Here's Balotelli.  I was forgetting - he switched from using martingale to using what he called "nakowa style" and lost everything very quickly:

We see quite a few players with lots of coins to throw around.  I guess there are lots of early adoptors still around.

steven played from mid Feb to the end of Apr.
march player the first half of May.
the 1st charlie played in the middle of May and the 2nd at the end of May.

We've seen bigger martingale wins.  A guy called something like Balotelli took us for hundreds of coins.  Diablo too.

I'll dig up their charts if I can find their userids.

He linked the accounts for us after I spotted that the players were playing very similarly and asked him about it.

I suspect he didn't know when to stop, kept playing, lost, and didn't keep talking to us, so we didn't get to link the losing accounts.

It's often the way that players like to talk when they're winning but go quiet when they lose, making it harder to know who is really still 'up'.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't win...

We recently had a guy playing at Just-Dice.  He played on 4 different accounts, calling himself steven (user 522621), march (718719) and charlie (755590 and 764137).  He made around 74,000 bets, and ended up something like 90 BTC in profit!

Here's a chart of his play.  It took him about 21,000 bets to get into his stride and start using martingale, but once he did, it went really well.  This is typical of how martingale player charts look, only the drops are usually bigger than the rises:



Then one day he stopped playing and we've not seen him since...  Good for charlie/march/steven! 

It really depends how many times you can afford to double.

If you have 7 and start at 1, you can only afford two doubles (1 + 2 + 4 = 7) before you bust.
If you have 7 and start at 0.001, you can afford 12 or 13 doubles, and so will probably last longer before you bust.

However you play, the odds aren't in your favour.  Martingale doesn't change that fact.

"Sorry you guys trusted a new dice site and got scammed.  Anyway, here's another new dice site for you to trust!"

 

I bet on red but rolled a 6.  Now what?

That was over 15 hours ago.

Where are the first two 30% payments?  Shouldn't they have been sent back to your first "investor"?

Something's wrong here.  It's almost as if this is some kind of scam!

This might be of interest here too:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631601

Or maybe not.

Maybe 1dice1 was "investing" his winnings in the bankroll between playing sessions.  Why withdraw them to a wallet where the coins will sit idle if you have the option of having them "work" for you on a dice site?

The answer is obvious now ("because the dice site might steal them!") but probably wasn't at the time.

As for getting angry, I don't see how that would help 1dice1's cause.  He's at ED's mercy, so probably feels like he has to be polite to them despite how he feels.

The bankroll was meant to be funded by investors anyway, so it would have cost ED nothing to pay 1dice1 his winnings.

As I understand it, ED took commission on every bet, win or lose, so they wouldn't have been hurting at all from 1dice1's lucky run.

Oh wow!  I hadn't noticed that!

I don't think it matters what you intend to do with the information you obtained through deception.  That doesn't change whether what you did was scamming or not:

verb: scam;
1. swindle.
"a guy that scams the elderly out of their savings"
synonyms:   swindle, cheat, deceive, trick, dupe, hoodwink, double-cross, gull; More

I would say your aim was to deceive, trick, dupe, hoodwink for sure.


There's no threat.  I'm not trying to extort you in any way.  I'm not saying "share the info with me OR ...".  I'm just honestly confused as to what the trust system is for.  Is it just for the case when someone scams coins from others?  Or is any kind of dishonesty worth recording?


I'm not sure what all that is about, but it's not relevant to the question at hand.

I'm not talking about any of your history, just this single case of deception:

"Hey guys I have lots of coins; sell me your site" ... "I was lying and just wanted to see what offers I would get"

That seems wrong to me, and like it might benefit others to be warned that you use these kinds of tactics to trick people.  I was curious to see if others agree that that would be a reasonable use of the trust system.

Can't decide whether this deserves negative trust or not.

You're clearly not trustworthy making such obviously contradictory statements, but you claim to only be trying to scam people out of information, not coins.

What's the trust system for?  Is it for this kind of thing?  I really can't decide.

It's not just you.

Sometimes (random variable A) appears to be correlated to (random variable B) even though it isn't.

Did you ever notice how when you decide to cycle to work it rains more often than when you drive?

I'm beginning to doubt whether the weather is even provably fair.

At least pirateat40's scheme was kind of slightly plausible if you didn't think too hard.

But this?

Nobody offers 20% interest per day.  Are you kidding me?

See https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm too.

That would be my guess.

There is a theory that the TrueCrypt developers were approached by a government body and forced to weaken the security of TrueCrypt, and also forced not to tell anyone about it.

And so this would be their way of them telling us about it without actually telling us.

The fact that they recommend we switch to a closed-source Microsoft solution is just laughable.  Their advice for Linux users is "search for some other package".

Something fishy is definitely going on.