Are these all of the bets of the users made on the game? This are bet history of player on adrenaline, wins made of the bug money. User just spinned all around x200 and to be short, incredible advantage was taken over the bug. If community wishes so, we are open to publicly post any bet history of related data as well. What constitutes a losing bet if BPS is always positive? How do you calculate the profit/loss from each roll? Where are the other bets he made after the bugged game? |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what was your initial deposit?
Could you have made the bets you did on Plinko without winning the first 2 BTC?
IIRC he deposited 0.009 BTC and placed bets on plinko for ~0.02 BTC. So no, he could not have made those same bets without the ineligible winnings. Interesting. First of all, I'd like FortuneJack to be a bit more transparent and make that google doc actually viewable to the public. I think there are a few fair ways to approach this. 1. Re-evaluate his bets on non-bugged games (plinko, etc.) and treat it as if his starting balance was .009 for this series of bets. Any bet made for more than his total balance would be considered an all in. Given he said he was gambling for 8+ hours, it is possible he would've started plinko with more than .009 and still won the entire jackpot. 2. Re-evaluate his bets on non-bugged games (plinko, etc.) and treat his bets as proportional to the size of his bankroll at the time. Assuming he tried to cash out .45 of the 2 BTC he won at the beginning, he would've started the legitimate betting series with a bankroll of 1.55 BTC, or 172x his deposit. So, simply reduce every bet by a factor of 172. Considering it was ultimately FortuneJack's error, I think it would be fairest to go with the higher value of the approaches mentioned above. The value for the second comes out to .116 BTC, meaning the additional bug bounty he received is only .09 BTC. A closer look at the other wagers is necessary to determine the value from the first approach. |
|
|
|
Given the fact that Toy4lov3rs used the address a year before you did, it's pretty damning.
Toy4lov3rs is one of my clueless IRL friends. The only IRL friend I know of that has an account on the forum, in fact (unfortunately). It's a shame that I feel I have to explain this. They know nothing of Bitcoin, and next to nothing about the forum. I got them to read about a dozen stickies, on a newly created account, but I don't remember the username of that account and it's probably still a 0-post newbie. They very seldom log into their account and have no interest in the forum. They were wanting to apply for a campaign and told me they were confused. After I explained to them that they would be denied for the quality of their posts, they proceeded to use the template I provided as an example for their actual application, which had my address on it. If memory serves, I had created that address specifically while walking them through how to create an address on Core to replace the address within the "template". You call this benign situation "damning", as if there is a valid accusation somewhere in there. When in reality all that is here is Address Mismanagement and Miscommunication while walking a friend through a process. Rmcdermott927 and Toy4lov3rs even spoke extensively and had further interaction off the forum. I'd feel more comfortable asking Rmcdermott927 if I can elaborate on that before doing so; That shouldn't even be necessary. Toy4lov3rs is not my account, but I did go to high school with the owner. Thanks for the explanation, glad this misunderstanding has been cleared up. I'm sure you can see what it looks like to others. Anyway, seems your friend is a bit of an account trader then. It appears the current owner of Toy4lov3rs lives in India! Imagine that  Funnily enough, it looks like he actually found the forums a year before you and couldn't figure out how to make his own wallet for 3 years. I don't think anyone can be that clueless, so I'm guess he bought the account too. In any event, whoever created it/sold it to him had posted a bunch of wallet addresses prior to 2016, so I don't really see why he'd ask you to create one for him if he was the original owner. How he went about buying a bitcointalk account without a Bitcoin wallet, I don't know, but hats off to him for the ingenuity! If I was you, I really wouldn't push the issue as to why someone wouldn't want you on DT, unless you have an extremely good reason for the facts outlined above.
I don't feel like people should be walking on egg-shells around here when they have done nothing wrong. I don't know how to make it clearer, but I do not have a care in the world about being on DT. Nor do I understand why you're making these emboldened statements. I appreciate the suggestion, but it seems you misunderstand my intention. Fair enough, my intention was only to give you what I perceived to be the most likely explanation, since it seems you want one. Whether the claims are true or not, I hope you can see how they have some merit. |
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what was your initial deposit?
Could you have made the bets you did on Plinko without winning the first 2 BTC?
|
|
|
|
You're taking this way too personally.
I haven't taken anything personally. I haven't excluded those that have excluded me, because I am hoping, not expecting, that they will be willing to explain themselves. If I agree with their reasoning, then I can better myself or be accountable for where they see shortcomings. If I disagree with their reasoning or lack thereof, then I can place them as an exclusion and we both go on our way. First of all, I don't know the reason why these people have excluded you. However, if I had to guess, it probably has something to with this. Given the fact that Toy4lov3rs used the address a year before you did, it's pretty damning. Toy4lov3rs also happens to be SMAS blacklisted. Assuming you didn't purchase this account (which is unlikely), you are using an alt to avoid a campaign blacklist, which most people would view as untrustworthy. Assuming you did purchase this account, you might not be evading a ban, but you are an account trader, which is also viewed as untrustworthy. If I was you, I really wouldn't push the issue as to why someone wouldn't want you on DT, unless you have an extremely good reason for the facts outlined above. |
|
|
|
This is a SCAM.
They took my money and never gave me access to the Discord Server.
The original owner confirmed this website is a fraud pretending to be the original service.
Well, it does say -2 BTC in the title, what did you expect?  |
|
|
|
Since I've been added on DT from 2 DT1, I'm starting to get vindictive negative feedbacks from user tagged from me for abuse. So, Eth.RickSanchez 2019-01-11 0.00000000 This person is not trustworthy because he gives the red trust thoughtlessly, indiscriminately and based only on transactions between different people's wallets. There is no rules on forum, which prohibits work relatives and close friends together with different accounts! And it is not Alt-accounts! I have strong evidence that behind each of these accounts(Nepodaarok, JulkaEsya, Bro.Jack.Brown, FernandaSorez, Eth.RickSanchez, SanyJ.Mot) is a real, living person, one person-one account. What is your evidence?  OT, I've tagged a lot of accounts for abusing... I will probably get a lot of those feedbacks
This one is nice, Bentuwell 2019-01-11 0.00000000 Reference conduct excessive reporting activities While he admitted the abuse on my DM. You'll get used to it over time, it gets old. Just keep up the good work, congrats. |
|
|
|
It is theoretically possible to start with any amount of capital as long as you adjust the maximum payout size accordingly. This would best be determined by the Kelly criterion. Presumably, you would want a bankroll that allowed customers to wager a decent amount before starting. One way would be to determine what you think a decent "bet limit" would be and use the Kelly Criterion to determine what bankroll you would need to offer that wager and go from there. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking that having the same trust list serve multiple purposes (trusted vs untrusted feedback, DT2 level, voting for DT1) might be a problem. E.g. there are users whose feedback I trust but not their "subordinates" so I would prefer to not vote for them but still keep them in my list. Not sure if there is an easy solution to that though. Certainly don't want to force everyone to maintain several different lists. I have the same problem. For example: at the moment my trust setting shows theymos with 1 red tag. However, if I were to become DT1, my "subordinates" on DT2 are only the ones I picked directly. The annoying part is that my own trust looks different because those "subordinates" are counted towards my own trust view. I would like to see the same trust settings as a user without a custom list, while at the same time being able to create my own list of "subordinates". This. Then make it 300 merits next month and keep stepping the requirement up monthly That would eventually lead to a centralized system with old users on DT, which I think is what theymos is trying to change. Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings. |
|
|
|
The whole stupid DT system should be scrapped, It was never worth a damn and still won't be.  Not really stupid because the forum worth cleaning along with the scammers. I can understand why you hate Lauda LOL but I can also understand why Lauda tagged some. Thanks. She tagged me because she did not like my opinion. No other reason. You still sound mentally demented though which is why you're worth tagging  And how would you sound when wronged, with no recourse in the corrupt system to clear your name.
Oh, I know, you kiss their ass and cry like a baby. Sorry, not my style. You know, just because you add to every post doesn’t mean you don’t come across salty af. It’s not fooling anyone. |
|
|
|
It's good to see that many players making big amount of money in a single bet. I used to do low payout bets in the past but now i know if you want to try your luck, go for risky high payout bets. Good luck everyone.
A lot of high rollers bet on 50/50, it is just a coincidence to see a lot high multipliers bets on the highlights. Anyway, as I always say, I think it is better to show a high multiplier bet (even if it is not a big prize), than to show a bigger 50/50 bet, just because a high multiplier bet is harder to achieve. Showing high multiplier bets just makes for a better advertisement. Everyone has the chance to win big if you just throw .001 on 9900x. Showing a 10 BTC 2x doesn’t have the same appeal. |
|
|
|
Still open?
Are you missing the post made 12 minutes before you that says no one’s been paid for 2 months? |
|
|
|
|
Looking for a new site to play on and I know SwC has been around for ages, so trust isn't an issue.
Checked out the site and have a few questions.
1. Are cash game blinds denominated in USD or chips (is .02/.04 super micro nano stakes or just a regular 4nl table)
2. Is it common for only 3 tables of NLH to be running or am I missing a filter option?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Being a moron doesn't necessarily make someone a scammer. I think a neutral, at most, is a appropriate, if only to protect your own sanity from the endless vitriol you'd have to endure should you go further.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the incoherent ramblings, I think a lot of users will be using custom trust lists from now on. I’ve been using DT since the start and finally set my own. Mine happens to still include Lauda (although not at level 1), and I’m sure most others will too, but those who agree with your point of view will probably exclude her entirely.
|
|
|
|
Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them? Or at least to have that option in Settings?
It kinda does. It does not. I thought that's how the system works. You give someone a positive they love up to your DT0? This is known as CanaryInTheMine syndrome. |
|
|
|
Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum. In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2. (Until today, I never understood this implication of custum trust lists!) Neither did I to be honest
Does anyone know if I can see the default trust list? I have since removed it from my trust network... Just add ;dt to the end of your trust settings. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt |
|
|
|
Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum. In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2. (Until today, I never understood this implication of custum trust lists!) My understanding was that DT2 trust lists don't impact the rest of the forum (in terms of DT) unless their depth is higher than 2. Whether I exclude him via adding you to my custom trust list, or directly on my own list, the outcome is the same for others (unless they have a custom depth or trust me directly). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
