Topic: Duckdice Reputation Thread (Read 851 times)

Here is my take on the Nomercy lossback case.

The screenshot that the player provided says that high rollers can get a lossback up to 10%. The 10% is not a fixed return. I can't comment on how DuckDice came to the sum of 1.03 BTC that was returned to the player, which is supposedly 5-6%. But unless there are specific rules or TOS where it's clearly visible that the player should have received a bigger sum than he did, I don't think there is a case here. The 5-6% lossback is in accordance to the offered "up to 10%". Even 0.0001% is. 

There is also the issue with their support claiming the player was given a 10% lossback in their email correspondence. But you can't use that as an argument. I have spoken to support agents in my life who are supposed to help solve my problems (not gambling related) but they don't have the language skills to even understand my questions properly. Or maybe the logic and brain power.

Additionally, many of nomercy33's original posts seem to have been edited or deleted because this thread isn't the same as what I am seeing on Ninjastic.space.   

Hi,

Sorry, it's been a while since I've updated on this thread, I am very grateful to all people corresponding here though and I am seeing that people are giving us a fair shake and I am glad. There is a lot to take on board, some good, some not so good but this is exactly what i wanted for this thread -- I'll try to respond to everything the best I can over the coming days.

I'll start here with this


You'll have to forgive me as it was quite some time ago, for this particular user they actually are now playing with us again and realise they were acting out of turn as well given the benefit of time

Simply it was made aware to all the community a mistake had been made, i believe the sum was meant to be 3 XRP rained onto users each, (30 xrp) total. But someone forgot to switch the currency before updating the amount:

This led to 10 users getting the payday of their life, and of course, human nature kicks in many tried to withdraw it, of course, such amounts may sometimes trigger review systems, so many tried to tip it out to people so they could withdraw it for them and all sorts of chaos. The OP was one of these users, doing their best to circumvent the system in order to get as much of it as they could out before we could act (i think it took us a good 10 minutes before realising and suspending service temporarily while we sorted it)

We believed this to be in bad faith of our service, as it was such an obvious mistake and actually lead us to ban some individuals including OP, i can't remember exactly how much he made out with etc or if anything, but many such members did

Now whilst most of these users who were banned were eventually forgiven, and so was OP in the end. OP actually felt he was entitled to this and tried to raise it in our forum thread repeatedly and opened up scam accusations.

I've invited him to speak on the thread but he's not been active for some time.

I would also note, i believe 3 or 4 users actually just held the money and returned it without being asked and have been awarded small bounties of a few hundred dollars for doing so i believe. now i know it's not 3 btc but let's remember the original rain was meant to amount too 1 dollar, not 30000 USD haha

I felt it needed addressing though because it's a famous incident, or infamous incident, however you want to put it lol

-------

Bobstone
DuckDice Live Support

PS. i will try to answer more of these in time, thank you guys (again) it means a lot to us here at duckdice to have criticisms thrown our way in a manner in which we can actually respond to them in kind with support (even if it's critical support) from the actual community we wish to serve

If the amounts that were distributed to users were the result of a bug which meant distributing more than it was planned, DuckDice has the right to rectify this and remove those coins from their player's balances. I see no scam here by the site unless they took more coins from circulation than they should have. But I would like to read their report to see what exactly happened as a lot of information seems to be missing in the OP.

At first glance, this looks to me like a case of winning a $10 bet but getting credited $500 due to an internal mistake, and then accusing the site of scamming you out of your money when the error was discovered. You shouldn't have had those $500 in the first place.

@DuckDice, is there any more information about what exactly happened here?

I'm not invited here by OP or DuckDice team. But I want to share my opinions here as Pmalek told me to give a look into the issues. We were talking about the current reputation of DuckDice before adding them in some informative thread on gambling board. I'm not going to review the first three accusations as TwitchySealhas already shared his opinion about those.

“The 3.11btc rain per user bug:”
I have started playing at DuckDice in July 2018, and I was a regular gambler of DuckDice when this incident happened. Moreover, I was active in the chat during the moment. The website was running for a while after the 3.11 BTC rain. DuckDice was blocking the big withdrawal of the users, but RajaM started to give tip and rain in the chat. The mistake/bug rain balance was spreading among other users. And other users were able to withdraw the amount which they received from RajaM as it was low.

The website went down when RajaM started doing that, and came back online by removing the BTC balance from the users account which was connected with the bug rain. RajaM was disappointed as DuckDice team has removed the amount which he got from the rain. Eventually he created the accusations here in the forum when DD team didn't pay him any bonus. But in reality, he had made the situation complicated there. He doesn't deserve anything for that.

Nomercy lossback:
He used to be a happy user of DuckDice in the past. I had posted one of his chat message screenshot in DuckDice ANN thread.


Later on, he was disappointed after losing big amount there. Perhaps, he was satisfied after receiving some lossback at the moment. DuckDice bonus system was showing that they will pay up to 10% lossback. Nomercy had received 5%-6% lossback from them. But he made an accusation here and asked for more lossback amount. You will find his claim as irrelevant if you read the bolded part of their lossback system. DuckDice team still paid him $2.5k to resolve the matter.

Richardo30  aka Screwing1000 aka multiple other bitcointalk accounts , aswell as duckdice accounts:
The accusations of richardo3o and Screwing1100 doesn't make any sense. Both of them have edited their original accusation post after receiving some amount. They also deleted some posts of them. Screwing1100 had mentioned about it in the forum

---

Conclusion: I have checked the other issues too. The first bonus issue was the only valid scam accusation against DuckDice which happened in 2017. The others are irrelevant.

Was busy with some stuff lately, but moving on to the next issue:

That scam accusation makes no sense anyway. He posted a screenshot of a pending Bitcoin Cash withdrawal. OK. The second link that he posted is a transaction hash of what exactly? What is that ID supposed to show or prove?

DuckDice never posted in his scam accusation thread. The last thing that we can see is that DuckDice asked the OP if he is connected to a scammer who is known to the casino. OP never responded to that or made any other posts on the forum. Unfortunately, we can no longer see the image that DuckDice.io uploaded since it's been taken down by the host.

Disclaimer: I was one of the other person (I guess we were two?) who received $100 from Duckdice to review their reputation. I gave my best to stay neutral and be blatant.

---

In this case DuckDice could have better customer handling. I do not see it's the amount was in question but the nick (by the customer) was not tolerable. In naked eyes you can spot so many things but before accusing anyone as an alt of another account, you need solid proof. Abusive name type for more than one account, can not be a proof. They could be indeed two different persons.

You can easily mark some words or usernames as ban-able and never allow anyone to use them. If you do not have a panel for blocking abusive words and usernames then you might consider one. It's a very useful feature to prevent this type of unpleasing events.

What have you done with those XMR since in my understanding the client closed his account and never withdrew it. What are your terms in this kind of cases? What do you do with this money since this is not yours at all.

---

Case: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/duckdiceio-scam-me-5144652

I do not see any post by the user that he received his withdrawal assuming after receiving the funds he never bothered to post again?
Anyway, in this case you had an angry impatience customer in my opinion. 8 to 12 or even 24 hours time for a review should be very normal. Furthermore I see the great game-protect was posting on that thread so things might looked a bit harsh at that time. GP is always troublesome to be honest.

---

I think the first thing you should have in your priority list is to fix the bugs you have in your system. Good to know that the user came to a peace.

---

The rest two seems the usual accusations from unhappy clients. One was about up to 10% loseback and anther seems resolved. This kind of things can happen when you are running a business. But it all resolves when you have a good terms and conditions, and the clients are aware about it.

---

The conclusion:
It took me few days to review all the above topics and understand the situations for individual cases. And to write this post it took me few more days too. While I was reviewing all the above accusations I was able to find some missing links or better say lack of some executive steps that were causing much trouble to the business.

1. I understand that your main problem is the bugs in your system. It's not that your intention is bad (not to pay the clients and things) but most of these problem came from the bugs you have in your system. For example: The deposit bonus bug, rain bot issue etc

2. In some cases some poor customer service. Example: In the child abuse case the customer service guy could handle it better way. It would not harm just to say that we do not like your nick or this is abusive nick hence we are refusing to serve you.

3. Banned username and abusive words: Your system does not have such feature. The child pornography case wouldn't exists if you have this feature at the beginning.

4. Not reviewing the terms when adding new features or promos: My understanding is that you are also not updating your terms when you are launching a new promo or features in the system and as a result you are ending up with some unhappy clients.

Overall I think your service can be improved if you consider above missing features to be added and also be a bit more polite and patience when you response to an unhappy client. Running a business is not much easy, you will have good and bad times but all it matters at the end what impression you are giving to the community. I think you are trying your best to bring value to your clients, there are no lack of good intentions but unfortunately this is not playing enough for you. You need more efforts, some little changes and you will be good. Good luck.

The conclusion was made via our multiple account detection systems, which includes things like IP and other elements that i would rather not disclose all tools we have --- it wasn't made via his actual chat discussions a definitive match, just a rather inconvenient leap of conclusion (currency of choice, matches on the system, and pm behaviour once asked)

regardless, it was obviously NOT the way to conduct ourselves in messaging the user, and I won't make excuses for how that was conducted. as the OP's of the thread even highlighted, we wouldn't risk our reputation to hold such a small sum and it was done out of genuine worry it's the same guy, but yeah.....no way should of happened.

As to actually being paid, as far as I'm aware we have not still -- we will of course pay the account holder if he gets in touch with us however he has yet to. It's not a lack of willingness, would be very nice to actually sort it sooner than later but we simply need that contact. The money is still being held on that account ready for him to come back to claim it.

Bobstone
DuckDice Live Support

I just read the second case titled "Mishandling a multi-account situation in private messaging".
There isn't really much to add. Unless you had substantial proof that the player was connected with other accounts that shared or tried to sell children pornography, such an accusation should never have happened. Could you tell us how you came to such conclusions? Was it only IP logs? Did that user AslanM4 write anything in the chat that seems to suggest he is interested in such things?

Did he get his money? He said that he closed his account and refused further communication with the DuckDice team. 

Assuming you eat into the true balance before the bonus balance (usually the case, as the converse allows for risk-free gambling esp. if you can cancel) then as long as the expected return to wager through the turnover is higher than the reciprocal of the bonus multiplier.

For example, if the house edge of 1%, accumulated over 40x wagers produces an expected return of 66.9%, then a deposit bonus with an extra 49.48% would be break-even.
  In other words, if you have some return R, 1/R multiplies together to produce 1.

---

Of course, a casino must be profitable. I haven't checked any bonuses on my own, but I doubt they would be particularly +ev, or if they were, it would be akin to the marginal benefit of rakeback or (done carefully) lossback.

For the deposit bonus I found on the site:
 At a 35x wagering coefficient/turnover, a 2.7% edge and 100% bonus (i.e. 2x multiple), you have an expected return of 38.36%. You would have needed a 160%+ bonus, as this bonus is effectively as expected: a -ev promotion. Overall, the expected return is 76.73%. Though, for plenty of gamblers, house edge doesn't matter in the first place and a larger bankroll to start results in a longer session (of 'potential' rewards).


So if you enter the bonus, you're subjected to the 23% house edge if you play it all the way through and/or have a positive return. Even if you don't and if your balance is below where you started, then your main balance is down. Kind of a lose-lose situation, unless I'm mistaken somewhere: high edge or guaranteed losses. Feel free to correct me.

So basically a user was linked to another account called 'ChildrenFucker', (and from Duckdice comments later on, he had other connections to child porn related stuff).  After cashing out, his withdraw was put under review rather than processed instantly and he got these messages from admin:



In the end he received his money and deleted his account along with creating a thread here.

I don't see any scam happening here.  Probably the best way to handle this kind of thing in the future, assuming you are confident they are using your site to share child porn, is to contact authorities, ban the accounts, send them their balance, and leave the investigating and accusations up to law enforcement.  In fact, tipping them off that you're contacting LE would only really benefit an actual pedophile in that situation.

You'd need more than just an account called "ChildrenFucker" though, which it appears you had, but just want to point out that that's a text book "let me think of the most offensive name I can" troll username, not something that should make you think the guy actually fucks children.

firstly, I will totally agree it was an awful way to do it.

however it was offering 200% not just 2x, and I actually think not many people were affected by it -- from that time it was just this very high profile case that came to light i think not many were affected as it did literally warn twice what would happen if you cancelled, and the terms were set before joining the bonus, so you have to consider a) people participating should be aware of the terms b) the higher offer making people realise there has to be a 'catch'  c) it warned twice before cancelling what would happen if you did cancel, each time having to submit. ]

in some ways, I don't want to dwell on this one case, because I think it has been rectified, when helping write this thread i felt it important to raise it again, because, it was glaringly obvious we didn't conduct it the best way, in the original terms, or how we dealt with the complaint initially, but we eventually saw the errors we were making.

actually, as an aside, when i first joined their moderator team, i wasn't even aware of this drama as it happened some months before, but when i became aware of it, i was quite shocked, but in earnest discussions, i realised it was a genuine human and basic error, rather than purposeful predatory and greedy like behaviour that led to this and i was actually thanked for being so candid about where and why i think they went wrong.

I have never used a deposit bonus on any of the casinos I have played on, so I don't know if the way you handled the bonus cancellation policy was normal on other platforms as well. But I don't think it was, and honestly, it was an awful way to do it. I can't help but wonder if and how many other players lost their coins due to that policy of yours. It's a positive thing that you changed it, but negative that it was there in the first place. 

I'll note it, i don't think it's necessarily misleading but certainly noted; i'm personally not a fan of marketing that makes any claims but it'll make more sense when i clarify the bonus terms you highlighted later in the post.


Again, not a fan of making these claims nor am i the best-qualified person to tell you the odds (I'm more on the people side of things than anything else) but it'll make more sense in a moment.


Yeah, noted but not too unclear, we're just trying to say we'll only run them on a limited basis.




My understanding of it is that you'll get the initial share back *if* you are above that initial share, losing any additional bonus balance and profit (if above profit) or you can cancel under the initial share, and only get what you haven't lost below that initial share.

So you're dead right it needs proofreading, but you can see how some claims (that I'd rather not see) can be made on it offering an advantage for bigger wins.

I checked faq#depositbonus:
I haven't done the math, but I'm wondering if this is true. The user can also lose more, and considering the player loses on average, "win much more" seems misleading.

Here too: I'd like to know if this is true (on a mathematical level). This also seems misleading.

I think a word ("give"?) is missing. I would expect Terms to be absolutely clear.

Say I deposit 1 BTC and get a 1 BTC bonus. I play a bit, lose the 1 BTC bonus, and have 1 BTC left. According to the above, this would be a reason for me to cancel the Deposit Bonus. But if I do:
This would mean I get nothing! So I'm better off if I continue playing, hoping I'll either increase my balance again, or reach the wagering requirement before my funds run out.
Or do you mean you call the full 2 BTC (including the 1 BTC I deposited) "Bonus Balance"? If that's the case, I'd say it's misleading.

I'm not a native English speaker, but while reading through the Deposit Bonus Rules, I get the feeling it needs proofreading.

Disclaimer: I'm not much into gambling, and I've never liked "deposit bonuses" because I know they're designed to make me lose more. So you can consider my input a bit of an "outsider" view on this, and the Terms are not as clear as I would have hoped. Ideally, I would want the Terms to be very easy to understand, and fair to the player without giving me the feeling the casino is trying to trick me into accepting sneaky Terms.

I'm actually in agreement here that it should never be ok and I understand from that time (i joined a few months after we had already stopped the deposit bonus following this) it wasn't the intention to be predatory, and more just a very naive oversight at the time (i genuinely believe that though I would not expect for one moment for any critical thinker too actually believe that regardless sadly)

I would actually welcome some additional feedback for people to see how we're running our current deposit bonuses;

https://duckdice.io/bonuses?modal=wagering-bonus-choose&bonusHash=692a53da85

they're much more favourable with the ability to cancel with your initial commitment intact, (obviously still forfeiting any profits), with varying but reasonable wagering coefficients (mitigated with higher house edge) 35x 2.7% and a max win per bet of the bonus amount.

It basically is an aim at the delicate balance already alluded to, it's extremely difficult to find a level playing field for both player and casino with these types of offerings but we've found our new format to be much more favourably viewed.


I am extremely happy you found the time to add your feedback and discuss it, it's exactly the purpose thank you.

Bobstone
Live Support for DuckDice

 

Usually all casinos don't offer the option to cancel deposit bonus , and any balance won  is withdrawable once the wagering requirements were met .  Basically 5 years ago when we did our first deposit bonus ,  the cancellation policy was that if you cancel the deposit bonus without finishing the wagering requirements , you forfeit the balance ( deposit + bonus ), while the user was informed 2 times before cancelling it that this would happen , this was a thumble on our part ,  and we quickly re-worked the terms of the deposit bonus so that this never happens again . ( we also refunded the user 2 btc ) .  Since then we conducted deposit bonuses  around 50+ times without any issues,   but because  of that first incident , our reputation suffered greatly here .  So while I know the negative feedbacks are hard to take back , especially since Lauda left the forum and Zepher sadly passed away ,  we'd like at least to manage to address all issues in a constructive way and hear the community's oppinion on how we can improve going forward.

Yes, but that shouldn't have happened no matter what their pop-up window displays. The casino can't just take your real money just because you stopped wagering bonus funds. His bonus going to 0 is Duckdice's wrong setup because the player didn't lose the money by betting. If I understood correctly, they admitted this mistake and fixed it.

If the player lost part or all of his funds, my view of this case would of course have been completely different. However, he won, he didn't lose.

I think Duckdice found a suitable compromise by refunding the 2 BTC. If we knew what the Bonus T&C were that the player agreed to at that time, it would be easier to comment on whether or not he had a right to claim any part of his 1 BTC winnings.

I don't think returning 2.5 BTC would have been better. I assume that's not according to the deposit conditions. The whole point of a deposit bonus is to make you wager more (and increase the chance to lose). It's no charity, it's designed to give the casino an edge, not the player. If the conditions aren't met, the user can't withdraw winnings. What if the user would have lost instead of won? He wouldn't be allowed to keep his 2 BTC that way either.

I believe you're correct up to this point^^



But when he cancelled the bonus, his balance went to 0:


There actually is a scenario where this would be acceptable, now that I think of it.  If his balance at any point dropped more than the amount of the deposit, then it would be a fair argument that after cancelling the bonus the player is not entitled to anything.

Regardless, if a player does something stupid like turn their balance into 0 without actually gambling, and he immediately comes to support to say "this is not what I meant to do", imo there's never a situation where it's ok for the Casino to say "sorry, thats our money now".  

If you leave the possibility of that happening, no matter how dumb someone would have to be to do it, it's going to happen.  - and so now you basically have predatory terms as a revenue generator for your business - which is never ok.  And by never ok, I mean that's my opinion.

But again, this is 5 years ago and they've admitted their mistakes in the past.  I've got issue #2 response on deck, I almost skipped to the "We accidentally rained 3 btc per user" issue but decided to go in order....stay tuned.



Not at all, open thread for a reason.
  

I just read the original accusation case and this is how I see it. I hope TwitchySeal doesn't mind other users posting their feedback and opinions.

Ozafejyw782 made a deposit of 2 BTC. The 100% deposit bonus credited him with another 2 BTC as a bonus.
Ozafejyw782 now has 4 BTC in his account, and if I understood correctly, he was able to make bets with those 4 Bitcoins. Is that correct?

He made a few bets and managed to win one extra Bitcoin. He now has 5 BTC as a balance, but he still hasn't met the wagering requirements, which means he can't request to withdraw those coins. At one point, he gives up and wants to withdraw everything. His original 2 BTC, the 2 BTC as bonus, and the additional 1 BTC of profit that he earned with help of his original deposit + the bonus.

Duckdice obviously won't allow it because the bonus rollover requirements haven't been fulfilled. I don't think Duckdice acted wrongly unless their TOS and Bonus TOS stated that the player has the right to cancel the rollover requirements at any time, and that he would be credited with the money he won until that point. I don't think that was the case, was it?

The issue was resolved by returning the original 2 BTC deposit. That's OK. But there is one more issue. The player can obviously not be allowed to withdraw 5 BTC. He can also not be allowed to withdraw 3 BTC (2 BTC original deposit + 1 BTC of earnings) because that 1 BTC of extra profit came thanks to wagers made with the bonus funds as well. But if he played with his own 2 BTC as well, shouldn't he be allowed to withdraw winnings that would represent the profit he would have made if he placed wagers only with those 2 BTC? In this case, instead of 1 BTC of profit, only 0.5 BTC. Maybe that would have been the most optimal solution.

So thread doesn't get over run with sig spam and a couple trolls with lots of accounts.

Hi there , TwitchySeal created the thread  , he's not related to duckdice in any way whatsoever , but we agreed on self moderation , just in case we get bot spammed , we had some issues in the past with this where our threads were constantly attacked/trolled by a user creating multiple accounts , so Twitchy will have complete control over deleting any troll messages.    As duckdice representatives we have no control over what comments are on the thread, which I believe is the right way to do a reputation thread.

What I don't quite understand is why this is a self-moderated thread. If you want to discuss in an objective and unbiased way, a self-moderated thread is not the right way, unless you convince me otherwise, I don't see it.

If by some chance I get this comment deleted I will open another thread to discuss this.

Just posting from our official duckdice account that the main body of the thread was indeed written by DuckDice, and posted on our behalf by TwitchySeal — we have done so in the hope a self-moderated thread allows for the creation of a platform for people to properly assess what we do as a casino without the additional worry of signature campaign posting clogging up the thread, as well as generally allowing a good conversation to be had.

Bobstone and Kirito89 as our support members will be the ones primarily handling questions, but this thread is actively monitored by all our team in hope of learning from you as the community what we can do better, and what we are doing right.

Thank you so much for taking the time to interact with this.

The original accusation on the forum:  (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/duckdiceio-scam-and-shady-behavior-2022797)
My Response


Mishandling a multi-account situation in private messaging: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idiots-warning-duckdice-5369223)
My Response


Scam accusations involving pending reviews: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/duckdiceio-scam-me-5144652)

The 3.11btc rain per user bug: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/duckdice-reward-scam-5090388)

Nomercy lossback: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/they-paid-me-25k-usd-as-a-loseback-in-total1-so-its-6-loseback-5364266)

Richardo30  aka Screwing1000 aka multiple other bitcointalk accounts , aswell as duckdice accounts: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/duckdiceio-5381469)

Last week a mod from Duckdice.io reached out to me to offer $100 in exchange for looking into and commenting publicly on some accusations that were made the site.  They were very explicit that they only wanted honest feedback and I'm convinced they aren't just looking for someone to shill for them.  I agreed, they paid me $100 in btc yesterday and today I received what you see below.

For the record: I know very little about Duckdice.io .  Never played there, never made an account, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) I'm pretty sure I've never even posted in any thread related to them.  All I really knew about them is that they're a dice site that's been around for a while, they have (had?) a signature campaign with orange signatures, and there were a couple scam accusations against them.  Before the last couple days I didn't know any of the details surrounding any of these accusations. 

Since they already paid me, they owe me nothing, and all I owe them is my opinion on the accusations below, (which I'll get to one by one in the thread) so I hope the perception of any conflict of interest is minimal.

Without further adieu...

---

---

---

---

Local Rules:

- All responsibility for any decision to remove or not remove a post falls on me (TwitchySeal), not Duckdice.
- No signature spam.  If your post smells like sig spam I'll delete it.
- No derailing.  The topic is duckdice.io issues.
- If I ask you not to post in the thread anymore, then don't.
- If you have a 1xbit advertisement in your signature don't post in this thread.