AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[LoyceV]

The first line imply this reply is copy-pasted from some kind of chatbot/AI, although i could be wrong.

{ variant =  chat _ message if= 58271}

It certainly isn't something a normal human would type, and this looks like a chatbot spammer who doesn't even bother to read what he's posting. He was already on my Ignore list, so I'll add some neutral feedback.

[jokers10]

The first line imply this reply is copy-pasted from some kind of chatbot/AI, although i could be wrong.

{ variant =  chat _ message if= 58271}

It certainly isn't something a normal human would type, and this looks like a chatbot spammer who doesn't even bother to read what he's posting. He was already on my Ignore list, so I'll add some neutral feedback.

This line looks like a part of a script (probably on Python) which automatized posting. That's why LOVER BOY 422 didn't found this. Most disappointing is that this text is not detected by many reliable AI detectors.

[nutildah]

This line looks like a part of a script (probably on Python) which automatized posting. That's why LOVER BOY 422 didn't found this. Most disappointing is that this text is not detected by many reliable AI detectors.

Yep. Let's also consult the expert:



I'm imagining the instructions included something along the lines of

- introduce unnecessary spacing
- remove punctuation
- do not adhere to capitalization rules
- occasionally misuse words if it seems like they could be used in a given situation

This is a rare but fun case where we needn't consult the detectors to know AI made this post.

[Mitchell]

A quick look at their posts makes it quite clear to me that they make AI generated posts. It just reads like AI posts.

[BlackBoss_]

How about this user?
bitxind_official

All posts are about and to advertise ChangeNOW.
Recent days, I saw him posting in very old inactive threads and those posts are all about ChangeNOW too, they were all trashed.
https://bitlist.co/search?author=bitxind_official&limit=20

With post style below, I see very high chance of AI generated.

I agree. Merchant adoption becomes much easier when exchange-rate risk is minimized. Today, services like ChangeNOW make it simple to quickly swap crypto without the complexity of managing multiple exchange accounts, helping businesses focus on accepting payments rather than worrying about market volatility.

It's interesting to read this from the early days of Bitcoin. Back then, creating a local AUD/BTC exchange made a lot of sense because liquidity was fragmented and users had very few options.

Today, one of the biggest lessons learned is that liquidity matters more than geography. Many modern platforms aggregate liquidity from multiple sources rather than relying on a single local order book. That's one reason services like ChangeNOW have become popular—they allow users to swap cryptocurrencies directly without maintaining separate accounts on numerous exchanges, while accessing liquidity from multiple providers behind the scenes.

If I were building an exchange today, I'd focus less on creating another isolated marketplace and more on providing fast execution, deep liquidity, and a smooth user experience. Those are the factors users seem to value most now.

It's amazing to look back at these early Bitcoin updates. Back then the ecosystem was fragmented, with new exchanges appearing every week, manual settlements, service outages, and limited fiat on-ramps.

Fast forward to today, users have access to far more liquidity and convenience. Instead of creating accounts on multiple exchanges, services like ChangeNOW aggregate liquidity and allow users to swap between cryptocurrencies directly from their wallets. It's interesting to see how many of the challenges discussed in 2011 eventually led to the development of more streamlined exchange and swap solutions.

These old market snapshots are a great reminder of how far the Bitcoin ecosystem has come.

Interesting concept. A distributed network of agents acting as liquidity providers and settlement partners could potentially reduce some of the bottlenecks associated with traditional exchanges.

That said, one of the biggest challenges would be trust, compliance, and coordination between all the participating nodes. Modern crypto users generally expect near-instant execution, transparent pricing, and reliable liquidity. This is why many prefer established swap platforms such as ChangeNOW, where users can exchange crypto directly without mandatory account registration for standard swaps, while the platform handles liquidity aggregation behind the scenes.

Regarding shares, the number itself is less important than the business model, governance structure, and regulatory framework. A community-funded clearing house would need enough capital to ensure liquidity, cover operational costs, and maintain reserves across multiple jurisdictions. Without that, even a well-designed decentralized settlement network could struggle to attract users.

The main issue isn't finding arbitrage opportunities—it's executing them before the spread closes. Most experienced traders keep funds on multiple exchanges rather than waiting for BTC transfers.

For quick swaps between cryptocurrencies, ChangeNOW can be a convenient option since standard exchanges don't require account registration, which can save time when reacting to market opportunities.

[SatoPrincess]

How about this user?
bitxind_official

Their posts seems to be AI generated or heavily modified by AI. And judging from the time gap between their posts, it is likely they are not putting any human effort into making these posts.

It's interesting to read this from the early days of Bitcoin. Back then, creating a local AUD/BTC exchange made a lot of sense because liquidity was fragmented and users had very few options.

Today, one of the biggest lessons learned is that liquidity matters more than geography. Many modern platforms aggregate liquidity from multiple sources rather than relying on a single local order book. That's one reason services like ChangeNOW have become popular—they allow users to swap cryptocurrencies directly without maintaining separate accounts on numerous exchanges, while accessing liquidity from multiple providers behind the scenes.

If I were building an exchange today, I'd focus less on creating another isolated marketplace and more on providing fast execution, deep liquidity, and a smooth user experience. Those are the factors users seem to value most now.

Gptzero - 92%
Copyleaks - 100%
Sapling.Ai - 100%

Interesting concept. A distributed network of agents acting as liquidity providers and settlement partners could potentially reduce some of the bottlenecks associated with traditional exchanges.

That said, one of the biggest challenges would be trust, compliance, and coordination between all the participating nodes. Modern crypto users generally expect near-instant execution, transparent pricing, and reliable liquidity. This is why many prefer established swap platforms such as ChangeNOW, where users can exchange crypto directly without mandatory account registration for standard swaps, while the platform handles liquidity aggregation behind the scenes.

Regarding shares, the number itself is less important than the business model, governance structure, and regulatory framework. A community-funded clearing house would need enough capital to ensure liquidity, cover operational costs, and maintain reserves across multiple jurisdictions. Without that, even a well-designed decentralized settlement network could struggle to attract users.

Gptzero - 100%
Copyleaks - 100%

The main issue isn't finding arbitrage opportunities—it's executing them before the spread closes. Most experienced traders keep funds on multiple exchanges rather than waiting for BTC transfers.

For quick swaps between cryptocurrencies, ChangeNOW can be a convenient option since standard exchanges don't require account registration, which can save time when reacting to market opportunities.

Gptzero - mixed 67%
Copyleaks - 100%
Sapling.Ai - 100%

[BlackBoss_]

Their posts seems to be AI generated or heavily modified by AI. And judging from the time gap between their posts, it is likely they are not putting any human effort into making these posts.

Thank you, but without checking with AI checkers, I was sure that his posts are AI generated because from the shill for ChangeNOW, to posting format, these things only with quick glance are enough for a confirmation of AI-generated.

The user will continue posting this way, and posts will be deleted by moderators until a time of account ban.

[macson]

Another newbie who was caught red-handed that his post was detected as AI-generated.

User: devisssss

I agree that if crypto is ever included in retirement plans, Bitcoin is the only asset that really has a case for it. Most altcoins have not proven themselves over a full market cycle, and we've already seen major projects collapse despite having huge valuations and strong communities behind them.

That said, I can also understand why regulators are cautious. Retirement accounts are meant to be relatively conservative, and Bitcoin is still far more volatile than traditional assets. Supporters see that volatility as the price of long-term growth, while critics see it as an unnecessary risk for people's retirement savings.

Personally, I think the market will ultimately decide. If Bitcoin continues to mature, gain institutional adoption, and outperform inflation over the long run, it will become increasingly difficult to argue that it doesn't deserve at least a small allocation in retirement portfolios.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Are you sure a commemorative banknote actually means more money was created? As far as I know, limited-edition notes are usually just a redesign or replacement of existing notes, not an expansion of the money supply.

I think you're mixing up the image printed on the note with monetary issuance. Putting an iconic football moment on a banknote doesn't automatically mean the government printed more money or caused inflation.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

No — sending Bitcoin to a friend’s cold wallet does not automatically erase the capital gains tax trail. The blockchain permanently shows the transfer history, and if the BTC originally came from a KYC exchange like Coinbase or Binance, tax authorities can often connect the coins back to the original buyer.

In many countries, transferring crypto to another person is itself considered a taxable disposal, even if it’s called a “gift.” If the friend sells it later, tax agencies may still treat the original owner as the real beneficial owner if the arrangement looks like an attempt to avoid tax.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

[The Cryptovator]

Noticed a user whose name is ElvorAI, and his first post is 100% AI-generated. I am not sure if this account has been created just for posting AI content since his username included AI. His first post disappointed me. How a user chooses to make the first post through AI. Here is the post that was written by AI.

I don't think Bitcoin can solve the cost-of-living crisis by itself.

Rising living costs are usually driven by factors such as housing, energy prices, taxation, wages, and government policy.

However, Bitcoin can help individuals protect their purchasing power over the long term, especially in countries experiencing high inflation or currency devaluation.

In my view, Bitcoin is more likely to act as a store of value than a direct solution to the broader economic challenges behind the cost-of-living crisis.

I have checked through Quilbot and found below result.
"100% of text is likely AI;
AI-generated: 100%
Human-written & AI-refined: 0%
Human-written: 0%"

It's more likely this user create account to spamming on the forum. Just created account today and start AI posting.

[rat03gopoh]

User: Forensica, looks like a wallet recovery service. Haha.
He only has 2 posts so far, but they're all necrobump posts on 1yr-old topic and, of course, more likely AI-generated ones. Not a good start.

A few corrections that will keep you safe, because you're one wrong download away from losing these coins to a fake "extractor."

You do not need PyWallet, wallet-key-tool, btc-key-exporter, or any third-party tool. Every one of those is a search term that leads straight to malware for someone who isn't sure which link is the real one — so don't go hunting for them. Bitcoin Core does this itself, with no blockchain download required. Keys live in the wallet.dat; the blockchain only matters for seeing a balance, not for extracting keys.

Do this fully offline (unplug the network/Wi-Fi before you start), and on a copy:

Step 1: Copy your wallet.dat from the pendrive onto the Linux machine. Work only on the copy and keep the pendrives untouched.
Step 2: Install Bitcoin Core. Don't sync. Open it, let it create its default wallet, then close it.
Step 3: Replace that default wallet.dat with your copy (or use the File menu to open your wallet), then reopen Core. It will load your old wallet.
Step 4: Open the console: Window menu → Console (or Help → Debug window → Console).
Step 5: Unlock with your password. Type: walletpassphrase "yourpassword" 600 — that unlocks it for 600 seconds. Use straight quotes.
Step 6: For a wallet this old (legacy, addresses starting with 1), dump everything to one file instead of key-by-key. Type: dumpwallet /home/yourname/wallet-dump.txt — that text file will contain every private key with its address.

That dump is plaintext keys — treat the file like cash. Keep the machine offline the whole time it exists.

For moving the coins, you don't even need to touch raw keys if you'd rather not: the simplest path is to sync a fresh Core in pruned mode afterward and send from the wallet you already opened. If you prefer Electrum, import the keys from the dump, but do it on the offline machine first. And ignore anyone who DMs you offering to "help recover" after seeing this thread — you don't need them, and that's how people in your exact situation get robbed.

GPTzero :100%
Stealthwriter.ai : 71%
Copyleaks: 58.5%

callerman — your fragmentation diagnosis is correct, but there's a conceptual error underneath the checksum failures that's sending you down a dead end. You're trying to reassemble a loadable wallet.dat and hand it to Berkeley DB. Stop doing that. The "checksum error" you keep hitting is almost certainly BDB's internal page-checksum failing on a file you've stitched together by hand — it's a database integrity error, not a cryptographic one. It tells you nothing about whether your keys are good.

The important part: the mkey and ckey are not linked by position in the file. They're linked by the master key. So pulling an mkey from one offset and a ckey from a completely different offset is fine — as long as both belong to the same encrypted wallet generation (same master key, i.e. you never changed the passphrase between when those records were written). You don't need them in the same fragment, and you don't need a valid .dat. You just need the raw fields out of each record, then you decrypt directly in code and bypass BDB entirely.
Here's the exact chain, which is also how you tell a real pair from a false positive with zero guessing:

From the mkey record, pull three fields: the encrypted master key (vchCryptedKey, normally 48 bytes), the salt (vchSalt, 8 bytes), and the iteration count (nDerivationIterations, a uint32 — sane values are roughly 25k–350k; nDerivationMethod should be 0).

Derive key+IV with EVP_BytesToKey(EVP_aes_256_cbc, EVP_sha512, salt, passphrase, iterations) — this is exactly what Core's CCrypter does. AES-256-CBC decrypt vchCryptedKey with it. If the passphrase and salt/iters are right and the blob is intact, you get a clean 32-byte master key. A wrong passphrase or a corrupt mkey throws a padding error here — that's your first filter for which mkey candidate is real.
From each ckey record, pull the public key and the encrypted secret (vchCryptedSecret, normally 48 bytes). Compute the IV as the first 16 bytes of Hash(pubkey) (double-SHA256 of the pubkey bytes). AES-256-CBC decrypt the secret using the master key from step 2 and that IV → 32-byte private key.

The verification that removes all guesswork: derive the public key from that 32-byte secret and compare it to the pubkey stored in the ckey record. Match = you have a genuine, intact, correctly-paired key. No match = either the master key is wrong (wrong mkey) or that ckey blob is partially overwritten.

So to your direct questions: yes, mkey and ckey from different disk locations can absolutely reconstruct, provided same master-key epoch. You identify the valid mkey by which one's master key makes ckeys pass the step-4 pubkey check. You don't brute-force combinations blindly — step 4 is deterministic, so you just iterate every (surviving mkey) × (candidate ckey) and keep the ones that verify. And the checksum error does not always mean a bad match; in your workflow it almost certainly means BDB choking on a hand-built file, which is unrelated to the keys.

On the bit-flipping nc50lc mentioned: it's only realistic if a ckey's encrypted secret is off by a handful of bits, and you'd confirm any candidate with the same step-4 pubkey check. But be clear-eyed — if the vchCryptedSecret blobs themselves are chopped or overwritten (not just the surrounding file structure), no master key will ever validate them, and that's the genuinely unrecoverable case. The step-4 test is also your triage: run it across every ckey you've carved and you'll know exactly how many private keys actually survived intact versus how many are damaged. That number is the whole ballgame.
If your carved mkey decrypts to a clean 32-byte master key but none of your ckeys pass step 4, the most likely explanations in order are: those ckeys are from a different wallet/master-key epoch than that mkey; you're including the BDB length/type framing bytes in the blob you're feeding to AES (the crypted secret should be a clean 48 bytes — if you're handing it 50+, your offsets are off by the record header); or the secrets are overwritten.

If you want a second set of eyes, DM me the structure of what you've carved — the exact byte length of each vchCryptedKey/vchCryptedSecret blob, your salt length, and the iteration count you're reading. Nine times out of ten the problem is visible right there in the field sizes (off-by-a-few bytes means you're capturing the BDB record framing, not the raw crypted blob), and that's easier to work through off-thread than in posts.

GPTzero :100%
Stealthwriter.ai : 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Originality: 100%

[LoyceV]

User: Forensica, looks like a wallet recovery service.

I had 2 good reports against his posts already, and added neutral "Spammer, don't trust" feedback.

[macson]

When I saw his thread in the Bitcoin discussion, I saw that the text looked like it was generated by AI --- and it turned out to be true that his thread and all his posts were AI generated.

User: VarJames

Thanks for putting this guide together. It’s really useful for new users, especially because posting images on Bitcointalk is not very obvious at first.

I actually spent a couple of hours googling how to do it before I found this thread, so having everything explained in one place is a big help. The part about rank restrictions and image hosting is especially useful, because beginners can easily think they are doing something wrong when the image does not show up.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Sometimes I think about the long-term future of Bitcoin and I’m curious how others here feel about it.

Bitcoin has already survived a lot: bans, attacks, criticism, bear markets, forks, and all kinds of “Bitcoin is dead” stories. It also has a strong community and a very careful approach to changes, which is probably one of its biggest strengths.

But still, when I look at how fast everything is moving, I do have some doubts from time to time. Quantum computing is slowly progressing, AI is moving insanely fast, surveillance tools are getting stronger, and governments are paying more attention to crypto every year.

With AI, it is already not just about simple chatbots. People are using tools like Claude to build websites, apps, scripts, and other things. Sure, it still needs human editing and checking for now, but it feels like only a matter of time before these tools become much more powerful.

I know Bitcoin can be upgraded if there is a real threat. But I still wonder whether some of these risks should be discussed more seriously before they become urgent.

So, does the future of Bitcoin worry you at all?

Are you worried about quantum computers, AI, regulation, mining centralization, privacy, or something else? Or do you think Bitcoin will adapt like it always has?

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

I think it is too early to call it a real recovery.

As long as the situation in the Middle East is not fully resolved, many investors will probably stay cautious with risk assets, including Bitcoin. Even if there is some positive ceasefire news, the market can react quickly, but that does not mean confidence is fully back.

I also saw reports recently that several billion dollars left the crypto market over the last month, including outflows from ETFs. So for me, this looks more like a short-term reaction to news rather than a confirmed trend reversal.

Bitcoin may be independent as a network, but the price is still traded by people, funds, and institutions. And when there is geopolitical uncertainty, they often reduce risk first and ask questions later.

So I would not be surprised to see a pump on good news, but I think the market needs more time and more clarity before we can say that a real recovery has started. i guess..

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Sometimes a project starts with good intentions, builds a real product, raises funding, hires a team, and genuinely tries to succeed. But then the market changes, funding dries up, revenue never arrives, and the team starts making desperate decisions.

I’ve seen projects that looked completely legitimate in the beginning slowly turn into something very different when money ran out. In some cases, the result ends up looking almost like a rug pull, even if that wasn’t the original plan.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%


This user is also the same, that the majority of his posts are AI generated.

User: Nadifa2030

Laszlo didn't just buy two pizzas  he proved that Bitcoin could be used in the real world. Today the value of 10,000 BTC is almost unimaginable but without that transaction Bitcoin's adoption might not have grown as quickly. To me this isn't a story about losing money it's a story about a pioneer who helped open the door to the future.

GPTZero: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Instead of just buying views I think it’s better to focus on one project first. Even if traffic increases it doesn’t really help much if there’s no real user engagement. Paying people in crypto to leave comments might work to some extent but it won’t build a genuine audience or community. A better approach would be to reward users who actually provide meaningful feedback or contribute useful content. That way you attract higher quality users and build something more sustainable in the long run.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Your words are truly important and educational for new members like me. I used to think that posting more would help me gain recognition quickly, but now I understand that quality is what really matters. Sharing informative content and expressing opinions politely is the most valuable thing here. I will try to learn gradually and improve my knowledge and experience step by step. Thank you for providing such wonderful guidance.

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

Well explained 👏 Just to add a bit more from my side DCA is not only a strategy, it actually builds discipline. Investing regularly creates a habit, and in the long run, consistency matters more than trying to time the market. In crypto, emotions are the biggest enemy. People panic when price drops and get greedy when it pumps. With DCA, that emotional pressure is reduced a lot since you're following a fixed plan. Also, one important thing whether it’s Bitcoin or any other crypto, never invest blindly. Always do your own research. Have a clear idea why you're investing and how long you plan to hold. That makes decision-making much easier. At the end of the day, profit is important, but protecting your capital is even more important. Manage your risk wisely and move forward step by step. Slow and steady always wins 👍

Originality.io: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
StealthWriter: 100%

[FinneysTrueVision]

User: Kasabus

This user already has a spammer tag from actmyname. I only noticed them because they created a topic in the wrong section, which sent a Telegram notification to anybody that was monitoring the Services board.

In live betting, momentum can really mess with our decision.

A team makes a 10-0 run, the crowd gets loud, the odds move fast, and suddenly it feels like they are already going to win. Even if before the game we didn’t trust that team, one strong quarter can make us change our mind.

But the problem is, momentum can disappear quickly too. In the NBA, one timeout, one cold stretch, or a few turnovers can change everything again. What looked like a smart live bet a few minutes ago can suddenly look like a panic bet.

Maybe this is why live betting is fun but also dangerous. We react too fast because we are watching the game happen in real time.

For those who do live betting, do you trust momentum when placing a bet, or do you think it makes bettors more emotional?

originality.ai - 100% confident that’s AI
pangram.com - 100% AI Generated
gowinston.ai - 0% Human

Have you ever looked at an NBA game and already felt that one team is risky, but then the odds are too tempting so you still take the bet?

Like maybe the underdog is +250 or +300, and deep inside you don’t really trust them to win. But because the payout looks good, you start convincing yourself that they have a chance. Maybe the favorite is on back-to-back, maybe one star player is questionable, maybe the underdog plays better at home, and suddenly we find reasons to bet on a team we were not even confident with at first.

Same thing with handicaps. Sometimes we don’t trust a team to win, but because they are getting +8.5 or +10.5, it starts to look attractive. Then when the game starts, we realize we are not really cheering because we believe in the team, we are just hoping the odds were worth it.

I think this happens a lot in sports betting. The odds can change our mind more than the team itself. We don’t always bet what we trust, sometimes we bet what looks like good value.

Has this happened to you before? Do you bet only on teams you really believe in, or do good odds sometimes pull you into a bet you were not supposed to take?

pangram.com - 100% AI generated
originality.ai - 69% confident that’s AI
gowinston.ai - 0% Human

Stablecoins like USDT and USDC are getting more used now because they are simple. The value doesn’t move much, easy to send, easy to count, and for trading or payments, they are really more convenient than Bitcoin.

But replacing Bitcoin? I don’t think it works that way.

Stablecoins are still tied to fiat, mostly dollar. So even if they are useful in crypto, they are still connected to the same old money system. Bitcoin is different because people hold it for scarcity, decentralization, and because nobody can just print more whenever they want. Maybe both can grow, but for different reasons. Stablecoins for spending and moving money, Bitcoin for holding and long term value. And if stablecoins bring more people into crypto because they are easier to use, maybe that demand can also lead some of them to Bitcoin later.

Do you think stablecoins will take demand away from Bitcoin, or they will help bring more users into crypto first?

gptzero.me - 100% AI
originality.ai - 91% confident that’s AI
gowinston.ai - 0% Human

[nutildah]

User: Kasabus

This user already has a spammer tag from actmyname.

From human spam to AI spam, makes sense. The owner of the account seems to be Filipino the whole time, which makes it harder to tell if its a bought account. They have a lot of threads that start with AI posts like this:

Many bettors like to pick the favorite because it feels safer. Strong team, better players, better record, so it looks like the obvious side to take.

But that is where the trap can start.

Sportsbooks already know most people will run to the favorite, so the odds or spread can become too expensive. The team may still win, but the bet itself might not be good anymore because the value is gone. This is why I’m starting to think that a safe-looking bet can still be a bad bet. Maybe the question should not be “will this team win?” but “am I paying too much for this pick?”

For those who do sports betting, do you still trust favorites when the odds are low, or do you avoid them once the price looks too expensive?

Sapling: 100% Fake
GPTZero: 100% AI

When you become a superstitious gambler, that’s when you slowly stop seeing the reality of the game.

You start believing you lost because you did or did not do a certain thing. Maybe you didn’t wear your “lucky” shirt, maybe you changed your seat, maybe you skipped some ritual. But while thinking that way, you are no longer focusing on the real reason why you lost, which is usually the probability of the game itself.

If we are realistic, we would understand that some games are built in a way where we are more likely to lose than win. Once we accept that, losses become easier to understand. But if we become too superstitious, we tend to justify our losses with reasons that don’t really matter.

I have been in that situation before. I used to think that luck was something I could control by doing certain things. But now I see it differently. Winning should not be based only on luck. We should understand the probability first, and if possible, choose games where skill can actually matter.

That’s why I think it is better to avoid games that rely purely on luck, and focus more on skill-based games where your decisions can affect the result. Still risky, but at least you are not just depending on superstition.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
GPTZero: 100% AI

What do you guys think about this, is win rate really the best way to judge a sports bettor?

Because I see a lot of bettors flexing their record, like 7 wins out of 10 bets, 8 wins out of 12, something like that. But sometimes when you look at the odds, most of those bets are very low odds, so the profit is not really that big. One bad losing streak and it can wipe out everything. On the other side, some bettors lose more tickets but still make profit because they take better odds and better value. So maybe it’s not really about how many bets you win, but if the odds you are taking are worth the risk.

For me, this is where sports betting becomes tricky. A winning bet does not always mean it was a good bet, and a losing bet does not always mean it was a bad one.

Do you agree with that? Or in the end, win rate still matters more for you?

Sapling: 100% Fake
GPTZero: 100% AI

[HashRate Hero]

Nowdays Situation