|
I mean it depends on what kind of thread you are responding to if someone is making allegations against you. I would certainly quote those responses for future references. But If I am responding to a thread in the press section, It makes sense to not quote the whole response. A simple @username should do the trick but I think its more of a subconscious thing. Plus if you ask me "subjective" quoting does make sense. It becomes clear to what part of the response you are replying to.
P.S Do you have any references for how legendaries are using redundant quotes?
|
|
|
|
Pakistan won the match by 6 wickets and with 2 balls to spare which also means they won yet another T20 series which I believe makes it 11 T20 series wins in a row which is amazing. I just wonder how many more series they can win before a team beats them?
Yeah, that's an official world record now. No team has won this many series consecutively. Pakistan won the match by 6 wickets and with 2 balls to spare which also means they won yet another T20 series which I believe makes it 11 T20 series wins in a row which is amazing. I just wonder how many more series they can win before a team beats them?
Well, Pakistan vs. South Africa T20 series will begin in February, and it'll probably be another easy series win for Pakistanis. I'm expecting this series winning streak to go on for another year.  Getting Cocky Eh??  I mean SA has got a good t20 squad. Beating them in their backyard will be a challenge tho. If they come on top against SA, ICC should make Pakistan Play against India. I believe only Team India Can stop their streak. They have this habit of losing against them. I mean the last time Pakistan played a series against India it was way back in 2012. It's been 6 years they have faced each other in a series. It's time Cricket fans got one again.  |
|
|
|
Is it possible for the webmasters to use ANYTHING other that google captcha ?
It's annoying that I have to train their machines, and it's time consuming to watch 20 blurry pictures of stairs and buses.
I mean theymos won't be removing the google captcha as it prevents spam. The alternatives mentioned like 2captcha are great but a simpler solution is to use something like SessionBox on chrome. You can literally store 100 of sessions with different accounts logged in. Also, I believe you can encrypt the sessions so you can only access them via a password. |
|
|
|
Oh man, I have got to pump those numbers up...  |
|
|
|
Provable Fair has nothing to do with Blockchain. Blockchain doesn't ensures the players that whether you are manipulating results or not. The provable Fair method does.
They both contribute something, blockchain can also be giving far more information then is normally available to consumers on the exact transactions that take place. How does viewing a transaction on blockchain make the casino fair? I mean you can view your transaction history on every payment processor. I don't know one which wouldn't allow the customers to view their history. Some of the very first gambling operations transacted purely on the blockchain back when BTC price was alot lower all the gambles would take place and be recorded for all time on the BTC blockchain. You are talking about SatoshiDice. Yes, I remember them but their "provable fair" system is same as other casinos. They utilize the server seed and the client seed to generate a random number. The blockchain is just used for keeping a public record of their server seeds. I mean the only advantage I see here of utilizing blockchain for public record keeping is in the case of a dispute. E.g If I claim that the casino manipulated their server hash to win a bet. I can fake screenshots and exploit them. The only defence they will have is their database record and if the community doesn't trust the casino they will most likely get tagged and their reputation will be ruined. So in that sense blockchain adds a layer of protection for them against scam accusations. I believe other blockchains have had similar operations. I dunno what do you mean by this. |
|
|
|
Perhaps the the defining line is whether one is knowingly promoting a (known) scam/ponzi... as opposed to being paid to help promote a project... that later turns into a scam? I mean Ponzis do pay up initially before running away with the user funds. In my book they both are same. I mean if you can feel that the project will end up dead then why work with it? I mean people who invest in Ponzis don't know that whether they will get scammed or not. Only the guy "promoting" it knows the real risk. Why can't it be the same with these lousy managers? P.S I am in no way defending Ponzi "Promoters". They deserve every bit of the red trust they have got. |
|
|
|
Some people just aren't good at detective work, aren't thorough, or may have some other impediment that keeps them from being able to tell if a project is fishy. I mean I am no Sherlock, I have been approached by a couple of "ICOs" who didn't have their story straight or were just a copy of something which was already done. I will also give credit to Loyce here by making me see things which I wouldn't have otherwise. I think the managers do/should have a moral duty towards the community. I mean why work with a project which has already been done and isn't doing something "unique". The chances it will end up as failure/scam are quite high TBH. I mean these managers should be able to make the call if you ask me. In my book, if I see the chances of the project failing are high, I usually decline to work with them. I mean I get it that they want to get paid but they are getting paid at the expense of other people getting scammed/losing money in a shit project? But hey that's just me. You seem to be "shooting the messenger"... Yet anyone who tries to promote a Ponzi gets tagged. Isn't he just a "Messenger"?? |
|
|
|
So gambler was wining first attempt second or even third and was betting bigger and bigger money
At some stage casino guy was mixing cards that way that it was very hard to find red card and gambler was losing
Finally smart guy was winner and gambler lost all money what he had in his pocket together with watch
Do you know any historical popular game from your country your maybe forgotten already
maybe somebody from old generation told you about some old gambling game
Russian roulette was popular but there are not living gambler who can share story about that game
I don't know any stories like that but yours reminded me of a question I was wondering about: why aren't casinos making the bets in favor of the player at first? They could then turn on this house edge thing and probability, but I am pretty sure that they would profit from it more than they'd lose. Would it be considered as cheating? I mean, if the casino is at first helping one to win and then just playing fair, I don't think anyone could accuse it. And even if people knew about that, they'd probably not be able to resist the temptation to keep playing. That's why we have "provable fair" casinos these days. There is no way to exploit the human behavior with "Provable fair" method. Hence why you guys see all these deposit promotions etc. That's their new way to "exploit/lure" people in. I mean if you look at the moral of the story it was that the dude stopped betting at the right moment instead of letting his emotions take over and if you ask me its still valid today and will always be. Knowing when to stop pushing your luck is the only difference between a "good" gambler and a "bad" one. |
|
|
|
Well, what do you know? Have you asked one lately? Well, It's been a while I have got in touch with them. On a serious note tho... would a being in a higher state of consciousness would want to get distracted?  |
|
|
|
I think the ban on Smith and Warner needs to stand because if they back flip on their decision now it won't look good on Cricket Australia so it needs to stay in place no matter how the team is performing without them. I just think the ones that want it lifted are worried about crowd numbers as like I said with the current form the Australian team is in, no one would want to pay money to watch them even though they are playing a top team in India. I'll be interested to see the crowd numbers this summer compared to previous Australian summers when India have toured Australia. I will also say this and that is this is India's big chance to win their first test match series in Australia as they have never won a series in Australia.
While I agree with your perspective let's not forget Cricket is like any other sports it's for commercials, and team India's board is the richest and they'll exert pressure on CA, in addition to their sponsors they'll would want Warner and Smith to come out. Though it's to early to confirm if they'll be allowed to make a comeback so soon, but I feel they should other wise this series shall be a dull one. However if they're not included then my money is on team India to win it comfortably and easily. I doubt they will make a comeback straight away even if the board lifts their ban. They will be out of touch and I doubt the Austrailian Selectors will take a risk of playing players who haven't touched the bat for a good six months. IMO Austrailia still has the batting line up to compete with India in their backyard. Plus I don't get it how are you guys justifying that crowds will come to watch the match just because of Smith and Warner? I get it they may have a fan base in India as they both have captained IPL teams but that doesn't mean the crowds won't come in to back their team in their backyard... It doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
.... Well, have you considered about "FPGA's"? They can be "programmed" to be better at almost any algo. Same is happening with AIs. Have you seen Baxter? How it can be taught to perform any task? General purpose AI's are right about the corner and you should be worried if you don't own the means of production. Those can't begin to match my beer-drinking algorithms. Lol, I would suggest doing a "check-up" with a "developer". You may need "re-programming" of sorts. I have heard "Beer-drinking" algorithms can be quite harmful if not "re-programmed". That's possible. But it's also possible that the new super intelligent AI may need reprogramming, to appreciate the finer aspects of consciousness. We'll start it on beer, and then gradually move to sativa level weed. Lol xDD, I mean why would a "being" already in a state of "higher" consciousness would want to get "high" xDD |
|
|
|
New Zealand doing good there they are near to win, but Pakistan team also doing good attacking bowling the new Zealand already 72/2 in 12 over and I am going to bet on New Zealand because they they have big hitter with them.
Looks like you lost your bet mate Pakistani bowlers defended the total exceptionally at the very end. Ross Taylor should've somehow managed to get those runs with the required run rate, he's probably the senior-most player of the team and still looked unconfident in his batting. Didn't watch the match, Probably will catch the highlights later today. From looking at the scorecard it looks like it was a thriller. |
|
|
|
Get those posts in guys and feel free to apply for next week if you'd like! The first page says there are 0 spots open for Legendary and hero members. So I will apply the signature if I get accepted.  Btctalk name: Thekool1s Rank: Legend wait for it dary Member Bitcoin Wallet Address: 36XNuGUmxqYWVt7b73bGE15P3koALru2Mo |
|
|
|
Of course, it is against the rule and perpetrator should face the consequences no matter what. btw ICCI rule is 5-6 test match ban if someone gets caught or found guilty on the accusation of ball tampering. that's why I mentioned One year is way too long period and no other board will do the same what CA did on the Sandpapergate saga. The rules are lousy, to say the least. Also, Teams hardly play more than 10 Test matches per year. Usually, 5-6 matches mean a timeframe of about a year. So the Ban period isn't long as you are claiming. No idea why you suddenly jumped into the conclusion that I am justifying Cheating. The reason I jumped to my conclusion was that you are trying to gather sympathy for cheats. I have zero respect for people who have been involved in any sort of Ball-Tampering or Spot Fixing. They don't deserve a 2nd chance IMO. Whether its Amir or Smith. The punishment should be as severe as it can be. You can't play with the emotions of millions of people who watch this game. It's not fair to them.
New Zealand doing good there they are near to win, but Pakistan team also doing good attacking bowling the new Zealand already 72/2 in 12 over and I am going to bet on New Zealand because they they have big hitter with them.
Looks like you lost your bet mate |
|
|
|
Believe or not Ball tempering has always been a big part of test cricket. before we had a few cameras on the ground now every move is monitored and it's completely different from Spot fixing. Make no mistake to mixing them up together.
Wait! so are you trying to justify cheating? Spot-fixing = Cheating, Tampering the ball = Cheating. Why is it hard for you to grasp this simple concept? One year ban is a very long period but CA took a tough and bold decision in this ball-tempering Saga due to backlash in Aus. Wow, I mean Amir got banned for 5 years for a single ball which didn't even matter in the match's scenario while Smith and Warner did something which could have turned the match in their favor, How is the first offence more punishable than the second? Can you imagine the same thing happening in India if Virat Kohli gets caught in the same situation? Big No from BCCI even ECB or CSA. Yeah, how can I imagine that,  Where Spot-Fixers were let off from the courts in india. I get it betting is a big business in India but please don't try to justify either of them. |
|
|
|
As I said above, requiring merit to post in the regular boards almost certainly won't happen as theymos is against those sorts of restrictions. @DdmrDdmr suggested somewhere to introduce a Merit-based sorting for new threads. I don't remember what thread it was but I think that will be a good alternative. The sorting should be based on how many merited users responded to a thread. Also, Loyce's Comment comes to my mind on Spam Filter v1's thread. Something Like a "Reading" Mode should be introduced, Once in the reading mode, all the posts made by users who haven't received any merit will not be shown. I mean it's not required. The Bitcoin discussion board is much more readable these days can't say the same about Altcoin boards tho. The topics are usually crap or don't belong in the bitcoin discussion board. I think adding a moderator or 2 should help the cause. |
|
|
|
please spend some time in this place, really try hard - then soon you will be qualified to get merits, Until that time comes you will be susceptible to abuse whilst merit farming like this. I guess the OP is gonna be making another thread sooner or later about merits being unfairly given...
Lol, we'll be waiting 0.001 BTC says he will join a bounty campaign as soon as he hits Junior. |
|
|
|
From the article: Blockchain can give consumers more insight into how a Casino operates and make it impossible for “the house always wins” to be true by any form of manipulation or setup. "The House Always Wins" there is always a house edge Unless Fortune Jack has zero house edge policy, This statement isn't true IMO. Also, The author is confusing "Blockchain" with the "Provable Fair" method. Provable Fair has nothing to do with Blockchain. Blockchain doesn't ensures the players that whether you are manipulating results or not. The provable Fair method does. |
|
|
|
Again the total Pakistan posted was huge You are kidding, right? I never knew a total of 150 was considered a "Huge" target in the t20 format. It's a below average total if you ask me. Australia were in the match but once again their batting let them down. Except for the first over of Imad Wasim, they were never "in-game". I mean if you look the teams on paper, Austrailia had a squad which could chase down totals of 180+ easily. They had the "explosive" batsmen in their line-up but the only problem with them in this series was that they didn't play "smart cricket". Just look at how Babar Azam did the trick for Pakistan. He got his 50s on a strike rate of around 110-120. Nothing "explosive" Yet it got them to a decent total in each game. I mean if you look at the wickets of Chris Lyin and Maxwell in yesterday's match they all got out trying to clear the boundary when it wasn't required. I mean how hard is to rotate the strike? Teams like Austrailia are known for their strike rotation and yet they failed to do it in this series... |
|
|
|
You can't even come up with claims! All you have are straw men logical fallacies. Lol, Okay... I am out... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
