You haven't been looking very hard, then.


Oh, OK. Conspiracy theory about the DT system and stuff. Whatever.

What I believe is that the conclusion you express does not follow from the premise.

At least in some cases, the quantity of posts does affect the quality. Someone who is a decent poster making 25 posts a week, if he enters a campaign like the one we are talking about and wants to reach the maximum payout, it is normal that on average his posts have less quality than when he makes 25.


Generic posts? I don't know for sure but I guess you do other things apart from writing in the forum, I don't know if it's a main job or what, but if you had no other job than writing in the forum couldn't you write more than 100 posts with decent quality? Normally you write more than 50, although some of them are updates of your threads.


You are right: you don't get it. Do you think that the target audience of that campaign needs quality to drive them to gamble in the casino?

What is said is not nearly as important as how many times advertising appears on the forum. I know you don't go there as much as I do, but I can assure you that the average user is quite mathematically illiterate, something you can check in threads that the same people who wear casino signatures, who are also customers of the casinos, open. Like:

1) They have tried the umpteenth variant of martingale and think it is bad luck that they have lost their money.
2) They create a thread regretting having lost too much money.
3) They naively believe that with bonuses and promos, the house gives them an RTP over 100, lol.

And things like that.

This forum never ceases to amaze me. This happened because a member who was ban evading stirred the pot?

I know you moderators are the ultimate interpreters of the rules but I don't agree with what was done, for me he was not "begging", and I donated.


Completely agree.


While we're at it, I'll also tell you yahoo62278 that I saw a curious thing that made me decide not to donate to you again, but I'm going to wait until you are in good health to comment on it.

Thanks but I'll keep it open. I think I've already moved on by simply taking it for a laugh.

When I blew the wistle on Casino Critique and red tagged Royse777, I expected a lot more in terms of people removing me from their trust lists and even expected some retaliatory negative feedback like saying I was trust abusing or something, and in the end a lot less happened.

Regarding your analysis of the first part of the feedback I fully agree:


I even regret not blowing the whistle sooner.

As for the second part, I don't think even he believes it. When he says "It is believed that..."  that's because he knows he has no proof or even if the client really told him that, he knows from my reaction that I didn't say anything.

Right now I doubt 50% if Royse777 opened that thread falsely (e.g. sending that message to himself or having a friend send it to him), intending to leave me feedback, and the other 50% of me believes that actually the client sent him that PM but as an excuse. Simply when he saw the mess he wanted to get Royse777 off his back by saying that.

I've got mixed feelings about that campaign. On the one hand I think indeed incentivizes participants to make a lot of low quality posts, and I have seen some who write poor posts. But on the other hand, I have seen some pretty decent participants. The other day I checked that one I see quite a bit had written about 70 posts over the week and to me they are of decent quality.

We don't know if that person doesn't have a main job, for example. If I didn't have a main job I think I could easily write 100 posts or more a week.

In any case, most of them write in the gambling section which is what it is. Many of you don't like it and it is not a paradigm of quality but it has been and is very important in the history of this forum even though most people write low quality posts there.

I simply don't deal with them. If they are so dumb as to play roulette instead of betting on a sure thing with Bitcoin, I don't bother to refute them. Time puts everything in its place.

Betting on shitcoins makes some sense if you know what you are doing with knowledge and diversification, but this is not the case for most retail investors.

Or if you are one of the creators or promoters of the coin.

I only hold Bitcoin and don't worry about the rest.

So, why is OP not banned?

I guess this is one more question for meta, but given what happened with naim027 it seems that management is taking a soft, very soft approach to ban evaders.

Edit: Ok, I've seen the meta thread.

Well, here I will be updating statistics, putting hands and commenting some things.

Today I wanted to comment on a hand that has left me thinking



Opponent is aggressive, 29/21, 10 for 3bet, AF 4 and 58 steal from BU.

I pay with JQo, standard, for 3bet I prefer them suited and even in that case I would balance, sometimes making 3 bet and sometimes calling.

The flop I play check raise due the opponent's small bet because there is a flush draw. When he pays, I reduce his range to qx, 5x, flush draws, that I think is the most likely, and some low pairs that do not quite believe the raise, as 66-99.

When I bet on the turn and he pays I reduce the range to a completed flush, 5x and some qx. Mainly hands that beat mine.

The doubt I had was if it was not better to check call on the turn, because betting after the raise only gets me paid with hands that beat me and I make fold his bluffs, but on the other hand if I do not bet I do not know where I am and that kind of rival if he bluffs me on the turn, he will bluff me again on the river and playing check call I can not narrow the range as efficiently as betting.

Edit: Given the success of the thread, which has not elicited a single response, I am locking it.

Basically, the ones that come out of crises best are the ones that stay strong at the lowest point. And if we focus on Bitcoin, they would be the ones that take advantage of it to buy more instead of crying. Look back at the history of Bitcoin and see what happened to those who cried and sold at the bottom of the market and what happened to those who held on and bought more.

Bitcoin has unique properties and has been very profitable, but if you cry instead of trying to see the opportunity at the bottom, you stand to lose.

I have decided to open this thread that I had been thinking about doing for a while and never decided until today.

I recently changed sites and I'm in a little upswing. I also have a new database, so I decided to open the thread.



The hands correspond to about 20 hours of play in NL25 NLHE 6-max, which comes out to just over 20bb/100 of EV generated, which is unsustainable, but seeing the field I would expect to be a winner at about 8bb/100 in the long run.

What I am going to say I have commented in other threads but in case someone does not know me or has not read it, I repeat it here.

I started playing over 10 years ago now, starting at micro-limits, levels NL2, NL5 FR. I played fixed limit at the beginning, some 5 card draw and omaha. Then switched to NLHE SH. One season I was in the mood to change  and I played sit and goes for more than a year and in the end I quit because of the variance: the last 6 months I was in clear EV profit but break even in real profit, with a difference of about 100 buy-ins. There was no way to win flips in bubble. The maximum level I played at the time when I was a winner was NL100, but for a few years now I've been stuck at levels between NL25-50 HLHE 6-max mainly making an extra income of a few hundred on average per month.

I could try to climb more, but at the beginning I did not do it because I preferred to ensure the extra income instead of climbing levels and now that I have a more comfortable economic position, I am lazy because the poker tables are getting harder and harder and I do not see a great ROI. I prefer to dedicate my time to other things. Apart from the fact that some time ago I could see that in NL100 I won less than half bb/100 as in NL50, in a sample of more than 50k hands for both levels, which does not compensate. It could have been due to variance, but the sample was not small, and one has to play where it is most profitable.

Anyway, I will update the thread from time to time and all comments or constructive doubts are welcome.

HAHAHA! I have seen that the crybaby has left me a negative feedback and apparently he is back in DT.

I had been without coming to reputation for de-escalating, and I do not want to escalate a lot, but what I do want is to stay at ease saying:

Crybaby, you are a crybaby, I don't care about your feedbacks, as if I get 24 negative feedbacks for saying that you are a dishonest crybaby.

 

Are people here still discussing whether Lightlord is going to relaunch the campaign? As you can see the posting requirements in the section, you give him free advertising. There are even some that still carry the signatures of his campaigns.

Well, well, another communist billionaire who would have us believe that he is describing reality when what he is doing is projecting his desires onto it.

To be a pedigree communist you have to have a lot of money, like Marx, who was a posh who never worked in his life and spent his time lecturing others about work.


It doesn't.


Shut up, come on! How can you think of telling that to the communist billionaire and all the socialists that swarm the forum? Anything other than thinking that we are getting worse and worse because of capitalism does not enter their heads.

I don't understand you. I am not talking about that. I was talking about crossing borders with $23M in Bitcoin and said that you could encounter the same potential problems with the same amout in cash, but not that you (or someone) is going to cross the border with that amount in cash to make a payment in Bitcoin. That, indeed, wouldn't make sense.


Law abiding citizens who carry enormous amount os undeclared funds (it doesn't matter if it is in Bitcoin, cash, gold or whatever), like tens of millions as in the example,  better worry about it. No matter if they are of legal origin.


Thank you for this idea. Couldn't we come up with a variation? Let's imagine you have to go to a country outside the EU and they are going to give you trouble if they find you any amount of Bitcoin. Couldn't you leave a transaction programmed from a wallet at home, and take an empty HW with you? For example.

So, how would you resist a $5 wrench attack? Willpower?


Not too long. Maybe a couple of hours. It is an area where there are many vacation homes. Of middle class people let's say, not ultra-rich. Some have home alarms, but those have also been broken into. The modus operandi is that they make sure no one is home, enter, and look for something of value to take, but they do it quickly. I would say that in 5 or 10 minutes they are gone.

I think we agree that the best protection against attempts to steal your bitcoins is that no one knows you have them.

I'd say that the avatar campaign continues only for those who were hired just for the avatar one. If you are in doubt ask icopress or I suppose he will clarify here.

In my case monthly, although I wouldn't mind weekly, although the weekly payment tends to appeal more to those who don't manage their finances well.

Regarding the second part, I prefer a fixed part and a variable part, so that I have the fixed expenses covered even if bad times come and I keep that part of variability that in good time can give great benefits.

Hey, welcome!



For next time, think better where to place your threads. This belongs to Beginners and Help section. You can move it yourself, but I have reported it to be moved anyway.

Apart from that, use the forum to learn and exchange experiences and you'll be fine.

It doesn't matter. The point is to buy assets knowing what you are buying for, regardless of the noise of the market. Even if we are in the equivalent of 1970, I will continue to accumulate Bitcoin and other assets. I invest for the long term. Very long term. Just wait for this Carter-like guy we have to go fuck himself and for the next Reagan to come along. In the meantime I will continue to invest and reinvest.

It is a very detailed analysis. I have read the whole article and there are things that escape me. They seem to know very well what they are talking about but I don't know how reliable the article is when it categorizes funds as coming from illicit sources or assumes that it can distinguish what percentage of funds that go through mixers are illicit.

What I am thinking about is whether the criminals are retards who are leaving clear footprints to be tracked and whether what we have been told about mixers is a lie and they don't really protect your privacy. It is that these two things do not fit with what the article states.