I'm quite sure that if the mediators do their job properly, the probability of anyone willing to submit to mediation again is very very low. Explains why my lawyer always bungles about and wastes time. Efficient workers don't get to max out their hours!  |
|
|
|
Anyway... Ok... So how is Pinnacle, a fiat sports betting site that requires 1x roll over and that's as legit as they come fine and FJ that requires .5x roll over predatory? And 1x roll over is mostly industry standard for most bookies afaik. A 1x rollover is [not] less predatory than a 0.5x rollover: that is true. However, FortuneJack doesn't have just a 0.5x rollover. You have to place a bet with a minimum stake of 50% of your deposit. That is the predatory part, not the rollover. These types of rules may be linked to regulatory measures but it doesn't mean that the casinos don't milk them for all the players are willing to put up with - rollover on its own being a status quo ToS clause in casinos was bad enough. However, when we simply dismiss the scumminess with a "should have read ToS" comment then all that is happening is that the focus is being pushed not on the one enforcing unfair rules, but the one being subjected to them. |
|
|
|
Then they can just buy 1 merit or ask someone who they can deal with to get that merit and post shitty and scam links again. Still not going to solve the problem. It's a lot easier to create a fresh Newbie account for free than to pay someone for the merit. Not only will there be a financial cost to it but it will also cost a prospective scammer a large amount of effort in logistics and organizing the merit trades. Regardless, we already know that people have dropped from the forum en masse due to the merit update. Why would the same thing not happen to scammers when their easy "post link, get coins" method is suddenly released from under them?
I don't condone Newbie restrictions, though. Any more friction for member onboarding will only make the forum worse. |
|
|
|
|
Can you provide any evidence of these claims? Screenshots, account page, emails, etc.
It's always better to have more backing your scam accusation than to have just your written words. Interesting how these cases are starting to appear more often... or perhaps, just being reported more often?
|
|
|
|
Ask minerjones to handle shipping, he’s about as trustworthy as it gets on this forum. I'm sure minerjones would have a few choice words to say about my using of his reshipping services... always my default pick.  |
|
|
|
are games that are less chance-based and more skill-based I say this when it comes to advantage play: if the game state is not reset after each cycle and you are able to gather information significant to the game between cycles, then it is possible to lower the house edge of casino games. Poker does fall under this category, but so do Blackjack and Baccarat. Any card-based game that isn't shuffling the deck(s) after each round is potentially prone to AP. If, however, you are playing something like roulette where the state of the game is the same before and after each round * then you will always have to face the same house edge. *Yes, the rotation is different but the game is effectively the same and unchanged. |
|
|
|
Or maybe there is not enough interest for altcoin gambling?
I remember reading that there has to be a number of topics before a childboard is warranted. I checked the altcoin service announcement and there are about 3 pages about gambling or gaming. Is that enough? That is more than enough. The minimum requirement is about one page worth of topics, IIRC. It might even be half a page worth of content on the first page. |
|
|
|
|
If this guy is always on a VPN, running an "invisible" image off a hosted site to get the IP connection won't work. But, if they happen to be a little careless, then depending on the way you can contact him you could glean something from this.
Honestly, though, I don't have high hopes when it comes to these ransom attempts. If you give in, they will ask for more: the leverage is on their end and only increases every time they are paid. If this guy has these images, then they may as well already be in the public domain. Of course, the underage pictures are certainly illegal, but I don't think he will do something as stupid as post those to your friend's companies.
Maybe it's some obsessed creep, deluding themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
Any casino that allows altcoins as a deposit option but not Bitcoin as a deposit option is certainly a weird one. And casinos with bitcoin deposit options can post in the regular Gambling board. I personally don't like catering to the altcoin boards more than I have to since there is a constant stream of drivel and inanity from the users that plague the replies.
|
|
|
|
So is it either 2x play through OR 50% sports bet. Or is it 2x play though and 50% sports bet if you bet. From what you posted it's ambiguous. I did not actually go to the fortunejack site to check what it around it in terms of rules. Mostly because the SonicWall blocks gambling sites. I'm guessing it's in 8.1.0 or 8.1.3 since you posted 8.1.1 and 8.1.2.
If they are going to be scummy about the 50% bet I can see them being scummy about other things. I'm not seeing anything else. 8.1 which is where they start is merely the general withdrawal clause: 8.1. You are allowed to withdraw monetary funds accumulated on Your Account, including Your deposits and winnings, to Your other crypto-wallet account not held with the Company only if: a) You are a verified User, meaning that You have verified your email address and/or the phone number and/or complied with any other verification requirement established by the Company, from time to time, and b) You comply with the wagering requirement established by the Company. Wagering requirement means the amount of monetary value or number of times You need to make bets before You are allowed to withdraw all or part of your funds from Your Account to Your other crypto-wallet account (the “Wagering Requirement”). We establish different Wagering Requirements for different Gaming Services, in particular: And then follow the terms I've laid out. Though, when I was looking through the section, I did come across this as well: 8.6. The maximum amount that we shall be obliged to pay to You in respect of any single bet or spin, including any single bonus round or free spin, shall be limited to and in no event shall exceed the amount of crypto currency equivalent to EUR 300 000 (three hundred thousand) (the “Maximum Win Limit”). The Maximum Win Limit does not include any Jackpot winnings. You acknowledge and agree that for certain Gaming Services your approved staking level may mean that You may have the opportunity to win above the the Maximum Win Limit. Also, the amount of the total winning, including the amount above the Maximum Win Limit, may be deposited on Your Account. You acknowledge and agree that we shall have the right to cut the amount above the Maximum Win Limit from Your Account and pay to You only the Maximum Win Limit. Not including jackpot winnings? That's good. But... seeing the bet winnings, seeing the balance placed on your account, and then having them taken away from you? That's... not. |
|
|
|
Stupid question, are there still live tables in bitcoin for games like blackjack with a reasonable edge? Live is probably more interesting and if deck penetration is high enough you could test out strategies like card counting and such for fun... Reasonable edge? Yes. Countable? Yes. Waste of time? Yes. 8 deck 50% pen is actually garbage and you'll probably barely see a true count over 1.5 for most of your games. Good luck trying to turn a profit at those numbers. this new stragegy called d'alembert which has been winning me a lot recently, and its not as risky as martin gale. Betting systems don't work. Martingale may be shitty, but so is this d'Alembert strategy, and so too will be the other systems that hinge on modifying the bet amount after some event that is unrelated to the game itself. Unless you're actually analyzing the physical components of a game, any type of "strategy" is doomed with house edge. |
|
|
|
Seems strange.
I don't really bet on sports, so are they saying that I *have* to, or that if I do I have to bet 50% in one bet of my deposit. I assume that this is in regards to the sportsbook exclusively, but even if that is the case that's still completely unreasonable. It's basically forcing users to either deposit in multiple chunks or to increase their volatility and disregard bankroll management (which is better for the casino, as heightened betting volume does increase profits on a universal scale). That is just really odd. The only thing I can some up with and it's a stretch is that it has to do with some bonus thing, but other then that I have no idea.
Or is it an "OR" as in you can do this or that? What would the other part of the "OR" be? AFAICT, you either have to lose 2% of your deposit either through the first rule (i.e. dice, 1% edge, rolling until deposit is fully wagered twice) or the second (i.e. sportsbet juice at 50% of deposit accounts for >4% edge). |
|
|
|
A few days ago, I am filled survey for Sportsbet affiliate program. Today I receive email from them (affiliates @ sportsbet.io) and now I am not sure whether I won jersey. I think I have already given some information, now I am not sure whether they are just collecting more personal data. Maybe if you used a proxy service for shipping, but other than that I would not be one to happily give out that kind of information to just anyone for just a jersey. Seems like an underestimation of the value of your KYC information: data is a lot more important if you know how to use it, and you best bet that companies that collect your data will either use it or sell it to someone who will. |
|
|
|
I don't agree with it though, it's like the perfect crime: steal 1000 BTC now, wait until it's worth 10 times more, then pay back $10 million, and keep $90 million for yourself. Yeah, but what if, for example, you stole $10M worth of Bitconnect?  It's really one or the other. Neither choice is great and there is always an exception that will land you in a sticky situation: I guess we're just not smart enough to come to a satisfactory result that will satiate all people. If you don't ask you don't get. I just tell them that I'm allergic to bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
500 is fair. 100$.. Come on, are you betting 0.01$ per bet... this stops a lot of the rain farmers from PH. Yeah... assuming that you're just playing one of the originals, the most house edge that you're going to face is less than $15 in total losses (2.74% on Blue Samurai). If you wanted to minimize the cost of chatting you could even drop that down to less than $3 by playing Blackjack. The total wager amounts, people overestimate them way too much. You need to look the statistical loss by multiplying the house edge of your favored games with the requirements. |
|
|
|
Everyone were laughing on Ray Diallo when he said his famous phrase "cash is trash" on 2019 and they even laughed more when his hedge fund tanked 30% under water on early 2020 This makes sense. What, are we supposed to hold our laughter until the guy goes bankrupt or recovers? guess what, US stock markets are bullish again and on a stunning V-shaped recovery and Gold recently hit all time high and bitcoin of course in its way to break new price record. For now. Hindsight is always a funny thing, isn't it? You can use it to pretend like you were smarter in the moment than you actually were: if I went all-in on a 7/2 offsuit in poker and managed to flop a nut 4 of a kind, am I supposed to act like I did the right move? No. It was a stupid move. I just got lucky. |
|
|
|
I see a lot of talk about how it would be a security risk. Never mind that, it would be an annoyance risk! Do you know how much power it would be to allow people to not only post gifs, but now suddenly videos with audio?! Fuck all that noise. It's enough having stupid text that looks like this and people who can't properly quote when you get massive pyramids of: quoting |
|
|
|
|
I look at it as, "if they are spamming here, they aren't spamming elsewhere," and this is important for people who are patrolling users for spam. I found the bulk of my reports coming from the users that post in spam megathreads and it's usually extremely easy to pick them out: these accounts are far more likely to stick with their egregious one-liners and vague general/common knowledge posts than if you were to drop them in a Meta thread.
The problem isn't the threads: it's the people. And if you lock one thread, pretty soon another will start up to replace it. It's like a 50-thousand headed hydra, and all of the heads are hungry for bounties.
|
|
|
|
Here are the relevant rules that I stripped from FortuneJack's Terms of Service: 8.1.1. On Slots, Casino Games and Live Games Your deposit amount must be wagered, be turned over 2 (two) times;
8.1.2. On Sportsbook Services You have to make at least one bet with minimum stake of 50% of Your deposit amount (example: if Your deposit amount is equivalent to EUR 100, You have to bet minimum EUR 50 on any position You can select on Sportsbook Services); That second rule is insanely scummy: I have actually never seen anything like this before on any casino. Suppose someone deposits $2000, hoping to play with proper bankroll management with sports betting and instead they have to actually drop down $1000 on a bet. What kind of ridiculousness is that? It doesn't even stop any abuse: if someone really wanted to avoid that rule they would simply deposit in chunks, thereby making the minimum stake far lower. For example, depositing $100, 20 times. |
|
|
|
|
Clearly a scam. I would love to get anything over 1% on my ROE! Having it actually happen outside of a scam, though... let's just say that short of something extraordinary, it's not going to occur very often. Certainly not from a site that barely talks about what it does and writes 24/7 like a mathematics expression.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
