Re: How high is the probability of accusations vs. casinos in BitcoinTalk are true?
If the casino has a current signature campaign that's managed by a trustworthy manager, then there's a higher probability that that casino is not a scam. Managers usually stop representing them when they start becoming scams.
Well, being an active casino campaigning on Bitcointalk is a very good layer of trust, nevertheless, with my sincere experience so far, it still does not save anyone entirely. Mind you, this is not a matter of those casinos being a scam, they are often running a legitimate business, but in the cause of running such a legitimate business, there could be some cheating and excesses, this is what we are talking about.
And Bitcointlak or not, there are accusations that have been resolved and there are some that have not been resolved, and will never be resolved. What should we call that? I hope casinos are fair/sincere with their customers and have valid proof if at all they restrict or sanction their customers for any reason whatsoever.
It's not a layer of trust. It's merely an indicator that, CURRENTLY, the casino is still good with the community and that none of the scam accusations, although some of them are real issues, make the casino a "scam".
Regardless, I stand by my first post as a scam is a large context, for a casino to have issues with some specific customers doesn't label them a scam entirely. They might just have some cheating practices, but once there is legitimacy in their operation by law and treat the majority of their customers fairly, they can't generally be scamming. Who knows even if the customer is lying at times? This ugly behaviour of casinos is common, even with the most popular and reputed ones, which is a good reason why they can't be generally called scammers, but treat each case separately.