Confused?

---

Action

It seems paradoxical to anyone who knows basic probability. If E(X) < E(Y) then X is clearly worse than Y. In a mathematical sense, this is absolutely correct. However, allow me to add a claim:

An individual is more likely to be a problem gambler if they have won a large amount during their first session as opposed to one that does not.

From what I know, research has shown that gamblers chase the jackpot feeling. This makes sense from a biological perspective: when one wins a large amount, there will be a rush of dopamine to incentivize the wager. This will result in a habitual urge to gamble since it felt so euphoric to the gambler. Even if the individual knows that the odds are not in their favor, they will still receive this natural response. In fact, it may be stronger due to their "beating the odds".

---

Analysis

Let us rephrase the claim:

if winnings(A) > winnings(B) then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits.

I would further change this to:

if winnings(A) > 0 then A is more likely to develop problem-gambling habits than if winnings(A) < 0.

Certainly, if an individual were to lose most of their bets, or in an extreme scenario, if an individual were to lose all of their bets, they would not be likely to return. There is the lack of the sensation of winning. This seems to be more effective when the gamblers are unaware of the increased edge.

"when participants had a lower expectation that they would win, their response to winning equal rewards was elevated."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160721-the-buzz-that-keeps-people-gambling

All of this is assuming, however, that the individual has not gambled in their life.

---

Addendum

Assuming an increase in house edge doesn't affect non-problem gamblers' behaviors (lots of people typically set a lower bound on their bankroll), we should expect to have less problem gamblers in general due to the claim.
Problem gamblers will still contribute to the total losses, however, the % increase in house edge and % increase in losses will not be 1:1.
With house edge, 0 < E(X) < 1 and each additional wager has the gambler approaching 0. Most problem gamblers don't stop until they lose it all. Much of the time, it is merely a game to see how long they can last before busting.

Thus, we can assume that the % increase in losses is significantly less than the % increase in house edge.

Since problem gambling is less likely to develop in new gamblers, this results in a long-term decline in gambling losses.

---

Feel free to discuss. More will be added to this post as time goes on.

Actually, looks like they already began evading their ban:


How presumptuous

I'm not sure why you think that breaking a rule that's well-known (in-forum or otherwise) still grants you a second chance. People are ostracized when they break rules because that creates a deterrent. If you are given another chance after the rule is broken, then what is the point? Might as well not have it set in place.

If you decide to use it outside of this thread and any follow-up threads (maybe) specifically about your ban, then this new account will also be banned.

You need to stop trying to evade your ban. You are not allowed to create or use a new account.

Unfortunately in life, there are things called consequences. The consequence of your plagiarism is a permanent ban. You are not allowed to create another account on the forum. You may still use the forum as a resource by viewing threads but you will be unable to reply to them or do anything as a non-Guest.

Just for the record, the count of 81 included those that were already tagged.

I did create some overlap however for the sake of saving time, I didn't think it necessary to add any more to those that already had negative trust on their profile.

---

There was at least one user that I chose not to tag, however.

Allow me to match the donation.

3e828759940814692ee2e3cedbb97653e1a6a02572bebfa0e1151d9134b73e46

Jungle jungle.
6.4 XMR

Had some time today.

Handled users 420 to 500. Tagged 35/81 users.

A lot of users from this thread: https://archive.is/YcIIV are not yet negged. I believe Lauda was the sole provider and thus all of them are cleared as of now.

Other DT members like marlboroza and myself.

Just because they don't use their account doesn't mean they should contribute to the deterioration of the forum. The account will most likely be used to spam the forum so that the new owner can earn peanuts.

Bit hypocritical considering you called someone stupid in your previous post.

---

We get it. You are a thesaurus wizard.

If there was no ban reason, the most likely scenario is that there was some form of plagiarism. Did you ever copy&paste in a post?

First off: Don't kill yourself. You haven't lost it all.

The problem is that you need to find the willpower to either completely stop or moderate your gambling back to where it is. One issue that will arise, however, is that it won't feel the same. The stakes won't be the same. You'll want to raise them. You need to prevent yourself from doing so.

Stick your million into some cold storage and lock that shit away if you don't think you can resist. You want to prevent any loss-chasing sessions from affecting the rest of your funds.

---

Check: https://www.gamblersanonymous.org.uk/

---

Here's something that might help: gamble when accompanied by responsible people. They'll keep you in check. Gambling alone means that only you will be in control and as we all know, emotions can go into turmoil.

If it means that you'll gamble less, then that's a good thing.

"I can afford internet but I cannot afford 15 euros. Woe is me. Please send me money."

Even if your story is true, you should understand that most people aren't willing to send off $3000 to an anonymous user who has never posted before on the forum. Regardless of a story.

There is no merit circle. I don't know why you assume these Legendary members need merit. Any number above 1000 is arbitrary and if anything it just creates more work for the users that receive it: they'll have to find posts to send their sMerit to.

Read the date on my negative feedback, thanks. It's not a year, it's more like 2 weeks.

Where? You got tagged for account trading.

Even now, you still don't understand that forum rules don't dictate what people use the trust system for. Did you know that scamming is allowed by forum rules?

I doubt it.

Point these instances out to me. There was a lender that in fact didn't use the accounts after they were defaulted. (Might be Gunthar)

You posted that you'd take the account? That's proof.

Here's your claim, then.
"Because P did X, now I can do X because they set a precedent."
Let's use a real-life case.

"Because Ted Bundy raped, now I can rape because they set a precedent."
Even if you were right about the absence of evidence, that doesn't mean you can have the same absence of evidence with your trust.

User in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2069317

Recent post history: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2069317;sa=showPosts [Archive]

This guy's literally just posting the same thing to a series of threads. It's burst-posting and it's spam.

---

Example posts:

What do you think this thread is? Did you just read the title and not bother looking at the post?

You clearly did not read the thread. The server seed changes every time.

+1. Interested. Good project.

---

(Please add me to the list, thanks.)