attitude "I am a revolutionarist and here to bring salvation" and the pessimistic view of "the community will be scared and rather dubious to join due to all of the present scams and someone pushing a narrative." Either you're sure that your platform will flourish, that PP's statement doesn't matter, or you're rather unstable on your own two feet yet that you need all the support to help you flourish.

The credit should be given to efialtis, I didn't do much other than asking him to ask his Stake contact on your behalf. All the efforts, if it bear any fruits, is because of him.

As for the lack of news, I am somewhat sure that efialtis had been in touch with his contact and give his best to ask for another review for your case. If there's still no update from stake, though, then I'm afraid they are final with their decision. Or hopefully, they are currently in the middle of reviewing it.