You are not taking the sample size of the entire field.

Let P(X) = probability of X result, E(X) = expected value, L = loss, W = win

You're outlining the following two cases: someone buys scratch tickets and loses, someone buys scratch tickets and wins (and then buys more scratch tickets).

---

Thus, we have (assuming 50-50 with 0% house edge)
Case 1: P(L) = 0.5
Case 2: P(W->L) = 0.5

That's not the case.

In reality, there is an infinite number of cases from your proposal of "greed."

Case 1: P(W) = 0.5 (Player wins 1 unit)
Case 2: P(L) = 0.5 (Player loses 1 unit)
E(X) = 0

Case 1.1: P(WL) = 0.25 (Player wins 0 units)
Case 1.2: P(WW) = 0.25 (Player wins 1 unit)
Case 2.1: P(LW) = 0.25 (Player wins 0 units)
Case 2.2: P(LL) = 0.25 (Player loses 1 unit)
E(X) = 0

We can continue infinitely but when you look at it, no matter how many bets the player does (i.e. total amount wagered) there is an expected profit of 0.

---

You keep assuming that the players lose. That's the problem in your argument. It's like trying to say that 1 = 2 by assuming that 1 = 2. That's begging the question.

(Last derailment I'll do from the thread): I thought you were referring to the negative trust that Stunna gave out, not the one that you are expecting from Stunna. After all, they did say, "I haven't even given gameprotect negative trust," so your post wasn't very clear.

---

@Stunna, is there any update on this?

No, you are going in circles by begging the question and you do not understand the extent of my argument.

Greed does not matter. Individual profit does not matter. It is the total profit of all the players vs. the casino that does matter which is expected to be 0.

So a player gets greedy. There are two outcomes: they win the bet or they lose the bet. The expected profit is 0 from both sides. Thus, as a long-term investment, nothing happens and the casino wastes money from server hosting.

Learn how to structure paragraphs instead of creating a trashy wall of text. There is no flow in the sentences and it's just a mess. (And quoting huge blocks of text... also not great.)

It doesn't make sense that your first and only merit transaction was sending 20 to some shitty post. There are plenty others that don't exist in spam megathreads—they provide much better information and are far more helpful than vague, generalized replies—like Technical Discussion posts for example.

Again, you are assuming that Lauda lives in Croatia. What's your plan of action if they live in some country that you won't be able to report to? And what if they are in a region that's isolated or hard to get to? (I don't have any specific countries in mind but I'm sure some people have ideas)

Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.

---

Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018.

Assuming the FBI would even care about this, are you sure that Lauda lives in the US? What if they are non-American citizens living on the other side of the world?

---

I doubt there are going to be huge manhunts for someone that might not even relate to the country.

Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales.

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Although I can't say that the post quality was amazing back then, I can say that the quality now vs. then is much worse. With the explosion of ICO's and bounties, the forum began to quickly degrade in quality.

I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here.

I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged.

---

If I have any negative feedback that tags someone who sold pre-2017, then let me know and I'll change it.


I'm not making any cases toward the "contribution" that any particular member has made to the forum. That is character evidence and should only be used in extreme cases.

Just going to respond to the point regarding me.

Gotta love coming back to this. There may have been a disagreement between theymos and I regarding the merit farming tags (to which I changed some ratings) but it's a matter of perspective. Stating that any merit abuse would be a 'rounding error' is true but allowing it to pass shouldn't happen on principle, in my opinion. Might be a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think it's good to allow that kind of scummy behavior since it begins to build the foundation of false thinking, leading to recursive scumminess.

Should I start?
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. In terms of tagging the users that abuse bounty campaigns, it's simply breaking the rules. Users have no excuse. In regards to account trading, I believe that it is common knowledge (or with a little bit of thinking) that the act results in either scams (from the actual trade or post-trade via the account) or participation in a signature campaign. The former is obviously bad so we don't need to discuss this.

However, it seems that in the local sections, users believe that account trading is fine, normal and is perfectly fine because it doesn't violate the rules. Many marketplace sections have built entire communities based on account sales and I don't think it should be this way. Firstly, if users are congregating in the Local sections to trade, they may not understand English well enough to create substantial posts that would be useful in the English main sections. In that sense, the account sales may produce unwanted spam. The other problem is that this creates a culture that accepts account sales and creates justification for the act (a precedent). "It's not against the rules so it's fine" is a common point that they may bring up which falls apart when you consider that scams are also not against the rules. I don't think this is great, especially when Newbies enter Local sections as they begin to believe that account sales are normal on the forum. It also begins to morph the forum not into a hub for discussion but rather a place to nab a half dozen accounts and farm bounty campaigns. Plenty of people have PM'd me stating, "I want the red trust removed so I can participate in bounties again" (paraphrased). That's not right.

Those trust ratings are pre-DT addition. And Hhampuz was added by SaltySpitoon, not Blazed.

As for the ratings post-DT (from me to others), I have rarely given out positive trust. It should be only a few members (IIRC I was added in January) that were given trust after the addition.

Go into Stunna's trust page and look at the sent feedback.

Jesus, I don't know how it's possible for them to have made so many posts. Must be a robot—I thought it was pretty difficult to make 50 or 40 constructive posts in a week, let alone the sheer amount that TheQuin posted.

---

Certainly deserves the bonus then.

I'm not denying that they can make a profit. Just that they are not profitable. There's a difference between winning at gambling and having a gambling game be winning for the player.

There is no argument to be had here since you're simply saying that casinos can get 'lucky' to deviate from the mean and make some profit. Again, begging the question.

---

Human emotions/other factors don't change the outcome of the wager. If the edge is 0%, the ev for both the casino and player are 1.00. That's it.

Wouldn't get rid of the negative even if you did kill him.

Especially now that you have more. Don't think you'll exactly get rid of both The Pharmacist and I.

---

Don't need to be so extreme.

0.0727272

for our little friend

Killyou "even when i'm wrong i'm right" 72/73

To the former remark, The Pharmacist should be replacing spam tags with neutral feedback. Regarding the latter, account selling is a shady act and deserves negative feedback. Just because you've stopped doesn't mean that you still weren't shady.

If I have committed crimes in the past and decided to stop after I was caught, does that absolve me of all of them? No, of course not. Why would you think that the same thing happens here?

---

Deterrents exist for a reason—there's no point of adding the negative trust in the first place if you can just get away scot-free after saying "sorry sir".

I'm not sure where you're looking, but account sellers do get negative trust. In fact, The Pharmacist and I are among those that have the most volume in terms of negative feedback against these users.

If you know any account traders that have not been tagged, then please bring them forth. I'm sure that they'll be tagged swiftly

---

Link. They'll get tagged too.

And just because someone has yet to be punished for an activity does not mean that it is okay. Use your brain.

So identity fraud. That's what you're letting people commit.

---

They can't use their own documents? Boo hoo.

If they aren't allowed to use their own documents, then they shouldn't be participating in the ICO regardless. It would be illegal for them to do so. Why are you trying to justify yourself when you're just directly allowing criminal activity?

That doesn't matter. Once you purchase an account, you are buying the account's reputation, rank, and trust.

You are falsely representing yourself when you buy accounts which is untrustworthy behavior. I do not pretend that I am a CEO of Alphabet Inc. when I am applying for jobs. Likewise, you should not pretend to be someone who is a Sr. Member when you clearly are not.

It's just equivalent to buying trust.