Topic: PRCDice.eu - Largest Dice invest site - Open since 2013! Chat, Play, Invest! - page 61. (Read 89246 times)

and I do not want PRC to end up like the donkey.

But will it really go away?  If Dean pays, another portion of the forum will then say that Dean is too easy to push around, and/or that he paid a scammer.  You can't make everyone happy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_miller,_his_son_and_the_donkey

I think it's really difficult at this point. If you go this way you would also have to take away the profit some players made by bets they shouldn't have won.

And yes we could discuss these even more here in the forum, but if we see it a realistic way there are two opportunities to handle it another way. Dean could pay 10000€ out of his own pocket to an site abuser, which I guess is also for him a lot of money, or the investors could pay for it. Both ways it will definitly hurt/destroy the site.
So I would prefer the pragmatic solution Dean provided. Why would we let an abuser destroy the site just because it seems "fair" for some people?

Man this Doog kid is really Bashing PRC unfairly. Ive had friends use this site and used it myself. Dean (The owner of PRC) has always run a fair clean business, all he asks is you do the same.
 
After a couple years of having opportunities to rip people off I have never seen Dean do anything 'shady'. Ever..

The most confusing situation is the sjess one. He found a bug and tried to exploit it. Now we can sit here and forum debate all day about it but I think dean has good logic in that he returned all the initial funds to sjess and fixed the exploit. Btw sjess did not admit to what he was doing when he was accused. It took Dean/the community around PRC to figure out he exploited the bug. He knew what he was doing was shady and he purposefully hid it until we all called him out on exactly what he was doing and how. 

If you played poker and someone could see your cards cause they "figured out how" would you say that person would be allowed to keep their money without a user end agreement? I would say certainly say no, but i could argue yes if I wanted to. This kind of behavior is shady and if dean had given sjess the investor funds I personally would have left the PRC community. I don't want people like sjess hanging around trying to rip everyone off. A smart asshole is still an asshole.

We all know how greedy people are and how some will do/say just about anything for money. You cant just hand money to people every time they ask for it. I have seen Dean pay for things out of his pocket quite a few times myself (before and after being asked by the players) and I don't think he should pay for this one.

Since this exploit Dean has stopped working on so many new "features" and started more on the security side. Dean might not be clairvoyant,  but he is a reasonable, morale person who learns from his mistakes (rare quality combo imo).

Anyway I just hate seeing an honest, hard worker like Dean getting bashed by the same couple forum trolls when there are a couple hundred of us who don't troll forums, but are perfectly happy with our service.

So you think it's OK to come in and make assumptions/accusations when you don't even know the situation?

Arrogant had 0.46 Bitcoin refunded for rolls that lost unfairly.

None of his martingale streak was affected. I have emailed him his results for him to verify.

I think it's the other way around.

If a roulette wheel is unbalanced, you will tend to see numbers on one quadrant of the wheel coming up more often than the other quadrants. The numbers are pretty randomly spread around the wheel, so a novice gambler won't notice anything is wrong. He could count how many times each number comes up, plot a chart, see spikes at various apparently random numbers, and then maybe notice that all the spikes correspond to numbers in one quadrant of the wheel.

On the other hand, the dice game was very obviously unbalanced. Numbers over 27 came up much more often than numbers under 27. A plot would show a simple step function. Even the most basic analysis would show it up. Not doing even very basic testing of your game's randomness seems like gross negligence given how easy it is to do.

Testing a roulette wheel requires someone to physically spin the wheel  thousands of times and keep a record of where the ball lands each time. It's boring, labour intensive, error prone.

Testing a provably fair algorithm requires 5 minutes to write a simple script.

I don't think that's the case.

Player "Arrogant" was playing a Martingale strategy.

I don't have the exact details, but it's something like this:

--
He lost bets 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6 playing 'lo'. The 0.2 bet should have won.

The house refunded the incorrect 0.2 bet only.
--

"Arrogant" ends up massively down on the deal, but if the casino wasn't (unintentionally) running a rigged game, he would never have made the bigger bets, since he was resetting on wins.

How is that fair?

The house argues "you made a losing 1.6 bet; that bet was fair; we won't refund it".
He argues "I only made the big bets because all my small bets lost; the small bets shouldn't have lost; refund the big bets".

Who is in the right here?

I've read his post but I don't think that it will be handled everywhere equally. Especially if it is against policy.

If you read dooglus's post (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7742580), you would know that you will still get what you have won with counting cards.

Like you pointed out correctly. Sjess discovered a "damaged" algorithm. And instead of reporting this fact to the casino he massivly abused the game. Whenever you see someone in a casino abuse the rules he will get kicked out. Not everything what is possibly is allowed to be done. Counting cards is a good example for this.

Maybe you should just suck it that you couldn't take advantage of the bug. AND YES STAY AWAY IF YOU JUST WANT TO ABUSE THE RULES OF THE PAGE.

If you play fair you can be sure to be treated fair! Like all the player who got their money back from the unfair bets they lose during this time.

There are such large swings in profits because the site bankroll jumped 10x over the last month, allowing people to win (and lose) more. Site profits are higher than they were 1 month ago.

Is the roulette wheel manufacturer analogy fair? Any novice gambler used to playing roulette would most likely spot more reds than blacks, or even the lack of green. Most people who play dice and invest are not really aware of how these things work (not that ignorance is an excuse). I don't think what sjess was doing was simply pointing out that there are more reds than blacks; rather he knew about a manufacturers secret pinhole in the bottom of the table and wiggled a pin over and over because he knew eventually he could tilt the odds would swing in his favour.

Most roulette players would not know this about a table and would likely never invest in one if they did. I don't know if investors would be at fault in this instance, but maybe they are.

I will still keep on supporting 

The flaw was fixed. I've verified all the rolls made since then and everything is correct. The profit stats show as they should also.
It's just variance. Most of the volume is a few small betting bots and then you get a few guys who bet closer to max or do larger martingale betting.

Yes, I was already wondering whether there was again something broken with the algorithm or something similar. But it's too early to tell since this may very well be variance or ongoing fixes of the site that affect the displayed amount of profits...

It went down from like 30 to like 17 yesterday and now at 25.5, pretty swingy

Holy cow, that was a steep increase in profits. Up 65% according to my calculations. Imagine that at JustDice, not even possible with pippin and theymos at the same time...

Get bent, you idiot. Jsess earned that money and deserves it. Dean should either pay out if his pocket or have the investors foot the bill. Either way, money is owed.

You don't get to tell people to shut up.

jsess was playing according to the rules, and in concordance with the terms and conditions. He won but wasn't paid his winnings.

Dean says that people complaining about his refusal to pay jsess his winnings are "arguing over nothing".