It's funny to read through the early days of this thread with people attacking Micon for starting it, and noticing how many of them have since acquired "SCAMMER" tags, PatrickHarnett being merely the first to appear in the thread and start squawking.

The instructions, such as they are, say the odds of winning are proportional to the size of the fish.  So the tiny .1 fish attacking the 50 BTC fish has a very small chance of winning.  However, when the tiny fish wins, he wins 25 BTC, and when he loses, he loses .05.

1% goes to the house and it looks like 10% to someone else's fish if you click on that, so I'd click on the 0 fish to start.

There's currently a 6 BTC a 3 BTC and a bunch of little fish.

Why is there a nameless fish with 0 visible?  I thought they had to be .1 BTC to be visible.

Not seeing it.

Does choosing an "ally" fish as a referrer confer any advantage at all to the person doing it?  If not, why do it?

I'm fine now.  I just made a BTC7 deposit and cashed out.  Other than not being able to play there (and I should have checked the fine print first), I have no problem with the site.

Something I found frustrating, as a US player, was that the minimum deposit was ฿3.00 and the minimum withdrawal was ฿10.00.  Despite filling out my information as a US player, I was permitted to deposit.  I had planned on playing that up to ฿10.00 before withdrawing.  But then, I found I couldn't play on the site.

While I was able to deposit another ฿7.00 and cash out again, without fees, I didn't have that immediately available and it took a couple weeks to do it. 

While you do note this on your site, you really shouldn't accept deposits from players clearly in the United States if they won't be able to play and won't be able to cash out again without making another deposit.

Apologies if you've fixed this already.

Strange recent problem.  Any time I get disconnected with more than one table open, the site immediately locks when I reconnect.  I hear maybe two or three seconds of the sound effects if something is going on, but nothing moves.  I can't move the windows or click any buttons, although it brings up the menu if I click "Leave" to "Leave Table."

This means I'm basically locked out of the site until either I get blinded out of one of the tournaments, or get removed from one of the ring games for timing out.

This makes it basically impossible to play more than one table, and if I forget I have registered for the freeroll, the freeroll coming up locks me out of the tournament I paid to enter.

This happens on OS X and Ubuntu, on any of my computers, under Firefox, Safari, or Chrome, and does it even after I updated Flash.

It never did this before, now it does it all the time.

No, after being denied bail initially, the decision to deny him bail was overturned and he's been out since February.

It is increasingly appearing that the only violations of criminal law in this case were by the police and New Zealand government.

Martingaling works every time if you follow these simple rules:

1)  Have an infinite amount of money.
2)  Find a casino that has an infinite amount of money.
3)  Make sure the casino lets you bet an infinite amount.

Follow those simple rules and you're guaranteed to win every time.

Of course, if you have an infinite amount of money, one wonders why you're gambling in the first place, but there you go.

Unless you planned on being homeless until then, you'd be paying rent to someone else, which would cut into your saving up money.  Then, what you would be doing is called "self-insuring."  Considering the value of money deflates over time, you'd be losing money by sitting on it.

Nickname MistCat
Payment address at the casino 1Gi4KcV3rRUWdfLZQKGZVaYt4uz2d16Qej

The Kraken shit kind of made it moot to argue about whether his intentions might have been honorable on this other stuff, since Kraken was a brazen scam.  However, I think his earlier actions can certainly be judged in the light that a person who would perpetrate the Kraken scam was probably never trustworthy in the first place.

Whenever I see "glbse" I read it as "goatse."  Kind of appropriate, I guess.

That's just the effect of variance, though.  Martingale play increases variance.  However, the classic martingale still leaves the punter ahead only one bet per cycle (or else flat broke).  I don't see how this breaks the house one bet at a time.

Other martingale-related strategies like the so-called "reverse martingale" (doubling a roughly even money bet every time the punter wins rather than losing) might seriously increase the house risk of ruin, especially if the house allowed an unlimited range of bets, but why would the house allow that?

Similarly, it is possible to make martingaling considerably more difficult by only allowing bets in certain ranges.  For example, a house spreading blackjack might allow bets on one table from $100-500, bets on another table from $2000-10000, etc. but not allow easy doubling because those ranges aren't allowed.

I still believe the OP is misusing the phrase "house edge," since the house edge remains constant.

Martingaling increases the odds that the player will come out ahead (generally by a small amount) in any given session, but only at the cost of the occasional enormous loss.  I'd be interested in seeing a simulation that the classic martingale, if allowed, greatly increases the house risk of ruin, but it seems the house would have to allow an unrealistic range of bets for this to happen.

(Other tactics, such as the "reverse martingale," would I believe increase the house risk of ruin with a less absurd range of potential bets, but I'm just guessing on that.  I guess I have never been particularly concerned with the house's risk of ruin, since I'm usually focused on my own.)

Whatever caused the BTC to be returned to the incorrect address, it has now (I assume manually) been fixed.  Thank you.

Wouldn't this have noticeably spiked the price?

That is an odd contention.  Are you sure you aren't talking about risk of ruin?  The house edge on any particular bet should remain constant no matter what betting strategy a punter employs.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'd misread this section of the first post:


I'd thought .05 per line X 20 was a possible bet, and missed that the next line sets a hard limit on the total bet.