|
Dang! I was about to bet Draw or Away before I saw this thread... Didn't make any bet..
|
|
|
|
I think it usually happens when the deposit address is the not the first one in the output addresses in the txid. Not sure, but every time I send it like that to a site (except exchanges and wallets) things go wrong..
Hmm, that sounds really strange? Most wallets randomize the output positions (for privacy) of transactions, so any service that expects (or cares) about the position is probably written pretty wrong. My guess is that it's just a coincidence  lol, I am just guessing and most likely wrong.  I had made a deposit recently at DD, (months ago) at safedice, and it got delayed and had to be credited later. There are quite some occasions that happened. And I simply noted that in all these cases that thing is common. So, I just assumed.  |
|
|
|
My issue has finally been resolved. Thanks for eventually processing my deposit. My withdrawal was actually instant for once, so I'll likely be back.
Deposits do get slow sometimes. Mine did too. I think it usually happens when the deposit address is the not the first one in the output addresses in the txid. Not sure, but every time I send it like that to a site (except exchanges and wallets) things go wrong.. Glad that you are happy with DD.   |
|
|
|
I'm watching threads on the lending section today and I saw a lot of people getting a red trust in their profile immediately just because they asked a loan with a collateral that doesn't match up the amount. I just think people in here can talk first and clarify why he can't get a loan rather than giving a negative trust immediately without any warning.
Newbies can get the red tag, they deserve it specially when they can't provide any good reasons but members and up maybe they do deserve some warning first before jumping to the feedback button. If they didn't fix they wrongs then go ahead and give them what they deserve.
This is just my opinion. Does any one in here also about this?
i agree, what if the person genuinely doesn't know if their collateral amount is sufficient for the loan. they don't deserve the negative feedback. Exactly. But most just give them their share right after reading the post, and doesn't bother to remove them even if that was because he didn't know it at first. But, IMO, all of those who mentioned "Manyproofs" and "pro lender" deserve negative trust, but I don't think everyone got it. |
|
|
|
How do you think? I played betsoft single deck blackjack but the expected return is not high, I followed the basic strategy to play, so the expected return of single deck BJ should be 99.7%-99.8%(house edge lower than 0.3%)
Any guys have experience on betsoft BJ? Is it rigged? Cause we can't verify by ourselves, so I think they may be rigged, unless I won many btc in ONE hand so I will consider it is fair.
I don't think the BJ house edge is actually 0.2 to 0.3%. More like more than triple that. At least that is what I thought.. |
|
|
|
hehe. My guesses. --snip-- Reference: Guesses are unlimited sorry I should have stayed that.
Sorry guys had to go back to work but ndnhc theoretically won lol my number was 57 maby I will do this again but set rules a little differently.. Please put addy here. 3QpPvuk4LUYzDQgHt8zqZqCMugMNxg76W3 (only if you feel I should get this) You can use any one way hashing algorithm. Hash the number with random text. So say your number is 12, you can hash 12-lrj1k24cpr92urp2oqi4npq (save it somewhere, lol, you will need it to give this in the end) and provide the hash here, at the beginning of the round. Edit: Used Excel to get the numbers. Will do and just sent. Confirmed received. |
|
|
|
Yes, ndnhc won this round.
LOL congratz. btw what that lucky number It was 57. |
|
|
|
hehe. My guesses. --snip-- Reference: Guesses are unlimited sorry I should have stayed that.
Sorry guys had to go back to work but ndnhc theoretically won lol my number was 57 maby I will do this again but set rules a little differently.. Please put addy here. 3QpPvuk4LUYzDQgHt8zqZqCMugMNxg76W3 (only if you feel I should get this) You can use any one way hashing algorithm. Hash the number with random text. So say your number is 12, you can hash 12-lrj1k24cpr92urp2oqi4npq (save it somewhere, lol, you will need it to give this in the end) and provide the hash here, at the beginning of the round. Edit: Used Excel to get the numbers. |
|
|
|
uve won this i think, maybe like 99.99% winning chance More like some 70% (if that was an eligible entry) Many numbers are already taken, lol. |
|
|
|
hehe. My guesses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Reference: Guesses are unlimited sorry I should have stayed that.
|
|
|
|
What if I bet my entire wallet on this? Do I get a 99% refund if I lose? Will i get half of the profit? Then yes!!! LOL, I am fine with that. How much is the max I can bet so that you can cover it if I lose? Edit: You do know the risks right?  So if Netherlands wins (more likely to happen), ndnhc will get 15% profit, and if Netherlands doesn't win (less likely to happen), he will get just 1% loss? Sounds like a wonderful deal lol. Yes, lol. I do hope he gets the math if he was serious. Netherlands has the edge here, but I'd give only around 80% chance. If OP is willing we can switch to Draw no bet, with 7% profit (or 3.5% each). That way OP's risk will be very less, and no issues if it ended in a draw. |
|
|
|
Whether you played on one IP or on 300, it wouldn't have made a difference to your rolls. Why is that so hard to understand?
Then why did it keep blocking my IP when I was betting on 5 different accounts at the same time? How can I be gambling on 20 bots on PRC for over a month until he changed base bet, and I try the same thing on safedice and lose on 2 out of 5 bots in less than 30 minutes? That makes NO SENSE unless they somehow take in to account how many bots I'm using per IP. I feel like they implemented it this way to counter people like me trying to bet the same time on multiple accounts. Something screwed up I'm telling ya man I'm not stupid, ignorant , or crazy. Say I lost 50 times in a row, and the next bet was going to be a win if you were betting on one account. But say you were betting on 2 accounts at the same time, the next bet was definately a win, but the 2nd account win at 1 sat base, when it needed a higher bet to recover. So you get the win on account #2, and the next 10 bets are losses that will cause you to bust on account #1. The 2nd account took over the win that should have been a recovery bet for the 1st account. Why is this impossible to happen? It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not saying my rolls were rigged, I'm saying it won so much on other accounts, that it caused some accounts to hit improbable loss streaks. It took wins that should have been on the account that needed to recovery, and gave them to an account that didn't need the wins. I know for a fact this is the case, but w/e I don't know how to prove it without dissecting their source code. You can also look at it this way.... I busted on one account, and got small wins on another accounts that should have been big recovery wins for the account I busted on (wins on other accounts ruined my line for recovery)....... it never should have busted so fast regardless. I've been using 1 bot on safedice for a month now and hasnt even come CLOSE to busting like these did in less thn 30 min prob more like 15 min......... sorry bro but you are missing something. Mate, you got to understand that every single roll is completely independent. There is no correlation between any two rolls, any two accounts, any two rolls in any two accounts. I do think you have been extremely unlucky (because from what I know you got busted really fast). But your explanation is based on what is termed as gambler's fallacy. Wins on one account has no relation with wins on another account. (wins on other accounts ruined my line for recovery) is a comment which may seem right to you, but it is not. I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks |
|
|
|
32 12 94 73? |
|
|
|
I'm not a dice fan but I will suggest you to change your slogan. Where your dreams come true? What does a dice site have to do with others dream? Variable 0.01% ~ 1% House Edge or Low House Edge or Powered by MoneyPot sound way better.
Where dreams come true is quite good, lol. It is a possibility that a player wins every roll he makes, and it is a possibility that he could wipe out the entire bankroll (really really small, but still not impossible) of Moneypot. Cash out his Bitcoins, and he could have at least some of his dreams coming true. |
|
|
|
@tspacepilot
You're wrong about QS being Panters52 LOL
~BCX~
Sure? I do see something really common. (the attitudes and style in the least). There is, if true, a very good attempt to differentiate the posting style and IMO, it is a quite possible speculation. If they aren't the same guy, they most certainly got the same way of thinking. |
|
|
|
Excessive spam of smilies really can transform a professional comment into a degraded piece of junk. It just makes it look obnoxious and childish. If it's to poke fun at something, I would only say a maximum of 2-5 smilies per (long) paragraph. Maybe less than that.
Sure, I know. I know 2 guys here who posts smileys like that. Edit: that doesn't include me. |
|
|
|
What if I bet my entire wallet on this? Do I get a 99% refund if I lose? Will i get half of the profit? Then yes!!! LOL, I am fine with that. How much is the max I can bet so that you can cover it if I lose? Edit: You do know the risks right? |
|
|
|
What if I bet my entire wallet on this? Do I get a 99% refund if I lose? |
|
|
|
If anyone wants to watch a show, realhavok has made almost +30 BTC in the last hour, and still betting 1 BTC/round  OMG! 0.999 BTC bets! Edit: At a net loss now.  |
|
|
|
Yes, I noticed that. Everyone seems to be very keen to give negative trust to someone else around the lending board. I don't think anyone can do much about it. Probably mods should be able to moderate negative trust feedbacks? Not a good solution, imo, but worth considering. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
