You usually are. In this case, reported refers to reporting posts to the forum moderation team, not the SEC.

Of your 9 reported posts, 8 were given a verdict by moderators and one wasn't. It didn't count for or against your accuracy.


If all 3 of them were reported recently, it could simply mean that no verdict has been given yet. I'm not sure how active the moderation team is with reports, but that is entirely possible.

In my opinion, it is much worse here than on other forums I've been on. The financial incentive gives people incentive to reply to things they have little to no genuine interest in, causing a particularly low quality of posts. On other forums, yes, there are many users who contribute little to the discussions they take part in, but at least their posts aren't driven by extrinsic incentives.

Just hit exactly 3 days, I guess I read a lot more than I post.

I feel this would have the inverse effect on the user being ignored, if their intention was to troll. Being ignored, to them, is a measure of success. Imagine you were in their shoes, being notified every time you pissed someone off enough to make them ignore you would be somewhat satisfying.

And yes, I strongly recommend that the mods ban BBmmBB. I believe his posts constitute spam, since they are so numerous and contribute nothing to the discussions he involves himself in.

I'm 99% sure you can trust him in this case. As you can see, Pierre is back to posting in French, which I doubt Candy would do simply to make it appear as if the account had been returned. Pierre clearly is back in control of his account, and Candy would have no reason to return it if he had not been repaid.

Is that the extent of your communication with him? Why did you send the account information before he even agreed to a price? You simply named a price and sent it, why would anyone ever pay $40 for a reddit account in the first place?

You'll need to add more context, information, and proof for this to be a proper accusation, no one even knows what you're talking about.

It is not possible to earn .001 from that faucet in the 2 ish hours that he needed this loan, hence the reason for asking for a loan.

I think it is unfair and premature to blame Stunna, who I assume you are referencing as the "filthy rich dice site owner". There are a few reasons for this:

1. While there is a large amount of evidence pointing to AK as the thief, it is not 100% certain yet, I think most people involved in this thread would agree to this.
2. AK gambled at more than just Primedice, more than one individual holds the remains of this "stolen money".
3. It is unclear how much of AK's gambling losses come from his own personal btc and from investor funds. It would be unreasonable to ask for all of the coins AK gambled away to be returned by casino owners, since not all of them were investor funds.
4. Had AK been extremely profitable with his gambling, as he was at one point, and had the truth that he had been gambling with investor funds been uncovered, I doubt there would have been calls to return these "stolen winnings" to Stunna or any casino owner. They took on a lot of risk when AK played against them, it is hardly fair to take away their profits, whatever the source.

That being said, if this link between AK and DN was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I could see some effort being made by casino owners to reimburse DN investors.

Honestly, I doubt the exact numbers will prove anything here. First, it is likely AK was not 100% invested in the DN bankroll, he could have gambled with coins that were actually his own, which were not accounted for in the DN bankroll. Also, AK would have had to be incredibly stupid to gamble away every last coin from the DN bankroll. I assume that after a certain point, AK realized the losses he had incurred were too large to recover from, if I had to take a wild guess, I would say this would be when 60-70% of the bankroll had been lost. At this point, he either did not have enough of his own funds to cover the losses and keep DN solvent, or he simply didn't want to take the hit himself, and decided to run. I doubt 100% of the coins were gambled away, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the future. I also don't think that it was his intention from the beginning to run, he simply fucked up and felt like it was the only choice. This would explain why some users have received refunds, he didn't want to screw people over, especially those he knew. This is all assuming AK is in fact dmf, and there is a fair amount of evidence to support this at the moment.

Honestly, I feel like a removal of the faucet would lead to more begging and complaining in chat. Without the faucet, other players are the only readily available source of free btc, so they will turn to them.

I think one way to address this problem would be to limit the faucet to accounts with <0 profit. It would cut down on the support emails by simply cutting down on the amount of people who have access to the faucet.

Unlike PD2, PD3 does not count faucet claims against your profit, so a new account would be allowed to use the faucet as much as they want until they cashout (or tip away the profits) for the first time. After this, however, they could only play with deposits, as their profit would be over 0. To access the faucet multiple times, which is the group who clogs up support with unnecessary emails, you would either need to lose the coins yourself or buy an account with negative profit. People who use the faucet solely to try and make the minimum cashout to gain a profit are unlikely to intentionally lose coins, since that would be counterproductive, leaving the faucet free for those who use it "normally". Once again, as with PD2, there is the issue of account selling, however, using this system, the house could never lose more to botters than the amount the accounts themselves had already lost to the house, leaving a sold account at worst as a 0 profit to the house, never negative. You also already mentioned that the motives for removing the faucet were not economic ones, but more related to customer service and the atmosphere of the chat, so this should not be a concern anyway. I doubt botters are going to be emailing support anyway, since they don't want to draw attention to themselves.

Finally, you claim that the faucet reduces the quality of the chat, while I believe the reverse to be true. Removing the faucet entirely would have a strong adverse affect on the chat, since it would cause people to beg from others much more, since other players would now be their only source of free btc.

This sounds pretty inconsistent with what you said earlier today about this site being a "long term investment":


I'm assuming something unforeseen came up recently that is prompting this sale, since it seemed like the site was just beginning to take off. Care to share or is it a private matter?

Just adding onto this, I think it would make sense for it to still include losses over .1 btc regardless of potential payout, which would include 1.012x losses. The wins might not be interesting, but the losses are. 

Any update on this? Stumbled across this thread and it seemed to stop abruptly.

 I wonder 

You have 19893 bets on Primedice. The likelihood of you getting a streak like that sometime in your roughly 20000 bets is 99.779%. Don't act so surprised, you were just unlucky to be betting high when it happened.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-tools/streak-calculator/

I would say you could easily silence all your critics by taking ForgottenPassword's suggestion:


Should be pretty easy for you to do, I doubt anyone will say you bought this account after that.

Aesthetically the first one looks nicer since it isn't stretched out like the second one.