Quote from: actmyname on August 13, 2016, 02:26:05 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

Yes, my stance did change once Betsoft resolved the issue with jasonort and after I looked at all the details, and realized that I was being manipulated with inaccurate information.

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

No, Twitchy lied to you there too....The max bet rules have always been there. It is a pretty established and well known fact to the regulars that play progressives that a max bet is required to qualify. Twitchy can only confuse the uninformed, which he's good at....

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

I don't like cheaters or thieves just as much as the next person and probably more....but liars and false accusers are just as bad. I'll stand up for those who are cheated, but I don't like being manipulated with false information to attack honest people to satisfy other people's perverted agendas.

Are you talking about Twitchy? Because from what we've already seen in the past, Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.

The complaint was already submitted, recorded, and was being negotiated so there was no retroactive manipulation. The rules needed to be clarified so that nobody else would think that "maximum" meant "free." Do you think that they shouldn't have clarified the rules? kept them they way they were because they were already perfectly clear? I do.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

Believe me, I've done thorough research on the subject and I am no slouch when it comes to probability, normal distribution, or variance, nor am I a slouch when it comes to statistical analysis and legal research.

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....

https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

You can look at those pretty pictures if you don't have time. They show clear problems with BetSoft, and in no way did Betcoin determine at all that there was a problem with them. Even going out of their way to try and make it seem like jasonort didn't fulfill the requirements for the jackpot.

If you graduated high school statistics then you'd realize that you need more than pretty pictures to draw an accurate conclusion....casinolisting's study is grossly flawed. The game they're looking at, "Good Girl, Bad Girl" is designed to function within those distribution frequencies....If you dig a little deeper, you'd realize that it's not like other games....the jackpots are mutually exclusive by design. And, if you look a little deeper than that, you'll find that there aren't too many others outside of the casinolistings affiliate program who take their flawed study very seriously. Here look at the game: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742 THE JACKPOTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN!

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

I earned my bones in life and I have more than I could ever possibly use as a result....No, I'm here because I believe in this stuff....I'm no bum hunter....I've been around the game a lot longer then you realize.

If you have more than you could possibly use, then you won't need a signature campaign, right? After all, you've earned enough. You can gamble with everything you've earned in the past.

You are absolutely correct. I don't need a signature campaign....I do this because I believe in bitcoin and Betcoin.ag poker. I am tired of my government telling me that I can't spend my own money to play poker online, period. And, I will promote the hell out of honest bitcoin poker sites like Betcoin.ag....I don't care what all the pro-regulatory shills have to say about it. I need an honest place to play poker without third party interference and Betcoin.ag is the only site that meets those requirements.

Red Font added by me in the above for brevity.

EDIT: To combine responses for brevity.

Quote from: game-protect on August 13, 2016, 10:31:56 AM

Quote from: jasonort on June 19, 2016, 03:40:05 AM

I would like the forums opinion on whether I should have won the jackpot. -snip-

Of course did you win the Jackpot!

Your original bet was a max bet. Then you won 4 max bets with the 3 airplanes on 2 paylines and each of the 4 free spins are technically a max bet.

The slot do not run without a bet and whether you paid directly or won the 4 max bets does not play any role for to be eligible for the Jackpot.

-> "Jackpot cannot be multiplied" confirms that Jackpots are eligible during free spins. They can not be multiplied, but they are clearly eligible!

Quote from: jasonort on June 19, 2016, 03:40:05 AM

Betcoin.ag is of course saying that BetSoft is to blame. Who can I dispute this with?

Did you sign a contract with Betsoft? If not, then betcoin.ag would be your contract partner.

If you buy a car, the seller is your contract partner and not the producer or software provider!

I said betcoin.ag would be your contract partner, because there is no juridical valid contract between you and the domain betcoin.ag or however they call it. So from a juridical point of view, you can consider everything you get from Betcoin as a gift.

If you would know who the operator of Betcoin is, then you could sue them in the applicable jurisdiction... Wink

This guy is manipulating the truth again. The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying! The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania sign" in the "The Glam Life."