The rate-limit error page:


Simply change that to this:

The last posting from your IP was less than <time> seconds ago. Please try again later. The thing you were trying to post was saved as a draft. This limit decreases substantially as your account becomes more established.


Thread is pinned so it must be good, right? You can get rid of most of those "how do I rank up?" threads when we can simply direct people to the answer during the first thing they'll probably encounter when they start posting.

---

And... something should be done about the off-site links in the Marketplace sections.

Reason being that any strategy whether deliberate or unplanned, structured or chaotic, under the conditions of the game, have the same luck and result in a -ev gameplay loop.

The player gets high off of the randomness at the cost of a 1% fee for every time they spin: it's really quite a nice drug trade that manages to scale itself to any wealth. You might be able to overdose on heroin, but no one's going to stop you from losing 20 BTC after your habit demands more gambling, whether you lose or not.

There are these marketing campaigns known as "signature campaigns" and you might note that under my post is the typical forum signature slot you'll see with your common customizable individuality in these spaces. Unlike other forums, however, advertisers will sometimes pay users to brand their product with links and pay those members of the campaign to do so.

Some campaigns have payment structures where users get paid per post and others have ones where they need to hit x posts per week for some fixed payment. The reason you might see some people start posting garbage is probably because they want to hit their quotas.

---

There's no way to convince an idiot that their framework is wrong. People who trap themselves inside of their biases are limited in that struggle if they refuse to accept external insight.

I don't assume anyone to be an alt but you can't prevent people from doing the opposite.

Part of the reason that you'll find such an inhospitable environment is due to the way the forum operates.

Scams are not moderated and alt accounts are allowed, so effectively every new account that is created is automatically assumed to be a sockpuppet or alternate account by many users. I don't personally commit to this ideology, though at times it becomes difficult to contain my biases: it happens so often that false positives are sometimes dismissed and accepted as an unfortunate sacrifice.

The other part is that you'll have people who get paid to post, so you can understand why they might not commit all their time to reading situations in full detail.

What kind of a person would bet on the "Over 2.5 Goals In First Half" market when there are only 15 minutes to go and none of the teams have scored even once? https://www.sofascore.com/sassuolo-spal/TfbsfAV

Never mind the fact that they're wrapped up in this situation where their funds are supposed to be tied up.
Did the user attempt to withdraw their funds before the bet was made? Were such withdrawal attempts accepted?

I'd say that it's better to have read more than you post.

If you run into trouble with comprehension, quoting the specific parts and asking for elaboration in the thread would be your simplest solution as opposed to attempting to read more on your own, even though it is an alternative. If you've already read the rules, then you're doing much better than most Newbies on the site (unfortunately). In reality, though the rules may seem harsh, it's pretty difficult to get banned for anything except for plagiarism and spam: two things that are extremely easy to avoid through your actions.

Ironically, even if your claim is true, the cryptographic age between your two accounts wouldn't actually differ by more than a few months.

Given that all the trust ratings they've accumulated happened only after 2017, I'd say that they've accomplished more than you did in the four years you spent regurgitating useless two-liners in the banal discussion threads.

---

If people simply resort to the common belief that every single claim the casino provides is true, then why even have the scam accusation board at all when your replies are all going to be the same algorithmic, "you are a liar because the casino says you broke their arbitrary rules," response?

Imagine wanting to use a decentralized currency to start posing spread eagle for a centralized, all-powerful authority.

Bump.

Just so that you can have a relative comparison: if you have at least 50 deleted posts, then you are within the top 730 spammers in the entire forum. Source: BPIP

All of the 279 users have at least 50 good reports.

The median at around ~80 places the top ~140 users in this list within the top 400 spammers of the forum.

---

Edit: new small report consolidation.


Users on the list (not including these new users) have also been tagged with neutrals.

I suppose LoyceV works for the forum because he posts public data in his threads as well.

I suppose you're also an Adkinsbet shill because you're supporting them in this thread now, because we can't have nuanced opinions in your peabrained ideological reality.

---

This thread is getting stormed with an insane (and inane) amount of random commentary.


I hope that there aren't any account farmers in the bushes here, because I'm about to start cracking down on their spam posts in the shit boards again. But obviously we only use one account on the forum.

Are you simply here to cast irrelevant and unfounded ad-hominem into the thread? It's weird to see you assuming that I'm being employed by Sportsbet when I'm ousting their use of the exact same ToS scheme in this thread:

---

I don't shill for any casino, and if you refuse to use the actual content of the replies to construct your responses instead of jumping to random deflections, then there's no point in continuing any good-faith replies.

What were the details of these bets?

Looks like the bets were placed at 16:57:45, 16:58:01 UTC - the game began at 16:30 UTC.

---

There's no logical reason for the bets to have been made.

This rule is what we call, "get out of jail free".

Imagine you let a casino conduct their own investigation with no transparency, carry on over multiple months, and allow them to use a catch-22 rule which basically turns them into the final arbiter of any situation. If such behavior is allowed, here is an example of how such a centralized authority could exploit such a process:

Target low-volume markets where a significant sum is placed on one result whose odds decrease.
Void the bet in the case of a win, which is presumably more likely due to the larger number of bettors predicting the result.
In the case of anyone complaining, go after them with every single ToS violation you can think of.
Continue delaying them and hope that they either give up or decide to bet the rest and lose.
If anything happens, you invoke the "image damage" rule and take their funds anyway when they show their situation to the public.

It's okay: as long as it's under ToS that means it's absolutely binding and legitimate under all circumstances.

I am not sure what relevance this has to the situation of Adkinsbet and oz.kashi in the thread.

Perhaps we can argue about intentions for arguments after we dismiss the arguments with reason rather than through ad-hominem attacks. I don't care if whether the person who ends up busting a scam is themselves a scammer or the most reputable person in the world: the contents of the message matter more than the messenger.

Outrageous claims deserve outrageous evidence. You seem to think that by doubling down, you have made the previous argument more sensible - no, the reality is that neither claim has been accepted as more than possible conjecture. The value of such claims is the same as the value as claiming that I am the Superman from Havana.

Provably fair violations can be proven quite easily and it shouldn't be difficult if you're able to claim that your hash and seed are kept from the player: take a few screenshots.

Someone might want to punt for the token. UCO, from what I saw, has incredibly low volume, and if that makes up the bulk of the collateral, then I don't think the loan will be filled. The SaTT token, in comparison, has much more and might have some volatile value.

The loan terms that I would deem favorable would be heavily restrictive: you would probably need to tie up a significant amount of collateral, much more than the typical 120%, and you'd be looking at a possible liquidation event due to the unreliability of the token given its relative recent increase in volume.

Here's a thought experiment.

Instead of having the odds drop from 3.10 to 1.60, what happens to your answers if the number changes from 3.00 to 1.60?
What about 2.90?

At what point would you say that the gamblers have submitted valid bets? What's the arbitrary threshold and where's the logic behind the reason for those numbers?

Do you have more details on these three bets?

Perhaps there's something I'm not understanding, but it would seem ridiculous to admonish a user for having made a good decision in their risk management - when you place bets on a market with lower volume, they may affect the odds and if the odds shifted to such a degree then it would have been obvious for most people betting on the market that the away team was a good bet.

The interesting part is when you consider the implications - at what point is a player not allowed to make a favorable bet in their eyes?

Pay attention to the order of events:

Today at 06:40:40 AM - scifimike12 - password reset via email
Today at 06:40:44 AM - scifimike12 - woke up

---

If the user's emails are legitimate, then the story would make sense here - you check your old email account and secure anything linked to it, resetting the password as you'd forgotten. Nothing else shows up in BPIP history so there's no reason to assume that the account changed hands through a sale, either.

I wouldn't grant them a loan in any case, though.

They might acknowledge it passingly, with one of those, "in my day I could buy x with y; back in my day a dollar bought you," mentions without the deeper lifestyle changes. I still know of some people that believe the US Dollar is still backed completely by gold.

The rampant consumerist materialism that has infiltrated the masses through cultivated corporate propaganda continues to peddle people towards useless shit while their wages decrease: how great to get a 2% raise when your savings asset underperforms a magnitude above that. How many people saw the stimulus coming and thought about diverting liquid savings into alternate assets to prevent depreciation?

I'm going to assume honesty on the player's part with their email contents. The replies the casino has made are all along the lines of, "you may have done this, did you violate this," and it all reeks of hiding behind the ToS to exploit players.

One question regarding that game is whether there were any bettors on the losing side: did they get compensated with a voided bet because the odds they played weren't fair? It's interesting to let the casino have the authority to cancel a bet from a player due to their location: you live near the location of the event, therefore you might have known what was happening. Is it possible to see how a central entity could abuse that privilege? Something to think about.

---

We have a direct confrontation, interestingly enough:

"We had more users who place suddenly all their liquidity on this match, as you did the same"
"If this was the case why I choose to take most of money in DNB and not regular? Why didn't I place more money on the game if [I had] 55 mBTC in my balance?"

-- This all implies that the user was presumably playing on many matches during that time... we'd have to get bet history but isn't it possible that this is merely someone that likes to bet on their local teams?