@HolyDarkness is attacking and mocking me while having fun!
Hmm... must be fun to live in the world inside your head where you're always right and when someone pointed out that you're not, either ignore the fact [because you're always right, so you shouldn't address the matter where they show that you're not] like when you try to point out my "fun fact" that stake routinely scan this board, which I then show the full statement made by the rep herself, which prove that the "fun fact" is actually a, well, "fact", or, when an ADR refuse to mediate due to the lack of evidence, they're stupid.
Comparing CG to police is misleading... is it, though? Try to go to the police and accuse someone without concrete evidence, see if they'll take your case seriously. By "your concrete evidence", I believe we all [but you] understand that what you served them --if we compare to what you tried to serve to CG on your thread there, as well as here in those wall of text and numbers-- are not valid as a compelling prima facie because well, your understanding of how the system works is wrong, but then again, in the world you're living inside your head, you're the one who always right. Even three AI and other people are wrong.
"Fun fact": this phrase kept repeating in my head while I write this post, "off with his head!", I guess I know why, LOL.
If he would want to help online casino victims he wouldn't mock them and having fun while doing so!
What logic is this?
The number of nonsense hallucinators is bigger than the number of people who are able to understand how the casino collects the house edge (including you) and then he false and misleading claims that the nonsense hallucinators are right and I am wrong, because the number of nonsense hallucinators is the majority!
As I said, someone who is not able to understand how the house edge technically moves from the player balance to the casino balance is not qualified to offer online casino dispute mediation!
And certainly not someone who makes fun of online casino victims!
As @HolyDarkness loves to speak about "facts", how about speaking about the
fact that the experienced house or player edge is caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost?
You yourself confirmed it:
When the actual/experienced house edge or player edge considers the total wager and profit/loss, that means the actual/experienced house edge is determined by the total number of bets a player has won or lost, right?
You’re correct on this one, actual house edge is based on the total loss/profit on all players wager on the casino within a specific period. Casino doesn’t often display the live RTP to the public and just display the theoretical RTP.
And even if I was the only one here who informs about the
fact that the experienced house or player edge is caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost, then it is still a
fact, and everything claiming otherwise is hallucinated nonsense!
Go to a brick and mortar casino and make 100 bets a 10$:
A) The croupier doesn't reduce a house edge from every bet
B) After you have wagered 1,000$, the croupier also doesn't say that you have to give him now the house edge for the 1,000$ you have wagered
When you end the session, the total number of bets won is your experienced win or the total number of bets lost is your experienced loss, simple.
Now compare this
fact with @HolyDarkness's hallucinated "facts"!
Hallucination 1)Hmm... must be fun to live in the world inside your head where you're always right and when someone pointed out that you're not, either ignore the fact
Hallucinates that someone pointed out that the experienced house or player edge is not caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost!
Hallucinates the hallucinated nonsense that the experienced house or player edge is not caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost as a "fact"!
Hallucination 2)[because you're always right, so you shouldn't address the matter where they show that you're not]
Hallucinates that I am always right, while I am not, but in regard to how the casino collects the house edge I am indeed right!
Hallucinates that the nonsense hallucinators showed to me that the experienced house or player edge is not caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost!
Hallucination 3)like when you try to point out my "fun fact" that stake routinely scan this board, which I then show the full statement made by the rep herself, which prove that the "fun fact" is actually a, well, "fact",
Hallucinates that I tried to point out his "fun fact" (whatever that means?)!
Here is the post I made:
Some interesting info from @holydarkness
Info 1)Stake scans this board!
Though they barely address matters here, this board is routinely scanned by one of their representative who then forward the matter to their complaint team. So, quite likely, their team has been made aware of this thread. Hopefully, they can overturn what "can't be overturn" by their live support.
Info 2)If you did nothing wrong, Casino Guru will make a fair ruling Stake will follow!
Otherwise, as you've escalate to CG, and if you did nothing wrong, you can rest assured that CG will find and made a ruling that Stake's decision is unacordingly, and most likely than not, Stake will comply to CG's ruling.
Wait, Casino Guru closed my complaint about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack!
or, when an ADR refuse to mediate due to the lack of evidence, they're stupid.
Hallucinates that I didn't submit substantial and sufficient proof to Casino Guru that Stake's in-house Black Jack is rigged!
Only because someone doesn't know or isn't able to understand that the experienced house or player edge is caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost, doesn't mean there is a lack of evidence!
In such a case there is more likely a lack of intellect!
Hallucination 5)Try to go to the police and accuse someone without concrete evidence, see if they'll take your case seriously.
Repeats his hallucination that I didn't submit concrete evidence to Casino Guru, while in
fact I did!
Hallucination 6)By "your concrete evidence", I believe we all [but you] understand that what you served them --if we compare to what you tried to serve to CG on your thread there, as well as here in those wall of text and numbers-- are not valid as a compelling prima facie
Repeats his hallucination and additionally false and misleading pretends that "my concrete evidence" isn't valid as a compelling
prima facie, while in
fact it is!
Only because someone doesn't know or isn't able to understand that the experienced house or player edge is caused by the total number of bets a player has won or lost, doesn't mean "my concrete evidence" isn't compelling!
Hallucination 7)because well, your understanding of how the system works is wrong,
Hallucinates that my understanding of how the system works is wrong, while in
fact it is right!
Hallucination 8but then again, in the world you're living inside your head, you're the one who always right.
Repeats his hallucination that I am always right, while I am not, but in regard to how the casino collects the house edge I am indeed right!
Cut the dude some slack. He is doing this out of goodwill or as a volunteer.
Ah, so he is psychologically abusing online casino victims and stating a lot of hallucinated nonsense "out of goodwill"?
He tries to help where he can and where he can't, he clearly says he can't.
I didn't ask him to "help" me and he isn't qualified to offer online casino dispute mediation!
I see no reason why he should be answerable to you because he is no representative of the casino.
I also see no reason why he should be answerable to me, but he felt the necessity to do it, while not qualified!
