DADICE : exposing investors to more risk than their kelly, misleading informatio

[dooglus]

Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

https://i.imgur.com/DlsD39M.png

That shows someone betting 9 BTC at 2x and profiting by 9 BTC. That is within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The bet that leen is complaining about is where someone profited by almost 20 BTC. That is not within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The way you publicly attacked one of your private investors in that post makes you look very unprofessional, and the fact that you don't even seem to understand the error that he is complaining about also doesn't help your image here.

Edit:

Yes, the official comment is you just got played by a greedy, whiny and manipulative fellow of yours. Because there is no reality to what she said above, here is the piece from actual converstaion:

https://i.imgur.com/P43NBjC.png

There is a big difference between actual conversation and how she clearly lied to mislead and create a FUD. And this is not the first time leen has shown us how shallow and digusting she can be.

Well, leen asked you what would happen if someone won a lot, and you replied that "we will pay as much as we can". While that isn't exactly the same words as "we will not pay him the won amount", it does appear to have the same meaning. leen paraphrased you, without changing the meaning.

If you had said "we will pay them in full, of course, because we only offer bets we can afford to pay out as we are not scammers" and leen reported you as having said something different then I can see your point. But that isn't what happened.

The reason you have a crowd-sourced bankroll and investors choosing how much to risk per roll is so that you don't get into this kind of situation. You only allow bets that you are bankrolled to allow. This isn't rocket science. What you should do here is make things right. Fix your code. Repay the investors you have effectively stolen from. And fix your reputation.

Edit2:

yes, and a 9 btc win shouldn't be a problem with a 1000 btc adjusted bankroll, a 19 btc win is

9 BTC is your roll, payout is 18 BTC.

But payout doesn't matter. When deciding on what max bets you're bankrolled to accept it's the player's profit that matters, not the total payout.

Every casino has a bankroll, we have shown ours, it was the very next message where I reminded you of our bankroll. We will pay as much as we can, that's the bankroll right there. If we are out, we will declare bankruptcy like every other casino works.

Jesus man, do your research. That isn't how most of them work. When you're dealing with investor funds and claiming to use the Kelly criterion, you should use the Kelly criterion and not just have a flat rate maximum payout of 20 BTC.

At Just-Dice, we guarantee that all winning bets will be paid out. There is no chance that any player can win more than the bankroll. That is because the maximum profit per bet is a fraction of the bankroll. How can you be operating in this space and yet fail to have even a basic understanding of how it works?

Edit3:

The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

That post is me complaining that your maximum payout is too high. The fact that you still didn't fix that isn't a point in your favour.

I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this

If you would like me to take a look at your investment feature I would be willing to. But there is no way I am ever going to invest my own funds with you. You can make me an account and lock it from betting or withdrawing if you like so I can take a look but if you think I would send you coins after everything I've seen from you, you're mistaken.

[dadice_dev]

We didn't attack leen in anyway, we just expose her lies and the fact that she was totally aware of effective MAX. PAYOUT on site for months. Decision to provide 20 BTC max. payout is totally a commercial one. There cannot be a better answer for such of a hypothetical question, "We will pay as much as we can!" ... "also thing to note is that we over 500+ btc of our own in bankroll". The phrase never means in any way that we will NOT pay people. We have paid leen, we will continue to pay everyone! If some one wins 100x 20 BTC, we will either have to arrange more or declare bankruptcy in given circumstances? Could there be a more reasonable answer to this?

Anyway, both of the issues were discussed in past, leen was totally aware of the MAX. PAYOUT on da dice so the entire accusation is null and void.

Jesus man, do your research. That isn't how most of them work. When you're dealing with investor funds and claiming to use the Kelly criterion, you should use the Kelly criterion and not just have a flat rate maximum payout of 20 BTC as it is also written in FAQ.

At Just-Dice, we guarantee that all winning bets will be paid out. There is no chance that any player can win more than the bankroll. That is because the maximum profit per bet is a fraction of the bankroll. How can you be operating in this space and yet fail to have even a basic understanding of how it works?

Personally I agree that it should be based on bank roll but as I have suggested before this is a commercial decision not technical. And we do not need advices when it comes to commercial decisions, including but not limited to how we pay for signature campaigns, other events and everything. We may change this in future, right now, how are we going to pay is none of your concerns.

With everytime you say investors, I take it as you meant to write "private investors" and I don't see any one else except leen complaining here because all of them are aware of 20 BTC max. payout and still have their investments with us. And as @dadice has perviously and very generously offered any of our private investor who wants to quit will be divested to the point prior to that particular roll except leen (for her not acting in good faith).

Thank you for your kind interest!

[SebastianJu]

Well not disclosing their cold storage is a pretty good indication that they are not trustworthy. If they are going to lie about how much money they are holding on their investor's behalf, then why do you think they would otherwise act honestly?

You are right that they messed up big time on that bet, assuming it was in fact a mistake (which I honestly doubt).

Why should they disclose this information? What about the investors who dont want to be identified? Should DaDice Just disregard them and make their information public?

At least dadice now explained that in fact every investor knows where his investment lies on a cold wallet storage. At least investors have some safety then. But in investors shoes i think the investors made a stupid decision to prevent dadice from making the cold wallet public. The investors had to knew that this will hurt their investment, which it most probably did.

If an investor was stupid enough to leave behind traces about who he was then the simple solution would have been to tunnel the funds through a mixer or exchanges shared wallet and make a fresh cold wallet that can be shown. Problem solved, danger for dadice avoided. Didnt happen... investors fault... investors loss.

Im not sure about what to think about the kelly criterion. The page is easily found through google. And it seems the page was online since july 4th. And yes, it states a max 1 kelly: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T7p9rI3jE1IJ:https://www.dadice.com/print%3Finvestments+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

Its in fact insane to not use 1% kelly. The risk of the house being considerably damaged is very high. Recovering would be hard when the right person only has a good portion of luck. Even 1% proved to be risky like dooglus experienced with old bitcoin just-dice.

So leen, you suffered 2BTC loss and you demand a 3 btc punishment on top. Hm... dont know what to say about the last part. You say your investment went down 29%. Does this mean your investment was around 6BTC? The won amount was 19.8Bitcoin, which matches the 20Bitcoin max profit. But when your investment went down 29% when a player won 19.8Bitcoins, and you invested with a max kelly of 10 then the house must be relatively small, isnt it?

Funny thing is... the winner probably bet only faucet money.

@dadice_dev did leen sign something or check a checkbox that she know there is a 20btc max? When i would have read that and read the 1% kelly rule then i would assume that the 20btc only is in effect when 1% is more than 20btc, but not that it puts kelly out of effect. So was there some rules an investor had to say yes to?

[dadice]

Astonishingly, you didn't have this problem when your investments made some profit nor you had this problem when you won a 18 BTC in a single roll yourself.

https://i.imgur.com/DlsD39M.png

That shows someone betting 9 BTC at 2x and profiting by 9 BTC. That is within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The bet that leen is complaining about is where someone profited by almost 20 BTC. That is not within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The way you publicly attacked one of your private investors in that post makes you look very unprofessional, and the fact that you don't even seem to understand the error that he is complaining about also doesn't help your image here.

Edit:

Yes, the official comment is you just got played by a greedy, whiny and manipulative fellow of yours. Because there is no reality to what she said above, here is the piece from actual converstaion:

https://i.imgur.com/P43NBjC.png

There is a big difference between actual conversation and how she clearly lied to mislead and create a FUD. And this is not the first time leen has shown us how shallow and digusting she can be.

Well, leen asked you what would happen if someone won a lot, and you replied that "we will pay as much as we can". While that isn't exactly the same words as "we will not pay him the won amount", it does appear to have the same meaning. leen paraphrased you, without changing the meaning.

If you had said "we will pay them in full, of course, because we only offer bets we can afford to pay out as we are not scammers" and leen reported you as having said something different then I can see your point. But that isn't what happened.

The reason you have a crowd-sourced bankroll and investors choosing how much to risk per roll is so that you don't get into this kind of situation. You only allow bets that you are bankrolled to allow. This isn't rocket science. What you should do here is make things right. Fix your code. Repay the investors you have effectively stolen from. And fix your reputation.

Edit2:

yes, and a 9 btc win shouldn't be a problem with a 1000 btc adjusted bankroll, a 19 btc win is

9 BTC is your roll, payout is 18 BTC.

But payout doesn't matter. When deciding on what max bets you're bankrolled to accept it's the player's profit that matters, not the total payout.

Every casino has a bankroll, we have shown ours, it was the very next message where I reminded you of our bankroll. We will pay as much as we can, that's the bankroll right there. If we are out, we will declare bankruptcy like every other casino works.

Jesus man, do your research. That isn't how most of them work. When you're dealing with investor funds and claiming to use the Kelly criterion, you should use the Kelly criterion and not just have a flat rate maximum payout of 20 BTC.

At Just-Dice, we guarantee that all winning bets will be paid out. There is no chance that any player can win more than the bankroll. That is because the maximum profit per bet is a fraction of the bankroll. How can you be operating in this space and yet fail to have even a basic understanding of how it works?

Edit3:

The maximum payout at dadice has always been 20 BTC from the very first day. Dooglus himself acknowledged this and even made his fair criticism on it:

Ref.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671

That post is me complaining that your maximum payout is too high. The fact that you still didn't fix that isn't a point in your favour.

I welcome dooglus to invest in our private bankroll and make all the tests he might want to confirm this

If you would like me to take a look at your investment feature I would be willing to. But there is, no way I am ever going to invest my own funds with you. You can make me an account and lock it from betting or withdrawing if you like so I can take a look but if you think I would send you coins after everything I've seen from you, you're mistaken.

Well that was all not an issue before, when she (he) invested under the same conditions but was in profit. Dooglus as said before, we haven't changed our conditions since the start. And leen was aware of those conditions. That is the point, so we don't have to write long stories here.

Secondly, she attacked us publicly in the first place, since this time it doesn't go her way. Can't you see that, what kind of liar this person is. Want more evidence that she is even lying about her sex. I can post it here! Wondering if you would call this "paraphrased" as well

[dadice]

Well not disclosing their cold storage is a pretty good indication that they are not trustworthy. If they are going to lie about how much money they are holding on their investor's behalf, then why do you think they would otherwise act honestly?

You are right that they messed up big time on that bet, assuming it was in fact a mistake (which I honestly doubt).

Why should they disclose this information? What about the investors who dont want to be identified? Should DaDice Just disregard them and make their information public?

At least dadice now explained that in fact every investor knows where his investment lies on a cold wallet storage. At least investors have some safety then. But in investors shoes i think the investors made a stupid decision to prevent dadice from making the cold wallet public. The investors had to knew that this will hurt their investment, which it most probably did.

If an investor was stupid enough to leave behind traces about who he was then the simple solution would have been to tunnel the funds through a mixer or exchanges shared wallet and make a fresh cold wallet that can be shown. Problem solved, danger for dadice avoided. Didnt happen... investors fault... investors loss.

Im not sure about what to think about the kelly criterion. The page is easily found through google. And it seems the page was online since july 4th. And yes, it states a max 1 kelly: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T7p9rI3jE1IJ:https://www.dadice.com/print%3Finvestments+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

Its in fact insane to not use 1% kelly. The risk of the house being considerably damaged is very high. Recovering would be hard when the right person only has a good portion of luck. Even 1% proved to be risky like dooglus experienced with old bitcoin just-dice.

So leen, you suffered 2BTC loss and you demand a 3 btc punishment on top. Hm... dont know what to say about the last part. You say your investment went down 29%. Does this mean your investment was around 6BTC? The won amount was 19.8Bitcoin, which matches the 20Bitcoin max profit. But when your investment went down 29% when a player won 19.8Bitcoins, and you invested with a max kelly of 10 then the house must be relatively small, isnt it?

Funny thing is... the winner probably bet only faucet money.

@dadice_dev did leen sign something or check a checkbox that she know there is a 20btc max? When i would have read that and read the 1% kelly rule then i would assume that the 20btc only is in effect when 1% is more than 20btc, but not that it puts kelly out of effect. So was there some rules an investor had to say yes to?

Yes, she was fully aware of it, she invested since March with us, lost with some investments before (so she could have take notice) but never complained. At the end she made more money with her previous investments than she lost.

[Keyser Soze]

It seems the me that the "Kelly" option for private investors is not really based on Kelly Criterion, but is actually just leverage. If an investor has 10x Kelly, then it should not be possible to lose more than 10% of their investment in a single bet. If a 10x Kelly investor can lose 29% of their investment in a single bet, then the site is exposing the investor to more risk then they wanted.

[dooglus]

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

[...] The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface [...]

The problem is that you appear to be offering investing based on the Kelly criterion, but aren't.

Nobody needs "the manual" to know about Kelly betting - it is a well known strategy.

It appears that what you are offering is nothing to do with the Kelly criterion. Rather, you're recklessly risking too much of your investors' funds per bet, while claiming to be using "Kelly".

If you were using "Kelly system", you wouldn't even have a "max. payout". You would have a "max. profit". And it would be way lower than 20 BTC.

You should stop this deceptive practice and repay the investors who lost out as a result of this deception and/or incompetence.

[dadice]

It seems the me that the "Kelly" option for private investors is not really based on Kelly Criterion, but is actually just leverage. If an investor has 10x Kelly, then it should not be possible to lose more than 10% of their investment in a single bet. If a 10x Kelly investor can lose 29% of their investment in a single bet, then the site is exposing the investor to more risk then they wanted.

Here is more information from our removed investors manual:

Kelly 1 is like a straight investment. Let us assume that there is no bankroll and you invest 10 btc. This will make your investment 100% of the bankroll, and you will get 100% of the house edge, in case the player loses. If a player wins, the amount they win will be deducted in full.

Kelly 0.5 halves your risk thus you invest 10btc but the total bankroll (if there are no other investors) is now only 5 BTC. Accordingly you profits and losses are less.

Kelly 2 you would invest 10 BTC. Thus you would create a bankroll of 20 btc in total, but since you have invested only 10 BTC, your risk level has since doubled, but then again so have your profits, if players are losing.

Therefor the higher the Kelly level is, the more risk you are taking.

[dooglus]

We have started with 20 BTC max. payout for a "reason", and commercially we are doing good. This issue has been discussed before:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973765.msg11441671#msg11441671 so there is no need for us to answer it again and repeat same things over and over again.

That wasn't a discussion. That was me telling you that your actions were irresponsible, and you ignoring me.

Does that count as a discussion where you're from?

[dadice]

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

[...] The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface [...]

The problem is that you appear to be offering investing based on the Kelly criterion, but aren't.

Nobody needs "the manual" to know about Kelly betting - it is a well known strategy.

It appears that what you are offering is nothing to do with the Kelly criterion. Rather, you're recklessly risking too much of your investors' funds per bet, while claiming to be using "Kelly".

If you were using "Kelly system", you wouldn't even have a "max. payout". You would have a "max. profit". And it would be way lower than 20 BTC.

You should stop this deceptive practice and repay the investors who lost out as a result of this deception and/or incompetence.

On a risk profit base, yes, Read my post above.

[Keyser Soze]

It seems the me that the "Kelly" option for private investors is not really based on Kelly Criterion, but is actually just leverage. If an investor has 10x Kelly, then it should not be possible to lose more than 10% of their investment in a single bet. If a 10x Kelly investor can lose 29% of their investment in a single bet, then the site is exposing the investor to more risk then they wanted.

Here is more information from our removed investors manual:

Kelly 1 is like a straight investment. Let us assume that there is no bankroll and you invest 10 btc. This will make your investment 100% of the bankroll, and you will get 100% of the house edge, in case the player loses. If a player wins, the amount they win will be deducted in full.

Kelly 0.5 halves your risk thus you invest 10btc but the total bankroll (if there are no other investors) is now only 5 BTC. Accordingly you profits and losses are less.

Kelly 2 you would invest 10 BTC. Thus you would create a bankroll of 20 btc in total, but since you have invested only 10 BTC, your risk level has since doubled, but then again so have your profits, if players are losing.

Therefor the higher the Kelly level is, the more risk you are taking.

You should call it leverage then since that what you are offering. What you are offering investors is not based on Kelly Criterion and it is misleading to call it "Kelly".

[dadice]

The purpose of the manual was to make people understand how Kelly system really works, in simpler terms, if you place 1 BTC investment on 10x Kelly, Your investments will increase site's bankroll by 10 BTC. Which means you are risking 10 times of what you could have been risking on Kelly 1 but you also gain profit accordingly.

So the manual's main purpose was to help people understand how Kelly system work. The effective max. payout at dadice is and has always been 20 BTC as mentioned in our FAQ (which is credible resource since its still linked in interface).

[...] The entire accusation is based on a misleading manual which is not even linked on our interface [...]

The problem is that you appear to be offering investing based on the Kelly criterion, but aren't.

Nobody needs "the manual" to know about Kelly betting - it is a well known strategy.

It appears that what you are offering is nothing to do with the Kelly criterion. Rather, you're recklessly risking too much of your investors' funds per bet, while claiming to be using "Kelly".

If you were using "Kelly system", you wouldn't even have a "max. payout". You would have a "max. profit". And it would be way lower than 20 BTC.

You should stop this deceptive practice and repay the investors who lost out as a result of this deception and/or incompetence.

Well, you knew this all before. Why haven't you pointed it our before -- when you mentioned our 20 btc max payouts ? Taking opportunities here?

[dooglus]

Isn't 10 kelly actually 10 times of your investment? how much did you invest? If you invest 5, you were contributing and risking 50 BTC to bankroll. am I wrong?

Yes, you're clearly wrong. How can you risk 50 BTC when you only deposit 5 BTC? That would leave you owing the site 45 BTC if you lost the amount you were risking.

Here's how it works:

The house edge is 1%, and so the Kelly criterion tells you that it is optimal to risk 1% of your bankroll per bet.

When you opt to risk 10 times the amount that the Kelly criterion tells you to risk you are risking 10% of your bankroll per bet.

That's all. It's really simple.

So if leen invested 5 BTC at 1x Kelly, the risk is 0.05 BTC per bet (1% of 5 BTC).
And investing 5 BTC at 10x Kelly would mean a risk of 0.5 BTC per bet (10% of 5 BTC).

There is no way to risk 29% of your bankroll per bet when the maximum multiplier on offer is 10x.

This is all pretty basic stuff.

[dadice]

Isn't 10 kelly actually 10 times of your investment? how much did you invest? If you invest 5, you were contributing and risking 50 BTC to bankroll. am I wrong?

Yes, you're clearly wrong. How can you risk 50 BTC when you only deposit 5 BTC? That would leave you owing the site 45 BTC if you lost the amount you were risking.

Here's how it works:

The house edge is 1%, and so the Kelly criterion tells you that it is optimal to risk 1% of your bankroll per bet.

When you opt to risk 10 times the amount that the Kelly criterion tells you to risk you are risking 10% of your bankroll per bet.

That's all. It's really simple.

So if leen invested 5 BTC at 1x Kelly, the risk is 0.05 BTC per bet (1% of 5 BTC).
And investing 5 BTC at 10x Kelly would mean a risk of 0.5 BTC per bet (10% of 5 BTC).

There is no way to risk 29% of your bankroll per bet when the maximum multiplier on offer is 10x.

This is all pretty basic stuff.

Well, then read our manual, that was accepted by leen. I repeat it again:

Here is more information from our removed investors manual:

Kelly 1 is like a straight investment. Let us assume that there is no bankroll and you invest 10 btc. This will make your investment 100% of the bankroll, and you will get 100% of the house edge, in case the player loses. If a player wins, the amount they win will be deducted in full.

Kelly 0.5 halves your risk thus you invest 10btc but the total bankroll (if there are no other investors) is now only 5 BTC. Accordingly you profits and losses are less.

Kelly 2 you would invest 10 BTC. Thus you would create a bankroll of 20 btc in total, but since you have invested only 10 BTC, your risk level has since doubled, but then again so have your profits, if players are losing.

Therefor the higher the Kelly level is, the more risk you are taking.

[dooglus]

Well after reading entire thread, its very clear to me that leen is only trying to recover her losses but this is gambling when you go as much as 10x kelly, that is a huge risk to take for some profit. You shouldn't have invested in first place if you cannot afford to lose.

leen signed up for 10x Kelly but was unknowingly given 29x Kelly. That's unacceptable.

And regarding QS, bodgy, etc... why these guys are everywhere where they get chance to abuse Da Dice. Especially this bodgy person seriously intrigues me.

It looks to me like they are everywhere that scams are happening. I see QS tackling all kinds of scammers, not only DaDice. And if you read bodgy's words you will see that he makes a lot of sense.

Most recently he's pointing out that DaDice openly admitted that they are offering bets that they can't afford to pay out, and that if anyone is "lucky" enough to win a lot they will maybe have to declare bankruptcy. Why don't they mention that in the signature spam they pay people to display? "DaDice : we probably can't afford to pay you if you win!"

[dadice]

Well after reading entire thread, its very clear to me that leen is only trying to recover her losses but this is gambling when you go as much as 10x kelly, that is a huge risk to take for some profit. You shouldn't have invested in first place if you cannot afford to lose.

leen signed up for 10x Kelly but was unknowingly given 29x Kelly. That's unacceptable.

And regarding QS, bodgy, etc... why these guys are everywhere where they get chance to abuse Da Dice. Especially this bodgy person seriously intrigues me.

It looks to me like they are everywhere that scams are happening. I see QS tackling all kinds of scammers, not only DaDice. And if you read bodgy's words you will see that he makes a lot of sense.

Most recently he's pointing out that DaDice openly admitted that they are offering bets that they can't afford to pay out, and that if anyone is "lucky" enough to win a lot they will maybe have to declare bankruptcy. Why don't they mention that in the signature spam they pay people to display? "DaDice : we probably can't afford to pay you if you win!"

Nice you mention QS, he is a well known scammer, nice you associate yourself with such people.

[dadice]

Well after reading entire thread, its very clear to me that leen is only trying to recover her losses but this is gambling when you go as much as 10x kelly, that is a huge risk to take for some profit. You shouldn't have invested in first place if you cannot afford to lose.

leen signed up for 10x Kelly but was unknowingly given 29x Kelly. That's unacceptable.

And regarding QS, bodgy, etc... why these guys are everywhere where they get chance to abuse Da Dice. Especially this bodgy person seriously intrigues me.

It looks to me like they are everywhere that scams are happening. I see QS tackling all kinds of scammers, not only DaDice. And if you read bodgy's words you will see that he makes a lot of sense.

Most recently he's pointing out that DaDice openly admitted that they are offering bets that they can't afford to pay out, and that if anyone is "lucky" enough to win a lot they will maybe have to declare bankruptcy. Why don't they mention that in the signature spam they pay people to display? "DaDice : we probably can't afford to pay you if you win!"

We paid so far each and every request we have received, proof us otherwise.

[dooglus]

will dooglus leave negative trust to leen93 for lying to him? as he used false information fed by leen to ask if "we will not pay" statement is official policy of Da Dice.  

I don't see where leen lied to me. Paraphrased maybe, but not lied. Is that the 'lie' you're referring to?

One said:
  "we will pay as much as we can"
The other claimed they said:
  "we will not pay him the won amount"

Do you not see they are the same? If "as much as you can" is less than you have available then that is the same as not paying the won amount. Declaring bankruptcy in the face of a win you can't pay out is the same as not paying the won amount.

So no, I don't think that in any way deserves negative feedback.

I don't see how that is your problem... if anything, you should appreciate our efforts to revive this dice industry 

You don't see much, do you.

It is our concern when a dice site runs with a stated policy of "if a player wins too much we will probably just declare bankruptcy" that it won't end well. If your site is successful, eventually someone will win big. You're risking far too much of your bankroll per roll (as I have already tried to warn you several times now) and so will quite likely be hit by a player who wins more than you can afford to pay. Then you'll refuse to pay him, and you will be just another entry in the long series of Bitcoin scam sites.

It's in our interest, wanting Bitcoin to succeed, to do what we can to alert people to yet another "scam in the making" before they get too deep into it.

If you want to be a successful site, run it properly. Try to understand the issues that people are pointing out to you, and address them.

[dadice]

will dooglus leave negative trust to leen93 for lying to him? as he used false information fed by leen to ask if "we will not pay" statement is official policy of Da Dice.  

I don't see where leen lied to me. Paraphrased maybe, but not lied. Is that the 'lie' you're referring to?

One said:
  "we will pay as much as we can"
The other claimed they said:
  "we will not pay him the won amount"

Do you not see they are the same? If "as much as you can" is less than you have available then that is the same as not paying the won amount. Declaring bankruptcy in the face of a win you can't pay out is the same as not paying the won amount.

So no, I don't think that in any way deserves negative feedback.

Are you suffering Alzheimer mate??? Read here entire posts and you will know what we are talking about. Seems you like to overread the important parts.
.

[dooglus]

We didn't attack leen in anyway

No?

What's this?

most us know how much of a manipulative and crooked fellow you are

after creating a class A whore-show there

[etc.]