It depends on variance, not just house edge. So you would need to know the total number, chances of and payouts of each event. It's very counter-intuitive, but I believe the riskier bets you take, the higher your EV will actually be.
Exactly. It can even get positive. |
|
|
|
I want him to refund me now its all i have cause i didnt cheat also its not my problem if his game has problems or bugs. You are not helping. Please post all your transactions with secondstrade txdice. |
|
|
|
I am not sure either. I am waiting for a reply from secondstrade. Anyway, OP withdrew from poloniex* and made a 0.8 BTC on secondstrade funding the hot wallet. I am not sure where the funds went to though. I would ignore the next transactions because they were made the next day around 12 hours later and OP says he didn't notice the missing 0.8 lol. We are talking about a 1 minute game. You are right suchmoon, i played some times after until i saw that my first tx was over limit.
*so you can't link the addresses. I know a good number of casinos who had their hot wallets emptied by scammers. Usually when they are successful, they'd just vanish, and when they fail and lose something they start a scam accusation, and in some cases they succeed (no evidence to back this, merely my opinion). So I'll just try my best to be neutral. I am not accusing OP, just pointing out some reasons for suspicion and probable reasons why OP was blacklisted. Of course there is a good probability that OP has nothing to do with these. |
|
|
|
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Secondstrade is implying that someone deliberately deposited amounts above max to top up their hot wallet, so the depositor (or an accomplice) could scam it via TX dice, AND get the deposits refunded. Quite clever if true but also quite risky. Yeah you are right. but I don't see how this is risky. The funds transferred from a seemingly "legit" address to a scammer through the hot wallet. Unless secondstrade admin is online and blacklists this legit address there is no chance of losing anything. This person also may have thought that the refund part is actually automatic. And incredibly stupid for secondstrade to commingle funds like that. Deposits over max should never have been part of the hot wallet, those are "borrowed" funds essentially. That would not be practical. Since the deposit address remains the same, they would need a separate hot wallet. This would need to have a high balance which is not safe at all. Edited. |
|
|
|
Can OP sign an address with over 5 BTC? There is something wrong if you can't. Thanks. It sounds like they don't really have a good way to figure out who cheated. They should at least publish all bets and specify how they decided to pay or not pay the ones they processed manually.
And I still don't see how they could possibly suspect "tautvilis" if his/her last best was a losing one (not sure how to verify that though).
Yep. Some were using different address every time, and it some may have added losing bets to make this less obvious. All the cases other than the two (this one cleared) I have checked were refunded. IMO OP was blacklisted because: 1. he started with 0.1 and ended with 0.9733 2. all the large bets won 3. bets were becoming larger and larger. 4. And I still don't see how they could possibly suspect "tautvilis" if his/her last best was a losing one see below post. AFTER and only after tautvilis got his refund he is now telling everyone that im the scammer , huh ... got no words to say.
POST A PROOF i have 0 balance in my gambling address and even if i have money that doesn't prove that i was cheating.
Anyways What a bitch!
Anyway can you provide us with all the transactions you have with secondstrade txdice? |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1640756.0You have to explain in detail how the exploit worked and how you determined which users are involved in it. If I understand it correctly it was an issue with your own site that caused or allowed this to happen so you have to show very clearly that you know what happened, how it happened, how you will deal with the consequences, and how you will prevent this from happening again. Only then I can consider revising my feedback. The txdice relied purely on transaction hash. Secondstrade was not aware that the transaction id could be known before broadcasting it such that the player can just broadcast the winning ones. The win rate was very high and made a loss of 9 BTC to secondstrade in a very short period. All the others except 3 were refunded. Secondstrade suspected these 3 to be the ones who exploited this vulnerability. They closed TXdice right after they realized this. |
|
|
|
|
Can you provide transaction details of all the secondstrade bets you made in the period?
What is your profit from playing txdice?
|
|
|
|
-snip-
But my case is different. I have done 11 transactions on 1.98 and 4.08 multipliers only. 4 out of 11 transactions lost, only 7 won.
And my last transaction was over the max 0.9733BTC what's the craziest part about that? If your max bet was bigger my transaction would have in fact lost because I have sent to x1.98 on higher than 49 and mine was 39.
But since you have a rule of refunding bets that are higher than the max, I am waiting for your refund.
I will not scream nor will I bold my text but please secondstrade read my post.
That is good!!  You should get your refund. I'll PM secondstrade. |
|
|
|
-snip-
But my case is different. I have done 11 transactions on 1.98 and 4.08 multipliers only. 4 out of 11 transactions lost, only 7 won.
And my last transaction was over the max 0.9733BTC what's the craziest part about that? If your max bet was bigger my transaction would have in fact lost because I have sent to x1.98 on higher than 49 and mine was 39.
But since you have a rule of refunding bets that are higher than the max, I am waiting for your refund.
I will not scream nor will I bold my text but please secondstrade read my post.
That is good!! You should get your refund. |
|
|
|
but in this case , we can't not refund to them. because they used the flaw of Tx dice.
and they got the our bitcoin at the time.
because using the flow of TX dice, they had won for the every bet , and then the betting amount was gradually increased.
when we t realize the problem, it was too late.
the transactions was clearly theirs. they took brought already brought us a bitcoin.
why do we give the bitcoin again ?
Oh I see now. I see that too, rabiow12 winnings were a little too good(but that doesn't proove he is a sacmmer).Here is my analysis: This is the betting history of rabiow12: 0.13111 x 4.08 = 0.534929BTC 7891d6909cfd85b7a72b1cff8eddf21d8e205aed8159143c38e952b763f0a5d3 0.24503 x 4.08 = 0.999722BTC 8585b5035989adb3a326c5e56d9810694bff7a6b5aa67e0464cf281f22559334 0.32204 x 8.16 = 2.627846BTC fef94e75782f22f7c02dd7f269ed537596b62ed1b855da775b889f6697587437 0.40611 x 8.16 = 3.3138576BTC (not paid) e9c1b4482d8fb046ed452b1286791872a7dfb316a19e2cd173360448854abc25 0.06424 x 4.08 = 0.2620992BTC (not paid) 78476e80288d5db927f78ea28abd94219ebe08a7d9f792712b79f6b9589495a6 Rabiow's profits are 4.031387-(0.40611+0.06424)=3.561037BTC. 5 transactions all winning on high multipliers. But my case is different. I have done 11 transactions on 1.98 and 4.08 multipliers only. 4 out of 11 transactions lost, only 7 won. And my last transaction was over the max 0.9733BTC what's the craziest part about that? If your max bet was bigger my transaction would have in fact lost because I have sent to x1.98 on higher than 49 and mine was 39. But since you have a rule of refunding bets that are higher than the max, I am waiting for your refund. I will not scream nor will I bold my text but please secondstrade read my post. Exactly. I am sufficiently certain that rabiow12 is one of the players who abused this vulnerability. and very likely a liar. Are you on a profit or loss?
LOSS it was my only bitcoins left  |
|
|
|
|
Lacking info, so still unable to figure out what exactly happened.
Looking into this.
|
|
|
|
When you request new server seed it already knows about your client seed and spits losing server seed!!!
Ha! Then reverse your bet and win  |
|
|
|
Okay this has been resolved.
Glad to hear!  Your bump yesterday helped. Removed the trust feedback added yesterday and PM'd Darkstar_ |
|
|
|
Hello. Sorry for the silence. We are working on speed and also fixing some issues about transactions. We will be back asap.
And also want to add a comment about Chelashin's case. The player got his money and also his next withdrawals. And current situation is not connected with him.
Its good that you paid that player and all his withdraws however judging by what is happened lately with this site. Many are worried that you guys might be in debt and they are concerned about their Bitcoins. It is not that Pocket Dice is one of 2 dice sites in the whole world or something. People have a choice here. Staying and playing on Pocket Dice despite it is publicly known that site has problems is people's choice and in case something will go horrible wrong I feel players are in no position to complain. If nobody complains then how would it become publicly known? Why it have to be publicly known? From what i read and check this case, user get his winnings and there is no more complains about that.. am i right? (Or i miss something?) Why you are trying to drill this case so much? Maybe this user (cheleshin) don't want show his address..? Well don't players have the right to know if Pocketdice is insolvent? The downtime may be because a large chunk of their bankroll went to paying the winner, so they suspended betting till they get funds from their owners or investors. |
|
|
|
0.025 * 35 should be 0.875btc instead of 0.0875btc or 8.75btc And yap, our real deposit will be used first during the wagering process. It will be only like no deposit bonus if the reload bonus is being used first. LOL fixed.  apparently multiplied 0.25 with 35. didn't double check |
|
|
|
Hi there,
Regarding the fiat money being withheld for not sending in documents, yes, that's something we are obligated to do
in accordance to our license issuer, it's not our rule and has to be enforced, if a casino does not that they're
in risk of losing their license. So if you have concerns about that, I'd recommend contacting the Government of Curacao's
Gambling Commission. If you want to use a card but don't want to send in a copy of it, I'd recommend not using it.
Also, for your information, the player sent the documents in and was paid in full within 24 hours, but maybe you missed
that one. The player also went on recommending BitStarz again and is still an active player in the casino.
Mike
I personally do not have any issues with your terms or fiat deposits or your casino, I lose/lost nothing. All I mean is your competition is better. Yes, I am fully aware of that. I also know that scared off some of your players who had previous fiat deposits, cards or whatever. You have taken care of the making terms more visible part, but you still have not fairly compensated those players and have not done anything to enforce the terms from your side as RHaver suggests. Take his advice. ...but it doesn't matter how many times you do that, someone will always forget/ignore/miss the terms
and conditions. which is why you need to do it. Hi there, That's so good about the selection of casinos we've got out there, I mean, it's all capitalism, right? If you do not like BitStarz, I'm thrilled you've found another casino that fits your needs. So I wish you all the best there Well, that might be the case, you're right, but we cannot bend the legislation that way, that has to be a question for the legislator of the specific jurisdiction and we're simply following the regulation in place. I'm sure there's some who don't like the verification part, but we're simply following the law here. Even if you put terms all over the page, there'll still be people arguing that if there's no technical limitation in place, we still "accepted the bet" and the information on the site doesn't matter. I'm sorry, but we can only do so much to try to get the info out there. The technical implementation is coming, we actually had a developer meeting today regarding that, so don't worry Mike Hey, The rules are all right. What is questionable is that you did not ask for any verification when the deposit was made or on the corresponding cashout, but when he wanted to cashout a a much larger amount almost a year later. I will look forward to the technical implementation. Thank you |
|
|
|
What is the different between last promo and today promo? 25% bonus and 55% bonus, i would still prefer 55% bonus although with some wagered. Do this promo no need to wagered? And if that so, people will claim this free forever because there is no limit on your promo this time
Hi BTCevo, The MEGA55 promo was limited to 1 deposit while the 25% Monday bonus is unlimited. This means you can use it as many times as you want, whether you deposit once or 100 times on Monday. The 25% bonus also has a higher maximum deposit of 1 BTC while the 55% bonus was limited to deposits of 200 mBTC. This means that you can claim a bonus of as much as 250 mBTC for the 25% bonus, versus 110 mBTC for the 55% bonus. Most all of our bonuses, including both the 55% and 25% bonus have a 35X wager requirement. I hope this answers your question. Thanks, mBit Casino Okay, so let say that if i deposit 0.1btc and then i get 0.025 so i will only need to wagered 0.025*35= 0.0875 or 35* deposit(0.1btc)= 0.35? And after i get that bonus and then i lose the bonus (0.025) so i withdraw 0.1 and make another 0.1 deposit? Will the bonus remain the same? And i just need to wagered from the new deposit? Am i correct? And the last question how about if later i didnt withdraw it but i make another deposit? How much should i wagered then? It is 35 times the bonus, 0.025 * 35 = 0.875 BTC. Real balance is played first, so once you lose 0.025, you would have 0.075 real balance and 0.025 bonus. You can only withdraw 0.075 after forfeiting the bonus. Note forfeiting bonus voids winnings. Make sure you cancel any remaining wagering requirements if your balance is very low before you deposit again. I don't represent mBit casino. This is just what I think it is. |
|
|
|
Hi there,
Regarding the fiat money being withheld for not sending in documents, yes, that's something we are obligated to do
in accordance to our license issuer, it's not our rule and has to be enforced, if a casino does not that they're
in risk of losing their license. So if you have concerns about that, I'd recommend contacting the Government of Curacao's
Gambling Commission. If you want to use a card but don't want to send in a copy of it, I'd recommend not using it.
Also, for your information, the player sent the documents in and was paid in full within 24 hours, but maybe you missed
that one. The player also went on recommending BitStarz again and is still an active player in the casino.
Mike
I personally do not have any issues with your terms or fiat deposits or your casino, I lose/lost nothing. All I mean is your competition is better. Yes, I am fully aware of that. I also know that scared off some of your players who had previous fiat deposits, cards or whatever. You have taken care of the making terms more visible part, but you still have not fairly compensated those players and have not done anything to enforce the terms from your side as RHaver suggests. Take his advice. ...but it doesn't matter how many times you do that, someone will always forget/ignore/miss the terms
and conditions. which is why you need to do it. |
|
|
|
Hi there,
We have the terms and conditions visible in so many places on the website,
in every email you receive, on the promotions page, etc.
No. I remember quite well that the terms page is the only place you have mentioned the max bet rule till a while back. So, your take on laws and rules are that they're there, but they're not supposed
to be enforced? That sounds quite contradictory. I am talking about terms on a website, not laws. What i mean is for example, as TwitchySeal pointed out above, you have 'the right to void all winnings' of players who use 'strategies'. Enforce that and Bitstarz is a scam. You had also withheld the balance of a player, because he could not provide details of a year old fiat deposit of a small amount because your 'terms' justify that. the player has the highest responsibility here
Yeah? May be you should start thinking from your players' perspective? |
|
|
|
I am not really sure, in this case, who tried to scam / scammed who. you used transaction id that you selected. so we can not refund you.
They didn't said that you've lost, they basically said that you used random transaction. Secondstrade means that OP found a flaw in their provably fair system and intentionally broadcasted the transaction ids that win. You didn't even leave a Negative but you blame everyone else?  Wondering the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
