Topic: DADICE : exposing investors to more risk than their kelly, misleading informatio - page 4. (Read 6852 times)

The only bad behavior is from the OP. We just defended ourselves. On the other side, I have decided to halt any campaigns here until further notice, as from tomorrow, since we receive 80% of our business from sites other then btctalk. So we can nicely survive without this permanent bullshit here.

As i said their behavior it's pretty bad and it does not help them in any way, yes there might not be a definitive proof of them being scammers but i seriously don't see how acting like that makes your site look any better, you had the chance of clearing your name by showing proof of funds and you didnt want to although you said yourself that one of your priorities is to be trusted and honest.

I don't understand the reason why everybody is going off topic here. Leen93 made an accusation, an accusation! Since their investment program is private, and leen being one of those private investors, only question to ask is whether or not leen93 was aware of maximum payout being 20 BTC at dadice. And given evidence clearly suggests that he was not only aware of this but also had made a roll for himself with payout over 18 BTC. And that was couple months old! No need to mention how leen associated a lie with Da Dice while making we will not pay statement in "double quote" to make it look geniune.  

So in relevance to this thread, I think leen is clearly responsible for his own losses.

There must be some forums rule about throwing baseless scam accusations. Why do I find QS, bodgy, and couple other guys always going off topic in any Da Dice related thread? Please tell me more about this! why? just don't go saying that you "think" this is a scam.

You will see in 6 or 12 month, when we have crashed the competition who is a scam site

I was just pointing out that everyone who has claimed I am a scammer is a scammer themselves and that there is no basis for calling me a scammer. No one reputable has ever believed that I am a scammer.

So what I advertised for you? I provided a service and received payment for that service. If I had known you were a scam site then I would not have advertised your site.

Well scammer is a pretty big word, isn't it. Without any proof, with honoring each and every withdrawal request, with having build one of the most advanced dice sites yet, already number 3 after rolls or so within a bit over 4 months. But that might be their real problem.

EGO

So if somebody is calling us names - by all means, shouldn't we have the right to call them names back, don't you think so?

Shall I feel pitty for you, silly muppet?

You didn't complain when you made 1 btc with our signature campaign, didn't you? One more BTCtalk hypocrites here...

Well honestly asides from any proofs of them being scammers or not this behavior it's pretty fishy, calling everyone who called them scammers and generally pretty rude to everyone definitely does not make them look better in any way

We know the implementation of our investment program and fact that Max. payout is 20 BTC on site, and it has always been like there. This is a not a bug, this is how we want it to work.

It is very clear that you don't read all of the posts and only jump to what you think are important parts. If you did read the entire thread, you would know that leens bet was indeed 9 BTC profit (but in fact profit was way more, due to consecutive wins, but that is NOT the point), the point with that specific roll is MAX. PAYOUT OF 20 BET, and leen being totally aware of it.

Let us not forget that this thread is a "SCAM Accusation" thread, and the fact that OP has no credebility in his/her claims. OP just like all other investors was very well aware of max. payout being 20 BTC.  Also: Given the hypothetical situation, that you are trying to make a big deal out of, Player only wins as far as the bankroll exists and is positive. This is a major fuck up in your calculations, if there is no bankroll, there will be nothing to reward player out of. And thus my answer comes back into scene: We will pay as much as we can.

You definitely have some personal interest with Da Dice but rest assured we don't need your advice when it comes to marketing and commercial policies. I will prefer if you stick to the topic. This entire accusation is based on lie from a whining gambler trying to recover losses. If you are blind enough to see it, let me make it clear for you, Da Dice is a long term investment, we are financing marketing, signature campaigns, and other events, we even hired 3rd party marketing team for this purpose. We want to offer 20 BTC max. payout to our players (note this!), and there are many other things that we do and want to do, none of them should of your concern!

...And we don't need public investments! after the criticism we made it private and we are doing just fine without your advices on how should we run Da Dice.

YES! The more reasonable answer would be "of course we can pay out winners, because we don't risk what we can't afford to lose. Anything else would be immoral".

Your answer appears to be, when paraphrased, "we will continue to risk 20 BTC per roll even when the bankroll has already been won, and if it goes negative we will try to find more coins or declare bankruptcy". When rewritten like that isn't it clear how wrong-headed your stance is?


leen isn't on trial here, and has merely pointed out that how your site works is wrong. That you haven't changed your conditions since the start despite us trying to help you fix them is precisely the problem. Your conditions are broken.


I don't care about her sex. Or whether she's manipulative. Or a "class A whore". Or any of the other ad hominem attacks you keep throwing out there. How is the gender she identifies as in any way relevant to the discussion in hand? She pointed out how your site took 29% of her investment from a single roll when her account was set to a 10x Kelly setting and so should only ever risk 10% of her investment per roll. And rather than apologising, refunding her, and fixing the problem you instead chose to attack her personally.

I would never do that, but that's because I don't smell like reindeer poop. Like you do.

I'm not very good at ad hominem attacks. How did I do? Did it work?


I didn't know all this before. This is the first I have heard about your fake "Kelly" system. You have hidden the investment feature on your site as a way of pretending that it doesn't matter that you are unable to prove solvency, and so there is no way I could have learned about your broken "Kelly" system.

If you had been transparent about how your investment system works, instead of hiding it away to avoid the pressure to show solvency, I would have been able to point this obvious flaw out sooner.


Where was I meant to find this manual? You were busy pretending that you no longer offered investments.

The part of the manual that you have quoted is badly written and makes no mention of there being a static maximum payout in operation. As far as it goes, what you have described makes perfect sense. What you miss out is something like "oh, by the way, we don't actually use the Kelly criterion to decide how much to risk per bet - we allow a payout of 20 BTC per bet no matter how much is in the bankroll".


You're attacking the people instead of the arguments again. If someone makes a well reasoned logical argument, does it matter whether they are a class A whore or not?


"so far" being the important part here.

Lots of obvious Ponzi scams have honoured every withdrawal request "so far" too. It proves nothing.

If you're going to keep allowing a maximum payout of 20 BTC no matter how much you lose, you risk being unable to pay winners.


"we"? I think you forgot to switch to the sockpuppet account here. Mate.

I asked which "lie" you were referring to. And instead of answering, you make an "Alzheimer" joke? You are bad at your job. Like really bad.

LOL what? Do you know how many times people have claimed I am a scammer? A lot. Do you know what all these accusations have in common? They were all made by scammers. Do you know the basis for all these claims were? None.

Dooglus, this is not what attack means, Leen is indeed and without any doubt manipulative and crooked, and created a whore show starring you right here in this very thread (yes welcome to the show!). And these are facts.

No?

What's this?

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.
.

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.


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.

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

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

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


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!"

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.

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.