i started a 6max table but sat out halfway, am i still eligible for the 50% rakeback bonus after missing out a couple of hands?
You get 50% Table Starter Rakeback whenever you play 2 or 3 handed at 6 and 9 seat tables. |
|
|
|
I was asking more about system of raking like (i forgot the exact names) if iam dealt cards but fold pre and I wasnt on blinds. Do I still that krill for that pot or do I need to contribute some money into pot in order to get krill ?
PS. also wanted to ask if it is ok to have affiliate link in my signature ?
If you get dealt and rake is taken from the pot then you get krill. Currently at least 1 whole krill, but the system will be redone soon and award fractional krill so we can offer lower games without distorting the krill system too badly. |
|
|
|
Yo micon, what system do you use for raking ?
And could you please ask seals to add wait for BB option after I sitout and want to hop back into game ? Its pretty irritating doing it manually.
Thanks !
We rake .01 per .4 chips, so 2.5% rounded down. There is a 10 chip (that's 0.01 BTC) rake cap site wide with lower limits at some games and 50% rakeback for 2 and 3 handed play at 6 and 9 max games. Unfortunately "Wait for BB" is surprisingly hard to work into our system, but we do want it and will have it eventually. |
|
|
|
What is the largest pot you've seen thus far on Seals?
Also nice activity! 400+ people on right now
These may be the top 3 pots: PLO 856.34 BTC in Sept 2012 PLO 576.30 BTC in Aug 2012 NLHE 566.66 BTC in Jan 2013 |
|
|
|
There has to be some messed up algorithm with your programming or something. I keep getting like the same exact hands on different tables each deal, and this happens multiple times in a session.
Also you should check your software to see if someone hasn't hacked into it and is able to see other players cards. It's happened for other poker sites, ones that deal with actual money instead of BTC.
A lot of hands are "like" other hands and if you are playing even a few tables you'll notice a lot of cases of matching and partial matching, it is to be expected. But if you get exactly 4c6d (in order) even 4 times out of 4, that's pretty far out there. 1 in (52x51)^4 ~= 1 in 4.946455187×10¹³ But given enough chances it will happen. Note that's the odds of getting a hand picked in advance 4 times in a row. Getting any hand 4 times in a row is a more reasonable 1 in 18,651,791,808. The user end is the more likely side to be compromised. Anyone involved in bitcoin and/or poker should be careful about security. Speaking of, we will have a linux version ready soon. |
|
|
|
|
My only advice regarding PayPal is not to use it.
PayPal must have an API. You would probably use bitcoind's API and some logic to trigger the PP payment API.
|
|
|
|
do they make you wait in the restaurant until 6 confirms?
When you use a credit card do they make you wait 6 months? |
|
|
|
While we of course cannot specifically endorse your service, it pleases me to see SealsWithClubs chips trading 1:1 with bitcoin. It is a community measure of how strong our organization is. That would actually be a remarkable miracle. Seals chips will always trade 1000 to 1 with bitcoins. The only reason for a slight deviation would be in an emergency where you can't wait for Seals fast cashouts. Do be very careful about who you send bitcoins and chips too, especially in return for PayPal. |
|
|
|
I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.
This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?
How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such?  It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created. If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee. Source. Thanks a bunch. |
|
|
|
|
I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.
This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?
|
|
|
|
Facts:
1. Pseudo random numbers will produce hole cards, flops turns and rivers which over a reasonable sample size will show the expected distribution. I would bet 10BTC against the idea that analysis of enough data from hands at seals would show abnormal distribution. If someone is interested in this I will detail ,y terms.
2. SWC stands to make shittons of money even charging as reasonable a rake as they do. It is in their best interest to provide the fairest environment possible to their regulars and recreational players. Nothing is really more important than trust for them. The client etc all come in second at best.
3. There are surely many many thousands of dollars (possible understatement) being held in wallets by seals. If they wanted an unethical payday they would disappear with that money. They have not done this.
As a player at seals for well over a year, I can vouch for the quality of the people running it. They have earned my trust. And as I said... To my analysis the distribution of cards is absolutely normal.
I fully agree. Actually, one thing that worries me, (after what happened to Slush and bitcoin-central), is that even very reliable site could get hacked. Of course, I trust your capabilities and I assume you have done very good job minimising the risk and possible losses. Actualy, I feel quite safe regarding seals. Slush and BC minimized ther losses and I believe you do as good job as they did. However, I would feel safest, if I could send the BTC to the site before starting to play and then send my wallet back after I stop. I think it is almost impossibe to make it completely work like that, transactions should be immediate to make it happen. I assume you make manual transactions as a final step to prevent cheaters from withdrawaling the chips and possibly preventing some unwanted accidents. That's good. But how about adding some kind of credit to the system? Let's say, a player has a roll of 2k. He has 2k on the site and makes a 'conditional withdrawal' for that. That request is manually accepted just like normal withdrawal. However, after that, a player has a 'credit' for 2k, so before session, he can send the 2k back to the site, then play and afterwards make *immediate* withdrawal for max 2k. That would make possible to keep roll on player's own wallet instead of the site. Actually, initial 'credit' could be the deposit amount. i can imagine one way of abusing it; if player loses all his roll and after that gets the same amount of chips by cheating. Then he could withdrawal the cheated chips without manual intervention. When I was thinking about how slush and BC was hacked, another idea came to my mind; some kind of emergency transaction, which, when triggered, would send the hot wallet to an offline wallet. So when the site is rebooted unintentionally, or something otherwise weird happens (you know better what could be suspicious), the online wallet would be immediately emptied to an offline wallet, leaving the thief empty handed. Of course, the best would be to have no online wallet (I think it would be possible, if very carefully designed). Btw, do you have a 'dead mans switch', which would send all player's money to their withdrawal addresses if FBI knocks on your door ;-) ? That credit system sounds complicated to me, I don't quite understand. Not having instant withdrawals protects users and the site. If you give someone else your credentials you are playing with fire and we can't make any promises, but we do help when the situation is clear and we can. Delayed and manually checked withdrawals have saved several players a substantial amount. In almost two years of manual checking we've never found anything like magic chips being withdrawn, but I still think it is very much worth it not to have anything going out without a real brain approving it. We are probably going to stick with all manual, it may get faster than our current 12 hours max time though. It was really nice when we could (in the sense that we took a risk and got away with it) accept zero confirm deposits. I'd like to bring that back in a limited capacity. Probably it would be set up where each individual account has a limit for what will be credited immediately. It would need to be clear that 0-conf transactions are not deposits, they just trigger a loan that will be paid back automatically when a confirmation comes in. Seals would have to specifically have funds for this purpose. We can't put chips in play that don't have corresponding bitcoins backing them up. And we can't use 0-confs to pay winners, so they don't count. (I'm aware that you can send 0-confs, it just isn't right to pay winners with them). I have thought a lot about a panic switch distribution. I'm reluctant for a few reasons. Even those who understand that they should use an address that they will own 'forever' might stick something in there that they control now, lose control at some point and not think to update. It's also hard to foresee every complication and there is no practicing for this. Also, all funds ought not be one button click away from distributed so it doesn't really work in most panic situations. An orderly shutdown of play and deposits etc, would be required first in addition to moving the funds to a position where they can be sent. In an emergency it might take longer without a system like this in place, but I'm confident that whenever we'd be able to execute a panic button successfully we'd also be able to do a slower shutdown successfully. |
|
|
|
|
Version 0.2.13 is available. It has some bug-fixes and we believe it will be stable on Windows 8. Use it with caution, feedback is appreciated.
|
|
|
|
I would bet you 50BTC (engaged through an escrow) that the analysis of ALL my hands played through to showdown on SWC shows abnormal distribution. Well, OF COURSE that selection of hands would show an abnormal distribution. Any sampling that is a result of choice, is going to be abnormal. All those hands that you chose not to run to the river and show would be missing from the sample, so any kind of analysis for finding a normal distribution is impossible. The fact that you would even offer that as the term of the bet, just tells me you don't have a clue about how random sampling for statistical analysis even works, for determining a normal distribution of a random number generator, and the cards that are being dealt. You need every card dealt, for every hand, for every table, for a crapload of rounds that were played. Not just the ones that you thought would have been good enough to win, regardless of the other players' choices to hold or fold. -- Smoov Actually you would see skew no matter what if you look at board cards. It would be relatively small and I can't guess the direction without more thought. In some games a flop is almost always seen. In some games a preflop raise often takes the pot, in those games there will tend to only be a flop when multiple players have higher than average ranks in their hands and you will see lower than average cards on the board. There will also be some flops that tend to make the hand end early and deal no rivers. Without looking at any data I would guess than flushes come in a little bit less often than simple analysis would predict because the turn and river are more likely to be dealt if two or more players are on a flush draw, partially blocking each other. edit: If you just looked at a tally of every card that ever appeared that would be correctly distributed. It's just if you look at "river cards" or similar specifically that there will be skew. |
|
|
|
|
The psychology of this goes both ways. People are various surprised, impressed, proud and/or pleased that the value of our unit is bigger than governments' units. Many units and phrasings will be used in different contexts.
Seals chips are now mBTC, as they always have been.
|
|
|
|
Of all the millions of dollars of purloined bitcoin that’s floating around out there, not one Satoshi of it has been spent. That seems like a claim worth giving evidence for. |
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain how that works? The variance decreasing?
|
|
|
|
|
There are no "not-legitimate" transactions. Just ones that end up in the chain and ones that don't.
If a user is concerned that they might be dealing with someone who would try to back out of paying then they should use Bitcoin's built in solution, wait for confirmations.
|
|
|
|
|
That's how I was taught to write mathematics papers.
Considering that he was hiding it in every other context it seems more likely that if he were a they they would be self-conscious about using 'we' and avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
We have full records of the ring game chips that were not returned and they will all be refunded in the next hour or so, sorry for the trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
