Your replies make no sense.

---

Timeline:

vareole: 0.122152 [21:29]
vareole: original address [21:29]
adriankendrick: is sending [21:34]
vareole: ok, let me know when its confirmed [21:35]
[varole edits the address at 21:36:25]
adriankendrick: Already 6 confirmations [21:36:34]
vareole: let me check [21:36:48]

---

How does this make any sense we consider the following facts and claims?

Claim: You sent him a BTC wallet.
Fact: You sent an address, the user responded that they were sending the transaction and you responded - a whole minute before the edit.
Claim: You sent him BTC wallet and edited the BTC wallet to your ETH wallet.
Fact: You edited the wallet before you wrote the message that you were checking.

If you noticed the address was wrong, why didn't you say so before you edited it?
If the address was a BTC address, then why didn't anyone notice? After all, 0.1 ETH is a magnitude of value below 0.1 BTC.

Just to toss in a sense of scale:

With any arbitrary starting balance, instead of wagering your balance about 26 times on average for it to deplete to 50% of the starting amount, the changed RTP would last you only 16 balance wagers. You're effectively playing an extra round of roulette for no additional benefit with the house edge increase.

---

If anyone is able to find the game-reported RTP on the actual slot, then that would add some more credence to your claim: the reason I say this is because (afaik) there is some customizability with RTP for certain casinos and games, and I'm not sure if that is the case here.

There's been a stir of activity as of late under the topic of gambling.

I'm not sure if this relates at all to the recent scam accusations or if something else is happening but evidently there are a number of users that love to say things without any links. Funnily enough, these users tend to involve themselves with another casino but any inference we draw from that is mere conjecture for now.

---

As far as I know, there's some minimum threshold for the bonuses. It differs based on the rank - if we wanted to do the math we could simply check the differences when we wager x amount in one period vs y in another, assuming the constant, and just looking at the rate of change.

One way or another, someone is going to get exploited. However, it's interesting that on top of the house edge, we have some unknown and arbitrary rules that can get your bets voided.

Let's not even consider the general case - let me grant you a structure for specific situations that you can try to unravel.

Team A vs. Team B.
Market: Money Line

Team A is better than Team B. Odds are offered at 1.9 to 1.9. You bet on Team A. Your bet is voided when they win because "the odds were not right."

How much better does Team A have to be compared to Team B for the void to be acceptable?

Team A is equal to Team B. Odds are offered at 1.8 to 2.2. You bet on Team B. Your bet is voided when they win because "the odds were not right."

How much do the odds have to differ from the 1:1 skill ratio for the void to be considered acceptable?

Here's the way a mass-account abuser would take advantage of the 14-day grace period:

Break rules until evil score starts to increase.
If your new wave of accounts is starting off with a very low evil score, just wait.
Break rules until evil score increases past 14-day grace period, or whatever arbitrary threshold you designate.

---

It would definitely help Newbies, but think about their position: do you really want to join a forum that locks you away for 14 days when you have no fucking idea what is going on?

Probably, due to the use of "unsecured" rather than "insecure", the user is referring to the unsaturated volume of certain lending markets thereby enabling them to generate a larger share of the profits.

This is being generous, of course, but I believe it would make sense syntactically.

There's some conspiracy about Royse777 match-fixing with the realscout account because they knew one another, etc.

It's just your typical blanket statement without evidence that users will sling out as rhetoric to persuade idiots or themselves of their points. Originally, I was open to the idea of egregious signature spammers who constantly repeat the same algorithmic, "ToS violation, you bad," argument since they don't like to read anything more than the title or a few sentences. There's still a possibility that some of the users tied into the whole problem are false positives, but the reality is that a lot of these have been marked with "hacked account" or having changed hands in some way and the accounts have recently gained a lot of activity in these very niche topics.

Some ISPs provide dynamic or rotating addresses, which could have resulted in a collision.

I would like to hear of a better solution to the evil score problem - how else do you ban mass waves of rule-breakers when they sign up? I would actually argue that the evil score system is incredibly generous as users can pay for those specific accounts to be unblocked and for the evil to be removed - typical permabans for IPs aren't usually that friendly.

A lot of these bets just happen to be logical, good ideas.

A quick question for users who are against this type of behavior: at what point are you allowed to bet on 'good odds'?
Are you only meant to take -ev options at casinos? Really think about what that entails: every bet of yours must be losing or else you are violating rules.

The main problem is with the fact that text files et al can be edited easily, after the fact.

If you can imagine a way for you to fake the details, then you can understand why it's difficult to verify the evidence without having direct access to anything.

Luckily, we have this wonderful archive for that single-line video post: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5610/56104623.html

Member posts.

They responded to this back on January 11th:

---

Follow the thread yourself and see what conclusions you draw.

Bold-faced lying.

---

I don't think there needs to be any more discussion, do you?

I can confirm that OP shared the details of the transaction and that the screenshots are legitimate.

In that case, what's this whole "I never dealed with you" nonsense? Are you sure you didn't write those messages? .

Ｉｎ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ， ｔｈｅ ｔｅｘｔ ｙｏｕ ｃｏｐｉｅｄ ｉｓ ｎｏ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｆｒｏｍ ｍｅ ｄｏｉｎｇ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｉｓ ｋｉｎｄ ｏｆ ｆｏｎｔ．

Sᴏᴍᴇ ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀs ᴀʀᴇ ʙʟᴏᴄᴋᴇᴅ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ғᴏʀᴜᴍ, sᴏ ɪᴛ ᴡᴏɴ'ᴛ ᴅɪsᴘʟᴀʏ ᴛʜᴇᴍ.

I believe this was to remove the effectiveness of using unicode confusables: examples here

I'll give you the archived links to where I sourced the data: they were compiled from Sportsbet.io's public list back when the event was takking place, but my question is what this has to do with AdkinsBet.

Thanks to all the random Sportsbet.io attention, I'm able to quote one of the posts where I admonish their ToS in the exact same way I admonish AdkinsBet's Terms and Conditions, something that is relevant to this thread:

---

If the next post is going to be another bad-faith deflection and unrelated to AdkinsBet, then I see no point in continuing the discussion about AdkinsBet as the topic would have shifted to that of useless bickering. I'm okay with that - trolls rarely get banned after all - but it's a question as to how long this charade will be kept up.

---

It took me about 5 minutes to take the archive and write "diff adkins_1 adkins_2". What does this have to do with the contents?

This is not about Sportsbet.io, though their terms are also shady as fuck.

Does this "what about Sportsbet.io" deflection have anything to do with AdkinsBet's terrible terms and conditions or are you just here to continue to toss shit in the fire and see what kind of anal sandwich you can mock up? I don't have the time to go through my posts and look at the anti-Sportsbet.io comments I've made but if you have the time to do all this sidebar investigation, then you should take up that opportunity.

---

Table the non-AdkinsBet discussion and let's focus on the facts.

Any autobuy link should be prefaced with some kind of disclaimer.

I would even just say that all non-bitcointalk URLs in the Marketplace child boards should have the landing page, with particular emphasis on how ranks don't equate to trust. I believe part of the factor is still that Newbies are unaware of two major differences in this forum: scams are not moderated, and rank titles mean nothing. Until this is displayed in bold letters when you sign into the forum or until there's something to lead people towards this realization, I don't think Newbie problems are going to end easily. A slew of new scam accusations popped up as well regarding off-site deals via external messaging channels - though users should know better - concerning that hole in knowledge and I'm sure that it's more prevalent in the cases that aren't publicized.

What if the user couldn't read those terms because they didn't exist before January 4th? I'm not even sure if they sent out an update - that they had changed the Terms and Conditions.

I think the idea of adding in a clause that is effectively a forced NDA is pretty bad. I also think that letting casinos add in clauses to retroactively apply on situations that last over multiple weeks is worse. If a bad actor wanted to do so, they could use changes in the terms to deny players withdrawals and use the ToS/TaC clauses as justification to do so: if they retaliate with any public ousting, they can claim they are following their image damage clause and justify the confiscation that way.

It effectively makes the casino the final judge, jury, and executioner: do you really want a casino to be able to do all that and automatically dismiss any accusation against them purely because they said so?

---

If you're still going to stick to your guns, then we should set up a poker match. I'm sure you would be very popular.

It's a shame because it would have been nice to know about the changes in your Terms and Conditions, especially when you changed them in such a way that lets you put a stranglehold on player funds and behavior. The bolded parts are important and show the avenue that a bad actor would take to exploit the clauses to their advantage.

< The use of a VPN / Proxy or other similar connection / technology is not allowed. The usage of a A VPN connection is only allowed if permission is granted individually by Adkinsbet. Therefore, the player should ask permission first. ^{Note: malicious entity would attempt to check for a VPN connection to deny funds in the event of a 'violation of their terms'.}
---
> The use of a VPN / Proxy or other similar connection / technology is not allowed to hide and manipulate your location. You are not allowed to mask, mislead or manipulate your actual location in your country in order to gain access to the site. It is allowed to use a VPN in certain circumstances, as long as you are in a country that allows online gambling.

< In the following conditions, your account may be closed by us, and will be viewed and evaluated individually by case. We reserve the right to suspend your account without notice, which will remain suspended until complete investigation of the matter. Adkinsbet remains the right to confiscate the funds if one of the terms will be violated. You commit to completely comply with all of Adkinsbet 's inquiries into such activities. We may opt to upload or close your account and confiscate the funds if one of the following conditions apply: ^{Note: malicious entity would simply use the confiscation clause to steal player funds.}
---
> In the following conditions, your account may be closed by us, and will be viewed and evaluated individually by case. We reserve the right to suspend your account without notice, which will remain suspended until complete investigation of the matter. You commit to completely comply with all of Adkinsbet 's inquiries into such activities. We may opt to upload or close your account if one of the following ap-plies:

< If a player causes image damage to the website (Any direct / indirect accusation through any possible communication channel (e.g. forum, Email, telephone or other communication channels). This could include spreading false information, false accusations and intentionally / repeatedly putting Adkinsbet in a negative daylight. ^{Note: completely new condition}
< If you attempt to open/use your customer account via a Proxy, VPN or similar service that masks identity of your actual location, or otherwise de-livers intentionally false or misleading details about your citizenship, place or residency, or other relevant personal data. If VPN is being used for betting or betting through a third party or on behalf of a third party using the website; or whether you are attempting to take undue advantage of the bets you have made. The usage of a A VPN connection is only allowed if permission is granted individually by Adkinsbet. Therefore, the player should ask permission first.
---
> If you attempt to use your customer account via a Proxy, VPN or similar service that masks or manipulates the identity of your actual location, or otherwise de-livers intentionally false or misleading details about your citizenship, place or residency, or other relevant personal data. If VPN is being used for betting or betting through a third party or on behalf of a third party using the website; or whether you are attempting to take undue advantage of the bets you have made. It is therefore critical for what purpose is using a Proxy or VPN. It is also possible that the user only uses this to optimize the connection. However, each user is responsible for the correct use of such connection, and it must comply with the conditions (i.e. do not use it to circumvent a jurisdiction where online gambling is prohibited).

< Each player's withdrawal will be individually reviewed and processed accordingly.
---
> Each player's withdrawal will be individually reviewed and processed accordingly. All withdrawals will be processed within 72 hours. ^{Note: malicious entity would use withdrawal delay to exhaust or prevent players from retrieving funds.}

< Terms and conditions last updated: 04 January 2020, 22:52 GMT+2
---
> Terms and conditions last updated: 29th October 2020, 13:52 GMT+2

---

How many conditions are you going to add to let you retroactively confiscate funds? If it's okay to do something like this, then I might as well run a casino that adds a "there will be must be a 50% reduction in your balance from when you deposit or else this is evidence of money laundering" clause one day. This image damage line is pretty bullshit.

At what point are players going to say, "wait a minute, isn't there too much power for the casino - how do we avoid oversight?"

Should we stop using provably fair verification if the casinos are definitely always trustworthy? Should we trust casinos simply because they claimed their innocence in scam accusation cases with their words?