Quote from: dadice_dev on July 09, 2015, 04:23:58 PM

The phrase never means in any way that we will NOT pay people. We have paid leen, we will continue to pay everyone! If some one wins 100x 20 BTC, we will either have to arrange more or declare bankruptcy in given circumstances? Could there be a more reasonable answer to this?

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?

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 04:56:24 PM

Well that was all not an issue before, when she (he) invested under the same conditions but was in profit. Dooglus as said before, we haven't changed our conditions since the start. And leen was aware of those conditions. That is the point, so we don't have to write long stories here.

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.

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 04:56:24 PM

Secondly, she attacked us publicly in the first place, since this time it doesn't go her way. Can't you see that, what kind of liar this person is. Want more evidence that she is even lying about her sex. I can post it here! Wondering if you would call this "paraphrased" as well Cheesy

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?

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 05:24:24 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 09, 2015, 05:16:35 PM

If you were using "Kelly system", you wouldn't even have a "max. payout". You would have a "max. profit". And it would be way lower than 20 BTC.

Well, you knew this all before. Why haven't you pointed it our before -- when you mentioned our 20 btc max payouts Huh

? Taking opportunities here?

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.

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 05:29:20 PM

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.

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".

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 05:36:02 PM

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

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?

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 05:37:26 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 09, 2015, 05:34:09 PM

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!"

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

"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.

Quote from: dadice on July 09, 2015, 05:44:54 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 09, 2015, 05:40:56 PM

Quote from: glorg44 on July 09, 2015, 11:51:48 AM

will dooglus leave negative trust to leen93 for lying to him? Grin

as he used false information fed by leen to ask if "we will not pay" statement is official policy of Da Dice. Roll Eyes

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.

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.
.

"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.