Wonder how I missed this for a couple months.  Probably because I've been a lazy fuck reading stupid shit.  It isn't quite proving the twin primes conjectur but it's just a couple steps away.  I wish I hadn't been so fucking lazy at math and stopped after calculus.

I don't know, and I don't know.  It probably won't be a piece of shit in terms of actually immediately catching on fire or something, although it might be off spec somehow.  So far as I can tell, when they ship, they are not deliberately shipping bunk items. 

The problem with the "will they deliver" game is it's conceivable that if enough people panic and demand refunds, and the money isn't there, it could knock down the company.  Then the losers in the game will be those who didn't get a refund early.  If they eventually do get production up to capacity and ship regularly, the losers will be those who refunded.

That's assuming the shipments aren't SO late that the difficulty has increased to the point they will never turn a profit.  Currently, people getting their devices can probably expect some profit on them (at least if they didn't pay in BTC back before BTC went through the roof).

My favorite analogy explaining this is if you have seen the movie Rounders, the Matt Damon character is absolutely not who you want to emulate.  The true professional is the character Joey Knish played by John Turturro.  There are a lot of good scenes in this movie, with Ed Norton being a total degenerate and John Malkovic being a villain, but this is the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7NxEj4A1Cg

It's Joey Knish's advice.  He has previously discussed one of the main rules:  don't lend money to degenerates.  And then he follows his own advice.  This being a Hollywood movie, Matt Damon's character completely ignores it and somehow survives this bullshit.

Actually, it always feels like you're getting the short end of the stick, losing to ridiculous bad luck, and getting shafted by absolutely ludicrous horrific streaks.  Then usually you tally it up at the end of the month and it's about where it should be.  But yes, you lose eventually, and more often sooner than later. 

The issue is not whether you lose sometimes, because you will.  The issue is whether, on net, your gains exceed your losses.  If over the long run, they don't, you're doing it wrong.

Actually, you should bet less, or have a larger bankroll.  That bet looks to me like a Kelly Criterion bet, or more like a half-Kelly.  This bankroll maximizing strategy might be okay if you can replace that $10K if you lose it, but if you're actually a "professional," you have to make your monthly nut (rent food casino expenses) and if your bankroll takes too big a dent, you're going to have to go get a real job.

This is an okay strategy if you're starting out with $10K that you hope to turn into a real bankroll, and where it won't be a tragedy if you lose all of it or at least a large chunk of it.  Even with half-Kelly betting, you are going to run into runs of horrific luck from time to time.

Probably not a great idea to leave a forum that merely contains scammers to a forum actually run by scammers.

Also note:  many "poker pros," even some "names" you see on TV, are more proficient at borrowing money and not paying it back than they are at playing poker.  There are also the ones who aren't outright degenerates are good at negotiating backing deals that are favorable to them.  (The former, of course, is degenerate while the latter is sharp dealing, an admirable trait for a poker player.)

But the variance being as insane for large-field high buy-in tournaments as it is, anyone who plays in them regularly who is not bankrolled for them (that is is not a multi-millionaire already) and who does not lower variance by a variety of means including backing deals, is a fool, not a professional.

There are a lot of smart or even semi-smart people who can find some mathematical edges here and there in casinos or in poker who would still be insane to be a "professional gambler."  While these kind of math chops are necessary to do it, there are much more important also necessary factors.  The proper temperament is of the utmost importance.  That is probably the single biggest leak for "professionals," whether actual or self-declared.  Many otherwise excellent players are brought down by substance abuse problems, getting scammed by degenerates, and not really ironically, gambling itself.

For instance, Stu Ungar, commonly regarded as one of the best if not the best no-limit holdem tournament players of all time, gambled away millions of his winnings on sports betting (where he was a terrible fish) and snorted up much of the rest, ending up dead young and broke.

I hope relatively smart people will see that Bitcointalk, the scammy forum that allows scammers, spammers and thieves to run rampant, is not Bitcoin, the currency.

This guy definitely needs to be sued.  BFL should break out some more of that preorder money to pay some shyster to do it.

And as for dice manipulation, that is generally considered cheating.  Cheating is against the law, and can get you arrested.  There are probably still a few places it could get you worse.

The most important thing for long-term gambling as an income-generating activity (and I would not recommend it except to very few people), other than a game where you actually have an edge over the house or (more commonly) other players is a bankroll that can withstand the sustained losing streaks even an overall winning player will suffer.

Unless you have the discipline to maintain a positive attitude and continue to play well in the face of days, weeks, or even months of suboptimal results, it is not for you.

It's still possible to make some relatively decent hobby income without going "pro," and in this case, where you have a real income in addition to poker winnings (or whatever), you don't have to depend on it and can take it or leave it.  The days of giant deposit bonuses that clear quickly and super easy fields even a half-decent player can beat to death are long gone and especially if you are in the "Land of the Free," many of the operations still doing business for U.S. players are dodgy in the extreme (Lock Poker I am looking at you).

Obviously, if you're talking about pure gambling like Satoshi Dice and most of the non-poker Bitcoin options, there probably isn't enough of that for very many people to make a living on it, and you will never win in the long run on negative expected value games.

Seriously?  Any first year contracts textbook, or any copy of the UCC.  

Contract requires offer and acceptance.  The offer is when the customer proffers payment (not as some think when the seller advertises).  By accepting payment in return for shipment, then keeping the money (and sending a receipt saying what the seller has sold), the seller accepts that offer.  That is a contract.  All a contract is at its core is an agreement to do one thing in return for another.  The difficulty is not establishing breach of contract, but actual damages.  Just a broken contract by itself doesn't entitle you to damages.  You would have to show you are somehow in a worse position than you would be in had the contract been carried out, i.e., you would have otherwise had an Avalon by now and have made whatever amount of money, and this is somehow BFL's fault.

BFL did not just make the initial contract either.  They continued to make false assurances as to delivery time and even made people agree to further conditions (in return for nothing) just to stay in the queue.  Even if they hadn't originally established a binding contract, and could have probably backed out early on with little to no consequences, just sitting on people's money for in many cases over a year while jerking them around is just not legal.

Even if, somehow, taking money in return for an agreement to deliver a product didn't establish a contract (and if you think that what planet are you on exactly?), consumer fraud and mail order laws have a lot more stringent rules than plain old contract or UCC.  Things like triple damages provisions in some states, like New Jersey.

I can see why people wouldn't want to pursue these avenues, because they just aren't going to be profitable, and if you've been waiting around for over a year for your product and actually still want it, why would you drive the company out of business just when it's actually starting to deliver?  But it's not legal, it's not kosher, and it's a major league dick move in every sense of the word.

It's a brilliant technique, pioneered by such business marvels as pirateat40.  He fired all his customers, to great success.

BFL knows better.

From the BFL Guide to Handle Online Reputation
Tip for July 19, 2013
Troll up a Storm

Find the biggest douchebag you can, preferably sleeping off a bender on Skid Row.  Hire him and put him behind a keyboard as your main PR guy.  

Very responsive admin and has never taken me more than a few hours.

Once accidentally sent me a $1,000 MP when I'd just purchased a $30 one.  Since I'm not a thief, I didn't cash it in, but the guy actually sent me a $180 MP instead.  So far as I can tell, this site is completely legit.

Satoshi Buckets.  Satoshi Buckets.

Did anyone even try saying that name out loud before naming a game that?  Good Christ.

How I Turned A Tiny Penis into a Boring Fucking Post!

What kind of "company" actually uses a flat-out troll as a "PR" representative?  Seriously, doesn't this series of shitposts from Josh Zerlan, the bullshido troll otherwise known as "Inaba," speak for itself?  Name a single legitimate company that would have this diseased freak as a public representative.

Yep, he suckered me in once or twice but goes on ignore now. 

Successful troll is successful.

Well, STFU suggests itself as a potential future course of action for you and similar martingale retards.