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 largest multiplier seen so far was 13,239,239.65x in game #20882, but not many people took advantage of it. The most players won in a single game so far was 112.91132776 BTC in game #3594284, which only ended at 5.87x, though everybody was forced to cash out earlier. |
|
|
|
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. Tottenham seems to me doing very clever transfers and can be considered quite an amount of money but, will probably worth it. Richarlison who is a Brazil national team player can be quite effective. I reckon he is a type of player Tottenham needed and can be a good fit. And he is only 25 years old. These can be his prime years in Tottenham.
There are recent news that a deal for Djed Spence from Middlesbrough can happen soon. For 15 million, I think this is also a good deal. He is a good right-back and can be very beneficial for Hotspurs. |
|
|
|
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. Rules are enforced based on the judgement of the enforcer(s). |
|
|
|
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. Personally I never liked using play money when gambling. I felt like I am just wasting my time. Although I can understand that it may work on some people though hence some casinos have them. But for me, I would rather spend even if it's only a very small amount of money just to satisfy my crave to gamble. I remember when I was in college, I still went out to gamble despite limited money at that time. I exited later in less than 30 minutes after losing.  |
|
|
|
you say exactly what Poker Player wrote, I absolutely agree with him. Thank you for the feedback but I disagree with the manner in which the original post was interpreted and misconstrued. now if the two of us already understood your words like that, maybe you should think about whether you expressed yourself well. 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. I also came to the conclusion that leaving the campaign is a "must" because there are criticisms of the owner. whether the participants of the signature campaign are the most important part of the whole business? You misconstrued my post and by the looks of it even the follow-up too. What you attributed to me is factually incorrect. I haven't had enough time for the forum in the last 2-3 days, although I followed a famous case. due to the lack of time, and there are already certain positions that I agree with. I did not consider my participation (as the bearer of the Best Change signature) in the discussion to be urgent, just didn't want to repeat things over and over again.
now I will do it anyway, to make an official note. 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. I got 90% back. First post updated. I'm tired and done with this shit. |
|
|
|
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. They are notorious for doing this, they just accuse you of something you have not done without explaining further and giving you a chance to explain and you are left wondering what happen until you realize that they have done this on so many of its players and they kept doing this, this is not going to end they have a huge budget and they can hire or buy fake reviews and testimonials, they seem to master the art of scamming.
|
|
|
|
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. I personally understood the message that the administration is obviously sending in a quiet way - and the message is that most of those who are at least Jr. rank and above deserve a second chance in terms of not being permabanned. However, there are exceptions when several members report someone for plagiarism, and these things are still a little harder to ignore.
The fact is that the forum is not doing very well in the sense that its base of quality members is increasing and that the intention is to try to keep everyone, even if they break the rules. Plagiarism is still a violation of the rules, but apparently we should no longer expect such severe punishments as before.
|
|
|
|
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. It had been quite some time since I last posted in this thread. I found an image that I intended to post to but never got round to doing it. It just so happened I was on the website back months ago and waited around for a few minutes to see what was happening... then this happened:
572x winning on Crash does not happen every day.... or does it? I'm sorry to disappoint, but based on its probability you'd actually expect to see 6 to 7 multipliers greater than 572x every day 😅 |
|
|
|
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: BestChangeI 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. Will any signature campaign participants conclude the best course of action is for them to leave and find a different signature campaign?
Can you ask the questions in a less biased way? With this rhetorical question you are trying to force the participants in the campaign to do what you want them to do. You are acting as judge and jury, condemning Best Change, without the trial having taken place. |
|
|
|
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. ~snip~
What is your opinion on Fake money gambling apps, do you recognize the potential I think they have to assist in reducing the number of gamblers who loose real money? |
|
|
|
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. It's been observed that gamblers prefer to play on casino which do not enforce KYC. Well, let's discuss what are the main reasons that they do not want to show their identity and gamble anonymously.
They don't trust the casino as the casino might misuse the kyc documents or the gamblers want to gamble without telling anyone that they are the gamblers, gambling is illegal in their region or religion and they want to hide their identity or there could be any other solid reason?
|
|
|
|
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: BestChangeThis 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? |
|
|
|
I have read your feedback and can say I am not surprised at your request to promote known scammers such as 1xbit. To be fair to them they should consider hiring forum members with your reputation because you have the credentials they are seeking. Having said that, I think it is safe to say your account will not be considered by any reputable campaign manager to promote any professional business. |
|
|
|
Do you have evidence to back up your claim? I have never heard any member connecting these two exchanges as being operated by the same team. It seems highly unlikely you have anything of substance therefore I would not mention that again as it would only detract from any other comments you might be making. Making wild accusations does not help the situation. Cryptopia/Unnamed ran by same users namely ssadam and tilk stopped replying many coin developers.
Refund our listing fee tilk and ssadam, ( about 0.01 btc or what you have on your logs ) 450 usd at the time of listing fee payment.
1NNCrKobejX8sKNjbasxdGPLqpVoBvYmK9
|
|
|
|
Well surely that same principle could be applied to many different financial models.... Sell it to make a profit or keep it. What is new in that? You are wrong.... bitcoin does have as much intrinsic value as you would like to put on it. For example, what would you do with your $10, £10 or €10 notes if you could never sell them? By you alluding to bitcoin being some sort of ponzi scheme clearly indicates you have a very limited understanding of what bitcoin is. I'm not an economist, but I still think that the "value" of something is what people are willing to pay for it at the moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You could resell a loaf of bread if you want and maybe make a profit. You could also eat your loaf of bread if you do not want to re-sell it. What would you do with your bitcoin if you could never sell it  NOTHING That means it has zero intrinsic value. The only value that Bitcoin has is what some greater fool will pay for it. |
|
|
|
|
Here are the main transfers in the summer transfer window:
ARSENAL
Matt Turner - New England - £5.7m
Marquinhos - Sao Paulo - £3m
Fabio Vieira - Porto - £31.5m
ASTON VILLA
Philippe Coutinho - Barcelona - £18m
Boubacar Kamara - Marseille - Free
Diego Carlos - Sevilla - £27.9m
Robin Olsen - Roma - 3.1m
LEEDS UNITED
Brenden Aaronson - RB Salzburg - £29.5m
Rasmus Kristensen - RB Salzburg - £10.8m
Marc Roca - Bayern Munich - £10.8m
LIVERPOOL
Darwin Nunez - Benfica - £86m
Fabio Carvalho - Fulham - £5.3m
Calvin Ramsay - Aberdeen - £4.4m
MANCHESTER CITY
Erling Haaland - Borussia Dortmund - £51.3m
Stefan Ortega - Arminia Bielefeld - Free
NEWCASTLE UNITED
Sven Botman - Newcastle - £33.3m
Nick Pope - Burnley - £10.3m
Matt Targett - Aston Villa - £15.75m
NOTTINGHAM FOREST
Taiwo Awoniyi - Union Berlin - £18.5m
Giulian Biancone - Troyes - £9m
Dean Henderson - Manchester United - loan
SOUTHAMPTON
Gavin Bazunu - Manchester City - £12.6m
Armel Bella-Kotchap - Bochum - £9m
Mateusz Lis - Altay - Free
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
Yves Bissouma - Brighton - £25m
Richarlison - Everton - £60m
Ivan Perisic - Inter Milan - Free
Fraser Forster - Southampton - Free
Josh Keeley - St Pat's - Undisclosed
WEST HAM UNITED
Nayef Aguerd - Rennes - £31.5m
Alphonse Areola - PSG - £8.4m
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS
Hee-chan Hwang - RB Leipzig - £15m
Adama Traore - Barcelona - loan deal ended
|
|
|
|
I was not been a big fan of Best Change when they first came to this forum with their signature campaign, it took a very long time for me to give them credit on that front. Their very long standing signature campaign (which is still running) with virtually no complaints against their forum representative for delayed payments etc should not be conflated with the actual business Best Change are conducting. They are listing entities on their website and receiving remuneration for referrals therefore have a responsibility towards all customers that are arriving on the Best Change website only to be directed away when affiliate links are clicked. The danger was always going to be in the event any of those affiliated exchanges were to enforce a KYC/AML scenario on customers and if customers lost out financially who would actually be at fault. Best Change have had accusation of their conduct raised in the past and I would still advise caution when using their website because once a customer has moved from the Best Change website to an affiliate exchange, it is the exchange that decides how to treat the customer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217470.msg53617135#msg53617135Ultimately, I think Best Change are partly responsible for any financial loss customers incur as a result of directing users to their affiliate websites. Those customers would not have been diverted to (and maybe never would have found) the affiliate exchanges had they not been listed on the Best Change website. As for the exchanges themselves, the very low rates of scam allegations against them (via Best Change) means thankfully this is still at very low levels. In the case you mentioned, why was the exchange not removed for their listing? By them writing "Reliable and Trusted" on their website it does not relieve them of moral and ethical responsibilities towards customers. I wonder if any of those that are part of the Best Change signature campaign will look in to this and ask Best Change for an explanation. What are the chances of none of them being scammed over the years if Best Change have been twisting the rating system so people can be scammed and they just cash in a commission. There has been more than one scam accusation against BestChange in the past. The most visible one is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219339.0The situation described then is similar to what OP is describing now. Made a payment to an exchange, the exchange then froze that deposit and demanded KYC. The exchange in question (although now inactive) is still listed on BestChange with a 100% positive rating and multiple "cancelled" claims. But regardless of whether this is the first or the one hundredth time this has happened, BestChange need to do better. Their landing page says they only use "reliable and trusted" exchanges, and the exchanges are all "100% legal". They give exchanges a green tick to show they have undergone "additional checks". If this is true then BestChange should have, at a minimum, a name, address and company registration for OpenChange that they can provide to OP to let him take forward his claim, not to mention they should not be allowing exchanges to nullify all negative reviews with a single click. |
|
|
|
The poll is much closer than I would have imagined. Right now 66.7% are going for a Usyk win whereas 33.3% are going for a Joshua win and that confuses me because there seems to a belief that Joshua just might be able to overcome Usyk. I see Joshua having zero chance against Usyk but the poll shows 20 votes in favour of Usyk and 10 votes for Joshua. I hope there more participants in the vote in the coming days. Usyk looks like a man on a mission with the support of the world behind him:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
