Overview of Popular Bitcoin Gambling Websites [Up-to-date as of 8th Nov '15]

[PocketRocketsCasino]

Okay, I definitely agree with you on BitcoinRush. That's not something that should ever be done and it's definitely dirty. However, I feel in all other areas they are still trustworthy and they did reply to him, so I will only be dropping their trustworthiness by one fine grade, and that was 3 months ago. I'll review the overall in a few days.

I read up on the Crypto-Games issue a bit and I'm currently getting CG's side of the story from one of their staff. Their rating will remain as-is for now. Edit: After discussing how they handled it, compensation given to investors to fix lost profit, etc, I am satisfied with the way they handled it. Trustworthiness remains the same IMHO, they handled it well, even if they appeared publicly to be a bit harsh.

PRC...well yes, Dean was trash previously. I feel like he's gotten his act together recently though. Trustworthiness for PRC is still only at a B+ and it will remain there, I have no plans to increase or decrease it.

I need a source for the FortuneJack stats faking, please.

No idea what you base this on.
PRC is the most trusted Bitcoin dice site and that's a fact.
No other site looks after as many Bitcoin of players/investors as PRC does and there's never been any issues with cashouts or losses.

If I had to rate you as you are right now you'd probably get an A for trustworthiness. The reason you're a B+ is because I don't agree with what you did in the past (mostly regarding your dealings with BAC). That was shitty.

@ETTKS: Found the bitcointalk posts for FJ's stats faking and I just don't feel like any damage was done there. It's not significant enough to me to warrant a change in the trust level.

So you mean a dispute over a domain name and affiliate issue of a few satoshis is enough to bring the score down that much when PRC has had 5k btc invested and still has over 3k with no one actually ever having an issue with their investment or balance?

Makes zero sense and makes the rest of your list have less credibility IMO.

[DiamondCardz]

Okay, I definitely agree with you on BitcoinRush. That's not something that should ever be done and it's definitely dirty. However, I feel in all other areas they are still trustworthy and they did reply to him, so I will only be dropping their trustworthiness by one fine grade, and that was 3 months ago. I'll review the overall in a few days.

I read up on the Crypto-Games issue a bit and I'm currently getting CG's side of the story from one of their staff. Their rating will remain as-is for now. Edit: After discussing how they handled it, compensation given to investors to fix lost profit, etc, I am satisfied with the way they handled it. Trustworthiness remains the same IMHO, they handled it well, even if they appeared publicly to be a bit harsh.

PRC...well yes, Dean was trash previously. I feel like he's gotten his act together recently though. Trustworthiness for PRC is still only at a B+ and it will remain there, I have no plans to increase or decrease it.

I need a source for the FortuneJack stats faking, please.

No idea what you base this on.
PRC is the most trusted Bitcoin dice site and that's a fact.
No other site looks after as many Bitcoin of players/investors as PRC does and there's never been any issues with cashouts or losses.

If I had to rate you as you are right now you'd probably get an A for trustworthiness. The reason you're a B+ is because I don't agree with what you did in the past (mostly regarding your dealings with BAC). That was shitty.

@ETTKS: Found the bitcointalk posts for FJ's stats faking and I just don't feel like any damage was done there. It's not significant enough to me to warrant a change in the trust level.

So you mean a dispute over a domain name and affiliate issue of a few satoshis is enough to bring the score down that much when PRC has had 5k btc invested and still has over 3k with no one actually ever having an issue with their investment or balance?

Makes zero sense and makes the rest of your list have less credibility IMO.

a) There's more than that, you have not JUST had issues with BAC. Dooglus too.

b) You are getting on my nerves with how persistent you are because of a B+ for trustworthiness. There is a difference between defending yourself and putting forward a solid argument and trying to discredit my entire list to get your rating bumped. You have done this before and we talked and I eventually upped your ratings as I had seen both sides of the argument and agreed with you. You should've taken notes.

[pawel7777]

Question:

How would you rate i.e. a simple (yet popular) dice site which intentionally try to keep things fair and simple and doesn't do any promotions and keep only necessary features (say something like Just-Dice back when they operated in BTC).

How would it score in 'promotions' and 'features' categories? Would you rate it as D-? Or 'N/A'?

The overview looks too green imo. Some could say it's great that all the sites have high score, but if every of them has an 'A', that doesn't do the trick. Maybe, in future, you should consider switching to '1-10' scale, perhaps add more categories etc. Just my thought.

[DiamondCardz]

Question:

How would you rate i.e. a simple (yet popular) dice site which intentionally try to keep things fair and simple and doesn't do any promotions and keep only necessary features (say something like Just-Dice back when they operated in BTC).

How would it score in 'promotions' and 'features' categories? Would you rate it as D-? Or 'N/A'?

The overview looks too green imo. Some could say it's great that all the sites have high score, but if every of them has an 'A', that doesn't do the trick. Maybe, in future, you should consider switching to '1-10' scale, perhaps add more categories etc. Just my thought.

If they don't do any promotions at all they'd probably get a bad rating, yes. That's only fair. If their attraction was that that they are simple, they wouldn't be terribly scored on features, but it still wouldn't be a high score. I'd leave a note in the review.

It is quite green, yes. That's the problem, as I'm restricting it to popular sites they're generally all good.

Also, if I start making it more relative and giving good sites Cs and Bs, I get a lot of angry PMs calling me a shill from people who see that at the time I may have x or y gambling site ad or be a mod on x or y gambling site (I'm not a mod on any gambling site anymore but I was when I made this thread, and I do sometimes have gambling site signature ads). And in all fairness, they are good sites.

[DiamondCardz]

Made some changes so that it is easier to distinguish between the quality of the sites in the overview.

Pink colour indicates that this website is one of the best in its field for the stated criteria. It's a coveted prize for only the best sites!

In addition, A- now has a slightly darker, pale green to help you distinguish between those sites with mainly A-s and those sites with mainly As and A+s.

I may decide to implement an A* (read A-star) grade in the future so that I can create a more accurate scale of grades and differences between the sites.

In my opinion, this change makes the overview much higher in quality. Any opinions are appreciated

[ETTKS]

I read up on the Crypto-Games issue a bit and I'm currently getting CG's side of the story from one of their staff. Their rating will remain as-is for now. Edit: After discussing how they handled it, compensation given to investors to fix lost profit, etc, I am satisfied with the way they handled it. Trustworthiness remains the same IMHO, they handled it well, even if they appeared publicly to be a bit harsh.

I'm not sure how you could have read the thread and come to that conclusion. They were shown clearly the exploit, multiple third parties reproduced and started exploited it. And their reaction was to mock the idea of their code having an exploit. They then put a fix in place which didn't fix the issue, but only the UI and then continued to trash talk and brag about how the controversy will help their site.

PRC...well yes, Dean was trash previously. I feel like he's gotten his act together recently though. Trustworthiness for PRC is still only at a B+ and it will remain there, I have no plans to increase or decrease it.

I disagree, he's corrosive and full of shit as ever

I need a source for the FortuneJack stats faking, please.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774929.msg12510016#msg12510016

[DiamondCardz]

I read up on the Crypto-Games issue a bit and I'm currently getting CG's side of the story from one of their staff. Their rating will remain as-is for now. Edit: After discussing how they handled it, compensation given to investors to fix lost profit, etc, I am satisfied with the way they handled it. Trustworthiness remains the same IMHO, they handled it well, even if they appeared publicly to be a bit harsh.

I'm not sure how you could have read the thread and come to that conclusion. They were shown clearly the exploit, multiple third parties reproduced and started exploited it. And their reaction was to mock the idea of their code having an exploit. They then put a fix in place which didn't fix the issue, but only the UI and then continued to trash talk and brag about how the controversy will help their site.

I talked to them and they agreed and acknowledged that their reaction was bad and that the situation was handled badly. However, I also found out that investors were compensated so that they did not lose any BTC due to the exploits. I feel that it was still fairly handled.

PRC...well yes, Dean was trash previously. I feel like he's gotten his act together recently though. Trustworthiness for PRC is still only at a B+ and it will remain there, I have no plans to increase or decrease it.

I disagree, he's corrosive and full of shit as ever

Well, he does annoy me a lot with his constant bickering about his rating on this thread, but there is still a lot of money entrusted to PRC which they haven't run with.

I found the stats faking info eventually, thanks though. I don't feel like there was that much of an issue there, they are pretty spot on with everything else other than that which didn't really harm bettors or investors themselves.

[DiamondCardz]

In the A- Overall band I have focused on spitting it into two bands, one that keeps the A- Overall rating and one that has a B+ Overall rating. I should note that this is simply to show a fine level of extra distinction, and that B+ is still a very respectable grade. Further distinctions will soon be made as I plan to expand into the B band to provide a wider gradient, followed by likely moving into the B- band. C+ and below will probably be reserved for websites that you should not really gamble on, but can if you wish to, while D+ and below is for those which are just terrible. Anything that is B- or above is what I would consider a good-quality gambling site. I also will likely be moving forward with plans to produce the A* (A-star) band to show further distinction for those sites which are the best of the best in certain areas.

If you are angry that you have been moved down into B+, then I would just sit tight as I will soon be creating a finer gradient for all sites, and it is likely all sites in the list will feel the burn a tiny bit as I seek to create a list with sites that range mostly from B/B- to A+ or even A*.

Some fine ratings other than overalls were changed due to overvaluation or my own personal experiences (e.g. I dropped the reliability for Cloudbet by a fine grade due to some pretty crap experiences with trying to withdraw causing errors and support giving me a reply that didn't even apply to me). I hope this list is seen as more accurate, but I'm quite limited here with such a small range of grades at the moment and inevitably some people will be upset.

Anonibet is something I plan to do a more accurate review for later, but I have to use Tor to do this due to my IP's geolocation being blocked.

I also increased bustabit's Trustworthiness to an A and moved them up a bit in the list, they deserve it by now.

[DiamondCardz]

Betterbets.io is the largest casino to open in 2015 DC how did you miss it lol?

Shit, you're right. It's not that I missed it, it's that I usually only add sites if either

a) I come into contact with them and I realize they're not added
b) Someone tells me to add them!

So thanks for reminding me I'll add them later today, probably within the hour.

Edit: Why did you delete your post? Looks like I've triple-posted now.

Edit2: An update.

- Added gambling website BetterBets.
- Stats:
- Trustworthiness: A
- Reliability: A
- Promotions: A+
- Features: A-
- Overall: A

Long review: BetterBets has, for a relatively new casino established in May 2015, experienced an insane amount of growth and it's quite clear why. BetterBets uses the Moneypot API for betting and their faucet (the faucet being another positive point), making it both extremely unlikely that you'll lose your BTC and easy to transfer BTC across to other casinos. Their user interface looks awesome and has a really great aesthetic quality to it, especially with the pull-out menu. They also have a bunch of innovative promotions, enough for me to warrant giving them the coveted A+ for this category: for instance, "luck forging", a feature which allows you to build it up until you have 1,000 bets made where you can then make 20 bets at a reduced house edge of 0.5% (limited to 5x their average bet during that time), a great tool for high rollers. They also have a happy hour every Friday with a 0.25% house edge during that time, as well as a raffle, 2FA, ability to invest into MoneyPot to indirectly invest into them, and a "cashback club" where you can receive up to 20% of your house edge back based on weekly volume and even get VIP statuses if you wager enough which give you a bunch of free raffle tickets. All-in-all, a great casino with a great amount of promotions that could only be improved slightly by making the features a bit more unique (most of the features grade comes from the promotions such as luck forging).

Edit3: A 2nd update.

- Increased 777Coin's Promotions to an A+.
- Increased 777Coin's Overall to an A+.
- Increased FortuneJack's Reliability from B+ to A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Promotions to an A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Features to an A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Overall to an A.
- Reviewed FortuneJack's Trustworthiness of an A-, but decided to keep it there due to previous issues.
- Updated FortuneJack's long review.
- Updated 777Coin's long review.

[DiamondCardz]

Hey all,

I made a poll to see whether the best option for the thread to help further create a gradient between websites is to create a new A* grade above A+, leave it be, or lower all websites by a fine grade and then re-adjust accordingly. I would prefer creating an A* grade as it means I don't have to give sites which don't deserve them low grades just to help differentiate between sites, but I'd like to see your opinions.

http://strawpoll.me/5965274

I'll check the strawpoll in 24 hours.

[Mitchell]

I voted for "Instead of this, lower all site's grades a fine grade to help make a better gradient". However I would prefer it if you used a more logical system. For example using doubles which go from 1 to 10 (with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best) as it's way more clear.

[DiamondCardz]

I voted for "Instead of this, lower all site's grades a fine grade to help make a better gradient" even though I would prefer it if you switched to a system like 1 to 10 (with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best) as it's way more clear (and you can use decimals to make stuff more clear, 9.1 is not the same as 9.8).

The only problem with that is that the moment I rate something a 6 or below for something people quite quickly connotate that with a bad site and I get a lot of angsty messages saying that I am a bad reviewer, biased, hell I've had plenty of casinos themselves be annoyed at me ;)

But, keeping to a letter based system of, say, B (5), B+ (6), A- (7), A (8), A+ (9), A* (10)...I can get away with giving out B+s and A-s a lot easier than giving out 6s and 7s ;)

Yeah, I do like the idea of lowering all site's grades a fine grade as well, though I probably need to do it more than that in reality. Once there are multiple sites being rated B- and B and even a couple Cs for the bad apples, then I won't get as many angsty messages due to this except from the diehard trolls. A B+ in a sea of A-band ratings is usually a problem.

Edit: disabled smilies due to 8)

[BetterBets.io]

Thank you for reviewing our site we will work on features and take your evaluation as a means to make improvements, good fortune to you!

[DiamondCardz]

Okay, based on the straw poll it would seem to me like most people were in favour of lowering all website fine grades by one, so that's what I've done. I will re-adjust them later today or tomorrow to make them more accurate and have a wider gradient. I'll also likely implement the A* grade soon.

Thank you for reviewing our site we will work on features and take your evaluation as a means to make improvements, good fortune to you!

Thanks!

[DiamondCardz]

On second thought I've decided all grades will stay the same for now, and I will review them some time next week all at once. It's unfair to review half and then not review the other half just because of time constraints (besides, I do have to maintain ShitDice ).

[PokerMarketcom]

Hey guys,

we are new to bitcointalk and if this isn't the right thread for our post just let us know. We aren't a gambling website but we do offer content for poker players and you can use Bitcoin to pay for it. On www.pokermarket.com you can find lots of videos and literature produced by strong players, who wants to share their knowledge with you.

Please let us know if you have any questions or need any kind of assistance.

Best Regards,
PokerMarket Team

[mexxer-2]

Bumping it up for the crap thread starters who keep making it a point to start a thread with the same "Which is the best gambling site?" etc. title

[casinobitco]

Great thread here, worthy of a bump (monthly)

[Johnny00]

Which of these sites have issues paying?

[pawel7777]

Which of these sites have issues paying?

None of them? Other than maybe temporary delays due to empty hot wallets. But that's industry standard.

@OP - PocketRocketsCasino rebranded to BetKing.io some time ago.