Does Joshua even have the discipline to implement the changes to his style that might increase his speed while depriving Usyk of his? He is 33 years old, he came to the boxing world too late at the age of 15 and that is part of his problem. Joshua is not a natural fighter, he can defeat the likes of Whyte and Parker based on his size and power but is he really technically better that Whyte? Yes probably. Even though he defeated Parker on a points decision is he really technically better than Parker today? Probably not.

Does Joshua really have a ruthless streak in him to win if he gets in to the ring with a fully fit and focused Ruiz, Wilder, Usyk or Fury? I think it is clear he does not.

That is the standard pattern that many exchanges, on-the-fly-exchanges as well as gaming and gambling websites employ. I mentioned in a different thread today that the Terms and Conditions (or Terms of Service) have routinely been misused and exploited by unscrupulous website operators to justify withholding funds from their own customers/clients.

Winning 'big' is something most if not all gamblers are aiming for but that could also be a poisoned chalice for them because shady website operators might start asking for KYC in the hope the customer refuses, which would allow the scammers to keep the funds.

I think there is a bit more to it than that. Some members receive a temporary ban while others a permanent ban depending not only on what they have plagiarised (or allegedly plagiarised) but also depending on how the moderator receiving the report applies their own discretion. As mentioned before that can lead to accusations including those of favouritism.

It was funny reading you categorising the 10% they retain as a money laundering fee because that is exactly what it seems like

Terms and conditions (or terms of service) have been used by all sorts of businesses to justify confiscating funds from their own users but in many of those that have been brought here in scam allegations over the years, it is clear by far the majority were cases of selective scamming, And that is what seems to be the case here.

It is absurd Open Change can insert clauses within their Terms that allow them to withhold 10% of funds on the basis of suspicious activity. I have never read anything like that before. Their 9. Other terms clause is equally laughable when they state their website cannot be used for fraudulent and illegal transactions.

Like you, I am also waiting to see what Best Change do next. Will they want to keep their association and affiliation with Open Change? Will they actually read the Terms and Conditions of all the exchanges before listing them, in essence them being vetted before being listed?

Though I also am impressed with the amount of the winnings, this case is not closed yet because it has not been resolved. Receiving partial payment (approximately 10% of the claimed amount) is not acceptable regardless of their ToS withdrawal limits.

There is also a possibility that Rocketpot simply do not have the appropriate funds and are buying time in order to cover the payout. If that is the case then it means this issue will go on for an extended period of time until Rocketpot folds and ceases to trade or if their income drops as a result of less traffic at their website. After winning a huge amount it is something the OP would have not wanted to happen.

Credit to Rocketpot though but they have yet to confirm they will honour the full $170,000

Excellent news 

If you have received $16,000 out of the $170,000 claimed then it is a step forward in the right direction by Rocketpot. Until they confirm they will honour the amount you are claiming ($170,000) you will not be able to have peace of mind. Give them a little more time to make that a statement of fact.

Some of us have tried hard to keep the 1xbit scammers highlighted in the forum in order to protect potential victims. I am not sure if there really is anything else that can be done by the community but I completely concur they should be stopped. I said in the past the 1xbit victims should get together for group legal action but nothing ever came from it.

Paying out 112 BTC in a single game or round is impressive. I thought the screenshot I posted of the 572x win was a rare occurrence but going by what you posted there have been huge wins much bigger than that and they are not rare at all. At some point I have to start checking the history links to see the sorts of payouts involved as they far exceed what I thought they would be.

The chairman at Tottenham (Levy) has been known to hold a tight budget and only allow his managers or coaches to spend the cash sparingly. He has made a big decision in buying big in this summer transfer window. They have spent very wisely because Richarlison and Bissouma cost £85 million but they also snapped up Forster and Perisic on free transfers.

If they get the best out of Richarlison they will be a great team to watch. I hope he slots in seamlessly alongside Son and Kane.

If the rules are enforced based on the opinion or judgement of the enforcer that makes a lot of sense because it adds the element of issues being resolved in a timely manner. If nuisance posters were banned sooner rather than later it would be a good thing.

I know this does not happen but say for example the reporting involves the moderators picking up the report only to then pass it to other moderators for discussion and evaluation then it probably means swift action was not taken.

Having a moderator (an enforcer) interpret the rules and make his judgement with a huge amount of leeway means allegations of ignorance or favouritism can be levelled at them and that is something that should be avoided for the sake of community cohesion therefore one rule with strict enforcement would eliminate that potential allegation and problem.

Let us say for example an addict is going through the same sentiments as you when gambling with fake money. How long are they supposed to play without the buzz of a real bet before they give in to their cravings?

Addiction of any sort is problematic and the way to tackle addictions should based around the dependency as each has their own core (alcoholism, gambling, drugs, etc) but having an alternative to "gambling with money" as in the thread title states to include a motion where an addict places a bet even with zero value attached seems to me a huge step backwards.

The idea would be to break the betting cycle of an addict therefore allowing various ways for gambling addicts to continue betting as a means to recovery seems both pointless and dangerous.

Thank you for the feedback but I disagree with the manner in which the original post was interpreted and misconstrued.

I think I expressed myself in a clear and concise manner and the expression is part of my style, my character and the way I post. I think I expressed myself appropriately but can consider using alternative words and expressions to make myself more clearer if future in need be. Having said that there really is not much to change in the original post or the subsequent follow-up because the points raised are valid even if some members might find the text somewhat harsh.

You misconstrued my post and by the looks of it even the follow-up too. What you attributed to me is factually incorrect.

Yes I can understand the time aspect. Time is always of the essence and making time for the forum is not always possible.

I certainly do not feel there is an immediate need for any signature campaign participant to post in any discussion related to Best Change as a sense of urgency but since those displaying Best Change signatures are receiving payment of at least $100 per week for doing so, they have a moral responsibility to make a decision about their future affiliation with Best Change after investigating the facts and after reading what Best Change have to say on the matter.

If after going through the claims against Best Change and the counter-claims their signature campaign participants conclude there is no reason for them to stop promoting Best Change then that is a decision for them just as it is for those that conclude they will not promote Best Change any longer and just as it is for those that will not promote Best Change until or unless they change certain business practices. Each to their own.

I have mixed feelings about this. You have received 90% of your funds back but they have effectively confiscated 10% for reasons that cannot be justified. I hope you do not give up and continue chasing them for the 10% they stole.

Why are Best Change associating themselves with shady exchanges? If it were not for Best Change you would probably not have have found the Openchange website.

That is why they have those terms and conditions in the place. It allows them and other online gaming/betting websites to simply invoke their ToS whenever they like in order to scam any user they want. In most cases they do not even feel obliged to show evidence of wrongdoing and it would not matter to them what evidence was sent by victims because it would be dismissed as the intention was/is to scam.

1xbit does have longevity but eventually it will fade away in to obscurity.

There is a paradox as far as moderators or admin are concerned when it comes to plagiarism because if they temporarily or permanently ban a user it will always evoke a reaction from those that think the ban was excessive and will use another plagiarism case as a comparator.

There are several cases where supporters of those permanently banned have come out to make pro-statements but forum admin find themselves in a difficult position because their actions in addressing plagiarism cases have to come across in a particular way where the allegation of favouritism cannot be levelled at them. Legendary and Hero rank members may not take kindly to Jnr rank members may not agree with them being shown a lenient hand.

What would be the largest multiplier on record and what would have been the associated win with it?

I have to compliment Bustabit, it is one of those few online gaming/gambling websites that has an excellent reputation. Apart from a few wobbles along the way where the bankroll format was changing and there was some discontent, Bustabit has been a regular scam-free operation in the crypto sphere and I hope it stays that way.

You misconstrued what I wrote, there is no bias attached and I am not acting as judge, jury, executioner or anything else. Your presumption to that effect is ill-concluded since there was a counter-balance written yet you picked and chose what you wanted to take the meaning out of context.

In effect, Best Change is employing people to promote it and in light of the latest allegation where their brand name and business ethics was called in to question here SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange

I asked for signature participants for their views because either they will support the way Best Change is conducting business therefore should be happy to defend it and therefore to promote it... or they are not happy with the way Best Change conducts business therefore should not be happy to promote it and therefore should not promote it.

If signature campaign participants are unhappy with the manner in which Best Change conducts itself and are unwilling to defend it but at the same time are happy to promote it, then that in itself raises a different question about their own moral behaviour. $400 a month plus bonuses for several members is a lot of money in many parts of the world and that can cloud judgements of even the most capable and rational people.

I am waiting for the Best Change forum representative to give their own views on the allegation in question and their signature campaign participants could or should do the the same before concluding what they feel is the best course of action for them.

I am not sure if it is a good thing to allow those that are recovering from gambling access to apps, websites and games that allow them to still carry out their addiction even if there is zero money staked.

This is something only scientific research would be able to demonstrate as being positive for an addict going through the rehabilitation process. Just because money is not staked (therefore no money can be won or lost) it does not mean it is the way forward to help addicts because the feeling they get when placing bets might not be suppressed until they actually place bets with real currencies.

I would not advocate these types of applications being used by those suffering from gambling addictions.

I have a golden rule which has a zero compromise: I will never send KYC to any online website. Simple.

For others that feel the same whether it is gaming/casino or an exchange, they face a dilemma if they are being asked for KYC after they have funds that are not being allowed to be withdrawn.

The fact is it is all too common to read about websites on the dark net that are selling KYC documents. Some of them have been sold and re-sold many times by criminal gangs that only have nefarious purposes in mind.

I would feel sorry for those that are trying to withdraw funds from casino or gaming sites but they are being told Terms and Conditions mean they will not release the funds until they receive the documents.

I was hoping those participating in the Best Change signature campaign would take a look at this thread and then give some feedback on the subject matter: SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange

This is not the first time Best Change has received negative press but what do Best Change signature campaign participants think about the manner in which the business they promote is conducting itself?

Will any signature campaign participants conclude the best course of action is for them to leave and find a different signature campaign?

Will any signature campaign participants post views defending the manner in which Best Change is operating?