Let's stop with the ignorant replies and break it down.
Also, when a casino backs off a card counter, they do allow them to cash in their chips. Otherwise, that would be theft on their part. Of course, the casino can make you whip out your ID, in order to be "compliant" with AML laws... The casino's way of preventing card counters from returning is to ban them from the establishment. Though card counting is not itself illegal (it's just math, like basic strategy) trespassing is. And they will enforce that against you if you are caught. Now, there are ways to reduce the chances of being caught. Your drinking of alcohol is actually beneficial for masking the counting, though if you're inexperienced it will highlight the thinking between cards if you take too long. Drinkers are less likely to be caught due to how inebriation causes cognitive decline. For heavyweights, though... you're in luck. The other important thing is to bet consistently. When you arrive at a high true count because of one or two hands, you should never suddenly raise your wager. This attracts very unwanted suspicion and calls attention to how you play. Now, if you're a volatile gambler throughout the deck even when the count is low (or negative) then there will generally be less heat. One effective way of increasing your bet subtly is to spread to multiple seats if you are able. Individual hand bet increases will make your total increase with less visual impact than if you were to stack it on one hand. Moreover, spreading to multiple seats means that within a given hand, your chances improve. You're able to bet a significant amount more when you have multiple seats (I believe it's up to 25% with four simultaneous hands) It does perplex me that casinos have taken measures against card counting if it doesn't work, though. I even had the experience of having my bet pushed back and informed by the pit boss that I could play any game other than blackjack. If card counting is indeed a bunch of bullshit, I am clueless why casinos would prohibit me from playing, and apparently have now implemented continuous shuffling. Contrary to popular belief, hampering card counting with continuous shuffles is worse for the casino in the long term than just letting the card counters take a small %. Continuous shuffles in-between a deck for regular players slows play down significantly and is costly to the casino. You have less total wagered across the aggregate of all blackjack players, not just the card counters. A) Inability to quit. I'm sure after being awake for 24 hours plus, my card counting abilities were probably hampered.
B) Drinking alcohol.
C) I may have been making more errors in my counting than I want to admit. Extensive practice solves this. PM me later some time  D) My bankroll was too small for the level of betting that I was doing. Bankroll is a very important topic when it comes to marginal advantages. Unless you're playing single deck, it's going to be very difficult to make money with a small bankroll. If you're only betting in the single digits, you're going to make minimum wage, at best. E) In order to hide my card counting, I usually only had a spread of 1-4 units. Perhaps this is too small for card counting to work. This depends on how you wager depending on the count, and what system you use. I believe you used a Hi-Lo strategy, which is simple to understand. However, more advanced strategies are not that difficult to learn given some effort. Cheers. |
|
|
|
I think I found a farm, where to report it? Bitcointalk Agricultural DepartmentIf it's a fairly large account farming ring, you could create a thread in Reputation. PM me, we can discuss this. |
|
|
|
You don't expect them to know the forum rules. For them this may be just another forum. For example: Today I signed up in a new forum. I had no clue what to do then I asked the person where and how to find the appropriate section for posting the ad I was suppose to post. Without the help of that person I would be lost. Forum rules should be more accessible. Welcome message would do wonders. Then, at least, users can't feign ignorance. |
|
|
|
Ok I nderstand how the system works but the issue is now if one vote a negative feedback the flag will show untill he quits his feedback, but if he does not or has gone, what the 200 positive can do? we dont have even a green flag lets say ok you show the red one until the other quits it, but how about the 200 not shown ? at the end it is a matter of who votes first? Here's how the flags work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0The specific part that is relevant to you: Some changes:
- If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies. |
|
|
|
Re: Man won 12 times in lotteryThis person must be banned from all Lottery games, however this person can make a Casino go bankrupt because of his intelligence. I'm amazed that he has won several times in the game which includes difficult to win. For ordinary people win once will be difficult. Careful, he's too intelligent. He was able to convert his intelligence into luck. 
|
|
|
|
Let's recap so far.
1. Initial GOOD suggestion - Let's remove SIGs. A temporary signature removal will give us valuable data. Hence why I suggested a month. I have no issue with extending that amount of time to forever. 2. Bitcoin earning sig wearers shout = Yes let's remove sigs BUT NOT OUR sigs (because we control the bitcoin paying sigs) It is no secret that users who are getting paid in worthless tokens would have even less incentive to post better quality replies. That's just how it is. I have reported scores of users and the top offenders mostly in altcoin campaigns. Some are in low-paying BTC campaigns as well. |
|
|
|
Ah wonderful, that makes sense now, so it is not even a flag just a feedback, and is there a way we give a good feedback to at least change it?
Because it does not have a sense if 10 people vote Bad feedback and we are 200 are Ok with the service and due to those ten the warnin is shown If you want more details on how this system works (Default Trust) check this post: 2419329067823cab5b4e5ac5dd18a6abf1f57f45e753f5fc934292f3085a3717 | why did I pick this post?
This belongs in Meta.
For the purposes of explanation, trusting someone simply means that you carry their feedback in the "trusted" section.
Depth is the degree of which you recursively trust those in your trust list and those that are in the trust lists of people that you trust.
For example:
Depth 0 means that you only trust people who you add to your trust list.
Depth 1 means that you trust people who are in your trust lists, and in the trust lists of people you added to your trust list.
Depth 2 means that now additionally, the people in the depth 1 lists are trusted by you.
Depth n means that you trust the people in the depth n-1 lists.
An illustrative example:
This symbol: -> means adding someone to the trust list.
You -> A
A -> B
A -> C
B -> D
B -> E
Depth 0:
A is trusted.
Depth 1:
A is trusted, B and C are trusted.
Depth 2:
A is trusted, B and C are trusted, D and E are trusted.
If you're familiar with CS terminology, think of it as a tree with nodes, where parents add children to their trust list.
Basically, feedback is binned in two different categories: trusted and untrusted. Anyone in your trust list will send trusted feedback (in your view) and all else will be untrusted. These members are on the DefaultTrust network which means that unless you change your trust list, they will have feedback that shows as trusted. |
|
|
|
|
They have not been flagged. They have been given negative feedback. There is no flag to oppose unless you want to create one, but you won't achieve your desired result of removing the negative feedback. The users that sent the feedback are the only ones that can remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you can't see my post. I'll make it bigger for you.
Is the casino that you host on lottery.game-protect unlicensed?
Yes or No?
|
|
|
|
|
This is not allowed.
Reports are also not handled immediately. It usually takes roughly a day for all my reports of the previous day to be fully (or almost completely) handled.
|
|
|
|
Everything we see is a more of a illusion than real as many people and things interpret the data in different ways. The data is always the same, but what you recognize as blue, I smell of love.
The Farnsworth Parabox is pretty close All it is, is a system of truths. Subjective thoughts, as long as they are honest, are always true (in a pragmatic belief system). |
|
|
|
|
Royal Flush @ 0.02
(TJQKA)
|
|
|
|
Totals are currently at 269 users that have 10 or more good reports. 66 of those users have 50 or more reports, and of those 66, 12 have >100 reports.
Here is the breakdown for the past week. (Aug 1 to Aug 7)157| Irvinn
96 | mersal
78 | Rufsilf
60 | toast
60 | sempak
60 | rich93
60 | Psychee
60 | onrise
60 | jake zyrus
60 | jackblacksparrow
60 | iyah adrian
60 | HabiebRiziq
60 | bison
60 | 2Kool4Skewl
59 | John Kreese
57 | Ayiranorea
45 | hashpuppy
45 | earlyfacer
40 | Zidan Bst
40 | xephireusMMX
40 | Xampeuu
40 | wenwen
40 | tetyulfania
40 | spike420211
40 | sngwinner
40 | sangjoewara
40 | reality18
40 | pidie
40 | nur rochid
40 | ned.ryerson
40 | mirawantirinjana
40 | gensol
40 | calandra78
40 | blockchainwriters
40 | bitcoinst
40 | arifteguhr
40 | andieoke
40 | Adhichan
40 | abs350
39 | Ronaldcoin2017
39 | Nolimitz84
39 | iamzill
38 | TIDOVEE
37 | Bitbtc8
36 | ubay
32 | Duzter
31 | goaldigger
31 | Dingdongjl
29 | rizkyalhabsy
28 | ribowo76
27 | Ultimist
24 | rachman mahesa
24 | horrifiedx1
24 | bitbunnny
23 | Findingnemo
23 | bitcoinmar
22 | Mr.sprin
22 | jesselui
21 | Herros
20 | z21770179
20 | vixcious
20 | vivabux
20 | vindermarch
20 | srcnckr
20 | sniveling
20 | Slash61
20 | sirminesalot
20 | silverleafy
20 | Serco
20 | Peterdav
20 | perla
20 | Papaczed
20 | otong
20 | Nightz
20 | nerlial
20 | nedjuly
20 | nanaimogold
20 | mnporter2001
20 | mardaed
20 | laredo7mm
20 | kkaroul4
20 | john_nautica
20 | inanilujimi
20 | HichemFetoui
20 | fauzan Ichsan
20 | EL-NIDO
20 | ecnalubma
20 | der_troll
20 | breathlessz
20 | bitcoinposts
20 | Bessta
20 | Articlepro
20 | arbifahrozy
20 | Aivaryamal
19 | RondoAnyar
19 | mahibul49
18 | rijaljun
18 | Panchum
18 | minhlee95
18 | bitcoinisbest
17 | tebzzz
17 | slashz9
17 | DOH!
16 | alphaboon
14 | omonuyak
14 | Dreamchaser21
14 | Distinctin
13 | haidil
13 | Gondar8393
13 | efrenbilantok
12 | kolonel_x
11 | Xclusive5
11 | Vinaa77
11 | Japinat
10 | sentoy
10 | nreal
Total reports: 4478
Total good: 3825
Total users: 180
Average reports/user: 21.25
Worst offender: Irvinn |
|
|
|
Because if there's more spam, it means more signatures, and that means it appears almost everywhere==bigger reach, and who would care about the content of the text so long as the name gets spread all across the internet? BCT could be monetized much further, but it has not. theymos didn't exactly have to roll out the merit system but he did. Users would still stay on the platform even if you saw banner ads because guess what: the altcoin sections are already so brutally filled with nothingness that it wouldn't change a thing. They'll just run in, post their garbage and then leave. For the majority of forum members, as long as there's money to be had, they will take it. Why do you think those ad programme sites are so popular (PTC)? There's an incentive involved and users don't care. Same thing with faucets, we should all know how ad-infested and seizure laden they are. Does it even matter what the quality of the traffic is for earnings purposes? I can't say I understand that aspect of how the forum earns money, but I'd think that traffic is traffic. Quality doesn't matter if you're only considering the metric of forum views. However, the fact remains that these ads are more often than not going to be ignored by the masses of bounty hunters and other sig spammers. Since they don't read anything anyway, why would they bother with an ad? Certainly, the retention of attention is mitigated by the fact that spammers just want to see the title, post, and get out. Genuine traffic from people who care about discussion is more likely to attract users to a platform. They are also likely to have at least 1 bitcoin, which I doubt can be found in the masses of signature campaign members. Certainly, if theymos wanted to, he could increase the ad slot count or even make ads more common. Rather than 10%, make it 50%. Bump up the auction price. But since that hasn't happened I don't believe he thinks that any type of traffic, whether it come from spammers or genuine users, is fungible. |
|
|
|
I don't understand this whole philosophy of "no sig campaigns = no traffic" Why would you want spam for 99% of your traffic? Are you serious? In that case, why even bother with the merit system? That sure reduced traffic. |
|
|
|
|
I think anyone who refuses to answer a very simple yes/no question about their casino is high-risk. Especially when one of the answers goes against what the user often says.
|
|
|
|
|
Disable signatures for a month. Please.
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a dream, we are not real. Wake up, TimeBits. Wake up.
|
|
|
|
Did you use the AI thingy for this?  No. AI does not capture prose well. BTW the real cryptohunter is usually too lazy to use bold and underlined text. He just does CAPS and lots of punctuation!!!!!!!!! Looking through posts as a reference, he does use them somewhat often. |
|
|
|
I think we really need to have a way to control the spam, maybe there should be a way to give anti-merits, and we can automatically hide posts by people with negative merit. There is a way to control spam. It's called the Report to moderator button. There is a way to hide posts by spammers. It's called the Report to moderator button. Take TEN minutes to report some posts. With the right tools, you can erase hundreds of spam posts in that amount of time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
