Yeah, that was amazing. Rather he made double that amount on DB but didn't get paid .
My argument from day before still lies , 15K since 29th wagered and the site loses 200 BTC . Investors pay an extra 15 BTC. Enough short term damage, rather than waiting for long term, when you don't even know where the bitcoin prices will end.

EDIT: Some guy degen(probably Road), donked out lost around 500 coins just now .

By the way , thats not the withdrawl address in the pictures.
This is the address according to the pictures.
https://blockchain.info/address/1PoPTWFwBj4p6mvE7BgDEui2Ew8Ro3VBby

There is no reason why he shouldn't have gone public. DB would have easily covered it up. I actually, got a small bounty at first pointing out the skipping nonce, but after they miscalculated the refund, and paid some more, they subtracted the bounty from the amount, and said Bounty is to be paid only If I didn't post and only if I told them would first.

Yup, they changed your initial bet to 4.125 so you never see the nonce skip. I wonder, what excuse they will give on this.

EDIT: Someone now with the name SCAMSCAMSCAM is spam betting 100 sats now.  

Actually the bets shown are correct lol. The Bet size is 2.75 . Payout including the bet should be 8.782125 , and since you got nothing due to the skip, the profit shown is  -6.03 , which is 8.78-2.75 lol.

Quote from manl on one of the tickets, when I asked them to let me run as matteo.

"That would be ubber scam, and even if it sounds ironic, we are not here to scam anyone."

and they still haven't refunded me in full.

Maybe a new employee again?

He ended with around 160 coins.

Can someone from DB reply to any of the messages? They seem to be active in the signature campaign thread, but not on this thread.

My argument was the fact that 90% of the sites are much below the profit of 1% wagered and not every investor plans to stay invested in the long run. So people who have to invest are actually risking more that the site remains in profit of 1%, after they invest.
For example if people invested in dice.ninja, and this investment system was implemented then the investors would have paid around 20-25% extra of their losses.
And same is the case with dice now , the total amount wagered is around 22.8K , and expected is around 228 BTC, but they are currently at 30 BTC profit, out of which commission to the site would have been 22.8 BTC so basically profits would just be around 7 BTC, and they will be losing much more.

Oh I never invested. I am just bringing it to people's attention. To which you might say, investor's are responsible for their own decisions, but my argument to that would be that maybe, I should have done the same in DB's case then, maybe I didn't like they were scamming people, so I should not gamble, but let people gamble and lose and not post about it.

Plus a lot of people don't really understand the maths of it. The so called smart guy Bazza was arguing with ruru, that the new system made no difference, but he never understood the math behind it.   seuntjie sums it up pretty much right. To add to that, 95% of the dice sites are currently running below the 1% house edge, so it clearly means, this system ends up being much more unfair to the investors. But again, its their money.

And another thing to add ,to which  I made an edit above. Wouldn't it be a little unfair for investment profits from BlackJack? BJ has a house 0.28% edge(http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/), and you are supposedly taking 0.1% anyways, which probably means that  the new system is not fair to the investors for BJ. Am I wrong on this?
EDIT: Based on that site's calculator Dean said its 0.9%. so still 10% short.

Well I don't know about that. dreama's stats show that 5K BTC has been wagered on 29th, since the new commission system started. Since you got less commission on his loss , maybe its Karma. But nevermind you got the seeds
Anyways, my post was not about Road or his loss. My question was regarding what I posted in the last post written again below.

I am not sure how the change was implemented. Did Dean change the system after voting or by simply informing the investors?
 Because as an investor, I would have definitely been against the change. Because, right now I would be paying Dean 0.1% irrespective of a win or a loss for the gambler. Meaning, if the site was in a loss or below the expected, then I am actually losing more , than what I would have if I just paid commission on profits for me.  
So even though Dean claims its equivalent, it is only in the case if the site comes close to profits of 1% of wagered. Otherwise, its rather a loss to the investors. But it seems investors don't understand this.

and Dean, please don't change the topic like always by giving an example how by coincidence the new system was good today. My argument/question was on the unfairness to the investors. Since you don't understand stuff I will make it simple for you.

If your new system was implemented from the start(start of Dice), then currently the site is around 400 bitcoins below the 1% expected. Now doesn't that mean investors would be down another 40 BTC because of your so called equivalent system?

EDIT: Also wouldn't it be a little unfair for investment profits from BlackJack? BJ has a house 0.28% edge, and you are supposedly taking 0.1% anyways.

Haven't done the complete maths, but it seems it is actually bad for the investors. Basically, site used to earn only when players(gamblers) lost before, now site makes profit for the amount wagered irrespective of it being a win or a lose. (Read the last paragraph for most of the maths - If I understand it correctly).
ruru said something about it being different, not sure what he meant. But like someone pointed out in the chart it is not always good for the investors.
So the old system gave the investors a 1% edge , but it works out only over a long term. The new system is to maximize the Dean's(not investors) profits over the short term .
 For example someone pointed out that according to the site's charts, around 5000 btc was wagered today , so even if the site had lost money, Dean would still have made 0.1% of that 5000 btc which is 5 BTC. So basically Dean now makes profits to run the site irrespective of the site winning or losing.

The argument ruru posted was something that all of the dice sites are much below the expected 1% edge(profit), and some are negative, so the only one's making big profits with this 0.1% of the wagered would be the site owners, which might not seem right to the investors and even might it seems to be the same, the investor's only get that 1% edge over the long term.

I am not sure how the change was implemented. Did Dean change the system after voting or by simply informing the investors?
 Because as an investor, I would have definitely been against the change. Because, right now I would be paying Dean 0.1% irrespective of a win or a loss for the gambler. Meaning, if the site was in a loss or below the expected, then I am actually losing more , than what I would have if I just paid commission on profits for me.  
So even though Dean claims its equivalent, it is only in the case if the site comes close to profits of 1% of wagered. Otherwise, its rather a loss to the investors. But it seems investors don't understand this.

And one more thing.
That guy Bazza is Smart.

Apparently PRC made a change in the commission system and claims to have emailed the investors last week. Do you not think Dean a post on this would be wise here?

After mateo lost(which also could just be DB playing and losing purposely), the site has gained around 10-15 BTC since then. But again, you can't calculate returns/day, as there is a lot of variance with 7-8 btc max payout. A better thing to calculate would be return over a few months. But after the incident, thats impossible to calculate.

I really doubt they plan to run the site through a fair means. Firstly, they never refunded bets properly. What they claimed to have refunded were wrong bets. But not bets that led to those wrong bets.
For example, here is a screenshot of one of the bad streaks.



What they refunded were bets in the middle, for example  one or two of the 0.01 or one of the 0.04 btc bet. But the only way for me to win was winning 2 bets in a row. And I was clearly sort of increasing my bets in the martingale style. Even the last bet I won of 0.467 btc was after a nonce skip. And this losing streak was preceded by one or 2 wins and 20-25 losses. So just refunding a 0.04 bet in between doesn't mean you have made it all right. I deserve to get a refund for bets that went in the middle(the martingale bets) , else my style of betting wouldn't have matter, and would have been just like flat betting which is more -EV.

I have sent various messages to DB about this, with no reply. Also, when dooglus pointed out that they should refund the original bets as well right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8895986#msg8895986
then DB posted an updated list. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8900650#msg8900650

and the only 2 people who were updated on the list with the original bets were Me and Stars, probably because it was only us 2 who had sent them a message about what dooglus posted and none of the other players, and they probably thought of not making it right for them.
Also, initially when I pointed out the bug, they had refunded a 0.2 BTC extra, saying it was a bug bounty.  But now after they updated the list, they refunded some more amount and subtracted the bug bounty from it, saying it was never meant to be, and bug bounties are only given, if you had not been public with it. I was like, Really?

I also contacted DB if they wanted to steal investors funds, then feel free to use my name instead of mateo. And they replied, their intent was to not scam anyone, which was the best laugh I had.
After coming back, they expected people to flock back to the site which isn't happening, so now they are probably rethinking their approach and launching project mateo again. They have also not commented to any of the issues posted by players on the thread specially when there is no chat at DB anymore.
They also said they would be willing to allow dooglus to cosign the cold wallet, but even then, after the previous scam, no one should trust them with their investments, specially because they can still steal funds by using seeds only they know, and after the previous incident this is very likely.

This ^  , and make a bug free site, or at least agree bugs exist and acknowledge people who find then and not just blame them.
Just a few minutes back
arrogant posted:    http://imgur.com/pUmWrAD   (Look at the rolls)(Clearly another bug in the UI or something)


And this is how Dean responds



When Arro had asked so were they legit rolls. Dean never replied after. And now if we ask Dean what was the problem, he will not reply. Specially when with something like this gamblers can take advantage and kill the site. Rather he will just call me a troll.

Wow bazza I also realized you are trolling on this thread as well.
I read your post on the official announcement thread.

2. Account has a flakes deposited, manl is very rude, even when I ask legit questions
3. Account has nothing in it. Manl is trolling me hard.

Have you never seen this on PRC ?
Want examples?

Bazza, Why don't you take a break?
I am not asking for anyone's approval. I don't care you like my comments or not, but you don't have to jump in every time if you don't like it.
Dean can easily take advantage of that UI or Lag bug by taking advantage incase he deliberately rigs rolls of anyone and he should fix it asap, even though it has been happening since the past few weeks.

UI error? I am coming to think the reason is probably the lag that is happening nowadays.