|
Day Man posted:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/03/elon-musk-impersonator-tesla-secrets-todd-katz-lawsuit A crime doesn't stop being a crime just because you do a lovely job of it. That's why people still go to jail for attempted murder.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:also if you know anyone with a macbook pro and an iphone who doesn't charge one with the other, let me know so I can tell my friends I saw a unicorn. I have plugged my iphone into my MBP once in the last 3 years and only to unlock it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Serious businesspeople and politicians held onto their Blackberries for a long time after everyone else wanted iPhones. I didn't actually own an iPhone until the iPhone 4, just coded for them, so I'm not 100% on the user experience. The development environment was night-and-day better. Part of the reason BBs stayed around so long was that it took a really long time for apple to get any real mobile device management, and BES was a thing for a long time, entrenched into enterprise systems and meeting the compliance needs of those enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
I know I am coming off as the king apple fan boy in this thread but it's really not that. Apples are terrible for a lot of tasks. They are terrible to interact with anything outside their ecosystem. But at the same time I don't think people know how seamless apple's ecosystem has become. There is really nothing else like it. A lot of my job is implementing huge numbers of apple products institutionally and it's really nuts how much autoconfiguration they do to make things talk to each other. You pull anything out of a box brand new and it's connected itself to everything else in the building by the time it's at the homescreen/desktop. You never ever are supposed to plug things together yourself. You only do it in a major failure state. If you are an institutional user it goes even farther, with a bunch of pre-configuration happening "at the factory" (they just enter the serial number in a database and the info downloads silently during initial startup but as a user experiance it seems like it was all there when it was in the box)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I know I am coming off as the king apple fan boy in this thread As a neutral observer who doesn't care what you can plug an iPhone into, I just want to point out that you really really do come across as a loving gigantic Apple shill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:As a neutral observer who doesn't care what you can plug an iPhone into, I just want to point out that you really really do come across as a loving gigantic Apple shill. Ah, the old Spectrum vs Commodore 64 wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I know I am coming off as the king apple fan boy in this thread but it's really not that. Apples are terrible for a lot of tasks. They are terrible to interact with anything outside their ecosystem. hey guys i'm super not an apple fanboy I promise. apple totally sucks. anyway, have you heard about apple's seamless device ecosystem? it's really, like, insanely great for institutions or really anyone who likes great stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:hey guys i'm super not an apple fanboy I promise. apple totally sucks. Hasn't that always been the blessing and the curse of apple? They are the computing company with a vertical monopoly. they make the hardware and the software and all their devices. This means that they work together in a way that no other company can even come close to. But it also means that if you step one inch out side of their vision you rapidly hit barriers. They have an ecosystem of wireless interconnectivity between devices no other company on earth is anywhere close to. It works perfect right out of the box with zero configuration by the user. But at the same time if you want to change or modify or add to that, no way, apple won't allow it. If the way bonjour shows apple tvs on your network isn't the way you like it you are either gonna suck it up or learn to edit a bunch of undocumented files with unix commands you shouldn't be using. apple stuff works exactly one way with minimal settings. if you want that one way nothing else on earth comes close to doing it as well. if you want it to be different you have a 1400 dollar paper weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Nobody cares that you love Apple so much, go jerk off in IYG or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
You're not even responding to any specific point anymore, you're literally just evangelizing apple products to nobody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You're not even responding to any specific point anymore, you're literally just evangelizing apple products to nobody. And you keep repeating that it's somehow bad optics that apple doesn't include a wire for their wireless devices. Which is an absurd claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I know I am coming off as the king apple fan boy in this thread but it's really not that. Apples are terrible for a lot of tasks. They are terrible to interact with anything outside their ecosystem. This is honestly one of the reasons I -won't- buy Apple products. Living in a place where malicious wireless devices are a thing, and security is a concern, this is a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
maybe a page ago, now i guess we're talking about how perfectly seamless the iCloud experience is or something? relevant: https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/04/apple-provides-a-softer-landing-for-macbook-pro-buyers-with-deep-discounts-on-peripherals-and-dongles/ apple posted:We recognize that many users, especially pros, rely on legacy connectors to get work done today and they face a transition. We want to help them move to the latest technology and peripherals, as well as accelerate the growth of this new ecosystem. Through the end of the year, we are reducing prices on all USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 peripherals we sell, as well as the prices on Apple’s USB-C adapters and cables. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Let's try and claw our way back to the topic at hand. Here's a downround tracker that lets you watch the bubble burst in real time from the comfort of your mom's basement: https://www.cbinsights.com/research-downround-tracker
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This is honestly one of the reasons I -won't- buy Apple products. Living in a place where malicious wireless devices are a thing, and security is a concern, this is a nightmare. Yeah, I don't own a single apple anything in my personal life. Apple stuff provides one solution that does one thing. If that solution is what you need nothing else on earth will do it better, if it's not what you want it's not what you want period. If they decide they make wireless products they will make their wireless ecosystem simpler and more easy to use than any other company, but if you want them to give you the option to also use wired they will drag their feet and make that the worst, least documented, most hidden possible experience they can if it even works at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:A crime doesn't stop being a crime just because you do a lovely job of it. That's why people still go to jail for attempted murder. Fair enough. I was trying to generate discussion about something other than Apple, which I don't think qualifies as a unicorn
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I just got back from my job at a coffeeshop and there were five people with iphones and macbooks there when I left and every single one of their iphones was plugged into their macbooks. In other news RadPad, which was going to disrupt the real estate market, is now largely for sale on a liquidation website, so if you want to pick up a series of pictures of forward thinkers, electric razor scooters, or just a shitload of macbooks, now's you're chance: https://btesto.hibid.com/catalog/89067/radpad/
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Let's try and claw our way back to the topic at hand. Merus, Edeniq and Bromium. Which is the Computer Hardware and Services company, which is the Energy/Utilities company and which is Healthcare company?! Also, can you explain what I'm looking at with that listing? Prior valuation - Down valuation is how much worth they have lost, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
No, the down round is what their valuation was as of this most recent financing/exit. The previous valuation was the pixie dust and rainbows number they were supposedly worth before reality crashed in on them. The amount they "lost" is difference between the two numbers. Although in reality, nobody really lost any money in real terms because the underlying asset exists in a kind of monetary limbo. Unless it was an exit, in which case the early investors likely break even and the founders get nothing, having wasted years of their life. To understand why this is, the first thing you have to realize is that valuation is complete bullshit. It's a made up number for what the company is worth that mostly exists to so investors know what kind of ownership stake they're getting for the money they're putting in. It's nominally pegged to the company's revenue or, more commonly for consumer startups, it's number of users. But in reality, it's decided through a protracted negotiation process between the company and the investors, so it's more accurate to say that a high valuation reflects the degree of leverage the founders have over the investors. That being said, the natural order of things is that valuations go up each time you raise a new round of funding. Again, the popular explanation for this is that the company is just bigger and more successful so it's worth more. But the more accurate way to think about it is that the company being more established and thus theoretically a better bet gives the founders better leverage to extract a higher valuation. There's also the fact, not often acknowledged, that the investors, particularly the existing investors, want to see those valuations go up. It's what enables them to go to their LPs and say "look what great investments we've made... We bought this stock with your money for 10 cents now it's over a dollar." It also means that if new investors come in at later rounds they won't dilute the ownership of the existing investors because new investors have to pay more to get the same percentage. All of which is to say, if a company raises money and their valuation ISN'T higher than it was the last time they raised, something has gone seriously wrong. It means that even with all the structural forces at play, the founders still didn't have enough leverage to get a better deal. If it's a down round, it means they actually had to sell at a discount to entice investors to give them money despite their flaws. Companies that raise a down round are basically the clearance rack of the tech world. Baby Babbeh fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Let's try and claw our way back to the topic at hand. Ah, I see DraftKings in there. Did the totally-not-online-gambling bubble already burst or did the football season just end or something? I'm not American so I have no idea, but earlier this year I would get routinely assaulted by fantasy football ads on podcasts. I recall DK employees getting caught with their hand in a cookie jar (helping friends cheat the system) but I don't remember whether it panned out into anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
FanDuel and DraftKings were trying to merge together last week, I don't know if that's still going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Antti posted:Ah, I see DraftKings in there. Did the totally-not-online-gambling bubble already burst or did the football season just end or something? I'm not American so I have no idea, but earlier this year I would get routinely assaulted by fantasy football ads on podcasts. I recall DK employees getting caught with their hand in a cookie jar (helping friends cheat the system) but I don't remember whether it panned out into anything else. DK and it's rival Fan Duel are losing money hand over fist. Individual states are starting to ban them, the feds are investigating, the whole thing is a ripoff, etc etc Peanut President fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:
What you're not getting is that people don't do this very often anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
cheese posted:Merus, Edeniq and Bromium. Which is the Computer Hardware and Services company, which is the Energy/Utilities company and which is Healthcare company?! Nothing as obvious as Google, Apple, Compaq, Xerox, or Hewlett-Packard, certainly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Antti posted:Ah, I see DraftKings in there. Did the totally-not-online-gambling bubble already burst or did the football season just end or something? I'm not American so I have no idea, but earlier this year I would get routinely assaulted by fantasy football ads on podcasts. I recall DK employees getting caught with their hand in a cookie jar (helping friends cheat the system) but I don't remember whether it panned out into anything else. No one was caught cheating (it was less like "hand caught in the cookie jar" and more like "the cookie jar was on too low of a shelf so someone totally could have been eating the cookies this whole time even though they're all still there"). The incident was completely blown out of proportion and fired off a wave of state legislators trying to ban DFS but things have turned around. For example NY was the biggest state to ban it, but the sites recently made a settlement, paid some $millions and are back up and running in New York. The legislative momentum has now turned around with most states wanting to enact regulation rather than outright ban it. However the sites were over-valued and massively over advertised. They have cut down on advertising substantially but are supposedly still losing money. However the contests are still going and are bigger than ever and the sites have rolled out a lot of popular features, some in response to regulation, like beginner-only games, casual games, experience badges, smaller entry limits, etc. There are now rumors of a merger. The community still seems to be filled with paranoid conspiracy theory nuts so every single week the person who wins the biggest tournament on DraftKings gets accused of cheating and every now and then the same reporter at the NYT will report the latest conspiracy as fact. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What you're not getting is that people don't do this very often anymore. I work in a dumb hipster coffeeshop and let me say you are very, very wrong about how often people plug their phones into their laptops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
They plug in to their laptops to charge, not to transfer stuff tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:DK and it's rival Fan Duel are losing money hand over fist. Individual states are starting to ban them, the feds are investigating, the whole thing is a ripoff, etc etc This boggles my mind. How is it possible to lose money running a sports gambling website? edit: please let the apple chat go, it's a very stupid discussion and owlofcreamcheese might come back and nobody wants that. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
withak posted:They plug in to their laptops to charge, not to transfer stuff tho. Yes. Laptops are basically portable power banks, and even at home they save you the trouble of having to keep track of yet another charger. I, for one, can't even remember which country my iphone wall charger is currently in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
It's not so much cheating, as it is skilled players taking all the money. Here is a long article detailing the mistakes these sites made, but the short version is that Joe Casual enters a small contest for $20, is destroyed by a professional who uses a bot to instantly locate less skilled players, then never comes back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:It's not so much cheating, as it is skilled players taking all the money. Here is a long article detailing the mistakes these sites made, but the short version is that Joe Casual enters a small contest for $20, is destroyed by a professional who uses a bot to instantly locate less skilled players, then never comes back. Wow. Reading that article, you could find-and-replace with "Texas Holdem" and it would perfectly describe what happened with online poker in the mid '00s. Considering the same legislation that ended that madness gave birth to fantasy sports betting, you would think these companies would have taken five minutes to learn what happened to their predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:It's not so much cheating, as it is skilled players taking all the money. Here is a long article detailing the mistakes these sites made, but the short version is that Joe Casual enters a small contest for $20, is destroyed by a professional who uses a bot to instantly locate less skilled players, then never comes back. It's all overblown. For example, especially due to entry limits, the "pros" are concerned primarily about maximizing volume. They scoop up games very quickly regardless of who the opponent is. I had read that article before, and I just re-skimmed it, so let me know if I missed anything. But I'm pretty sure it's all just reporting of accusations and hearsay. The sites blocked scripts like a year ago. I find it preposterous that the pros would risk losing their source of income by trying to increase their edge running a bot. Sure it would help but the sites do ban people and these guys have a lot of money to lose. Personally I download many contest histories every week in order to backtest my strategies. I would love to automate that scraping process but it's not worth the risk of getting banned. Contest sizes are increasing, user base is increasing, so I'm not sure what there is to be back up your narrative. I have no problem with the fact that skilled players win more often, that's the point after all. Edit: so much bullshit in these articles. For example this narrative quote:But your chances of winning improve exponentially with 900 lineups in a field of 35,000 when most players have one or two. Obviously I'm biased. I enjoy DFS. I use statistics (oh no!) and enter many lineups. But I have been fluctuating between being a slightly winning player and a slightly losing player overall. It's not easy to be a "shark" and there's no magic trick that people are using to win. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Contest sizes are increasing, user base is increasing, so I'm not sure what there is to be back up your narrative. I have no problem with the fact that skilled players win more often, that's the point after all. As long as userbase is increasing, you're probably right, the business model is fine. The problem is that the kind of hyper-aggressive advertising both sites were doing until recently is borderline illegal and will end the entire party for everyone in the long term, just like it did for poker. It looks like they've chilled out for now, and taken a share price hit in the process, but who knows if the industry can keep it in their pants?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Nothing as obvious as Google, Apple, Compaq, Xerox, or Hewlett-Packard, certainly. By contrast, many (most?) modern startup names are so generic that naming firms recycle the unused ones from one startup to the next. They're created to never conflict with international trademarks. (See Apple's initial problem with the Beatles' Apple records, which resurfaced when Apple finally went into the music biz.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:As long as userbase is increasing, you're probably right, the business model is fine. The problem is that the kind of hyper-aggressive advertising both sites were doing until recently is borderline illegal and will end the entire party for everyone in the long term, just like it did for poker. It looks like they've chilled out for now, and taken a share price hit in the process, but who knows if the industry can keep it in their pants? I agree that the advertising was ridiculous. Obviously it worked to a point but they were not able to keep pace with their growth in the legal department. But the outrage a year ago really did come out of nowhere from my perspective and I can understand why it took them by surprise. They were clearly not prepared for the conspiracy theories that this kind of industry attracts. That's the biggest threat to DFS: conspiracy theories that get accepted as facts. It's insane. Any given day on the DSF forums you'll see accusations of elaborate cheating schemes that, if you actually run the numbers, would result in absolutely minuscule increases in edge. Three or four weeks ago a conspiracy theory blew up that the winning millionaire maker player was colluding with another player by coordinating their lineups in order to avoid having duplicates. Doing so would result in something like an extra .00001% ROI, a few bucks over the course of a season (since the likelihood of overlapping if you don't coordinate is very small, and only has an impact if that lineup wins). The community had their pitchforks out over the fact that they had no overlaps, when something like 95% of all the pairs of players who max entered also had no overlaps. Then someone checked the previous week and they had 8 duplicate lineups. The community then came to the conclusion that they purposefully entered those duplicated in order to cover their collusion. Which just blows my mind in its stupidity. Although all signs are pointing up at the moment I'm not confident about the future due to these kind of things continuing to happen. I don't even know what the sites could do about it. If they ban everyone who wins a big tournament like the mob wants them to that's not going to help. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:All the words you list are either meaningful English words (Apple) or related to the company's business. "Google" is a variation on "Googolplex", a Very Large Number. Compaq = "compact", as in one of the first luggable computers. "Xerox" is short for "xerography", the name of the underlying process to the original photocopiers. And Hewlett-Packard is (duh) the name of the founders. I know what all of them mean. None, with the exception of Compaq, convey to the layperson whether they are search engines, phone makers, pharmaceutical companies, or toys. Please see the post to which I was replying, it is relevant to my point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Although all signs are pointing up at the moment I'm not confident about the future due to these kind of things continuing to happen. I don't even know what the sites could do about it. If they ban everyone who wins a big tournament like the mob wants them to that's not going to help. Again, poker had the same problem. The nature of online gambling is that elite players who are good at minmaxing will always, always, always win. The economy is always supported by newbies losing money. I used to play low stakes holdem online for fun, and it was so competitive even at penny tables that the only way to win was to play in the most conservative and boring way possible. Anyone showing up to have a good time and maybe win a few bucks would lose small, and the people who got sucked in and tried to make a go of it would lose big. The only folks making money had a dozen games going at the same time and played each one exactly the same way: fold unless you are mathematically certain to have the nuts, then pump up the pot and cash out. The winner base will only get smaller as the player base gets bigger. Unless they've solved some fundamental problems inherent to gaming (they haven't).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Again, poker had the same problem. The nature of online gambling is that elite players who are good at minmaxing will always, always, always win. The economy is always supported by newbies losing money. I used to play low stakes holdem online for fun, and it was so competitive even at penny tables that the only way to win was to play in the most conservative and boring way possible. Anyone showing up to have a good time and maybe win a few bucks would lose small, and the people who got sucked in and tried to make a go of it would lose big. The only folks making money had a dozen games going at the same time and played each one exactly the same way: fold unless you are mathematically certain to have the nuts, then pump up the pot and cash out. Was that really the problem for online poker though? I was also playing and did not realize if the user base was dwindling before the US ban. I thought the problem was that Full Tilt was basically stealing people's deposits. Meanwhile I think online poker is still going strong outside the US so I don't know if the failure of these markets is as inevitable as you make it out to be. Yes, poker is a boring game and using good strategy is boring. What you describe isn't exactly true though. Yes, ideal strategy is much more conservative than most newbies think. But if everyone is playing that conservatively then being a bit more aggressive is the optimal strategy regardless of how competitive the tables are. It just so happens that even an aggressive strategy by the standards of people who are good at poker seems boring and conservative to many new players. But anyways, that's besides the point. How is the story you tell consistent with a dwindling winner base? If everyone is "minmaxing" as it were then how are only a few players winning? If it's purely a question of volume then the people playing 12 tables wouldn't be the only ones winning; they would just be winning 12 times as much. And I'm not sure if this narrative applies to DFS as much as everyone thinks. Even the article linked previously said that most of the players entering 1 lineup lost money (which is always going to be true when only the top 20% gets paid) and followed that up by saying that only 2 out of 21 of the players who max entered made a profit. I fail to see the big deal there. And looking at past millionaire maker results, players entering just 1 lineup win fairly often, much more disproportionately than you would expect by their share of the entries compared to players who enter the maximum number of lineups. The problem isn't that only a few players win. It's a fairly random game, more so than poker, and there are no magic bullets. The problem is that anyone who wins gets accused of cheating by all the players who didn't win. Edit: something that particularly annoys me is the insinuation that normal players can't do what the big players do. It's simply not true. There are plenty of 25-cent games so anyone who thinks that entering 200 lineups means printing free money only need to cough up $50 to test their theory. It's how I got started; I was grinding the 25-cent tournaments for a long time. It's not easy and there's no hidden secret. The top players are losing massive amounts of money only slightly less often than they win massive amounts, but the crowd only notices when they win. If the inevitable problem with online gaming is that it's not free money, then yeah that's never going to be solved. But in that case the problem is clearly in people's expectations more than anything else (which in the case of DFS, some of the blame does go to the advertising for giving the impression that is free money). SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I know what all of them mean. None, with the exception of Compaq, convey to the layperson whether they are search engines, phone makers, pharmaceutical companies, or toys. Please see the post to which I was replying, it is relevant to my point. Yes, the photocopier company that names itself after a photocopying process to the point where its name became just as ubiquitous as photocopying has no bearing as its name as a photocopying company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Was that really the problem for online poker though? I was also playing and did not realize if the user base was dwindling before the US ban. I thought the problem was that Full Tilt was basically stealing people's deposits. Meanwhile I think online poker is still going strong outside the US so I don't know if the failure of these markets is as inevitable as you make it out to be. Yes, poker is a boring game and using good strategy is boring. What you describe isn't exactly true though. Yes, ideal strategy is much more conservative than most newbies think. But if everyone is playing that conservatively then being a bit more aggressive is the optimal strategy regardless of how competitive the tables are. It just so happens that even an aggressive strategy by the standards of people who are good at poker seems boring and conservative to many new players. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest it's a problem for the companies that run the games. It's just the way gambling works. A small number of high rollers will always profit until they get cocky and lose, and the profit will always come from the unwashed masses lured in by the facade of luck and instant wealth. The house is always the only winner in the long run, and it doesn't seem to deter anyone from giving them their shirts. quote:The problem isn't that only a few players win. It's a fairly random game, more so than poker, and there are no magic bullets. The problem is that anyone who wins gets accused of cheating by all the players who didn't win. That's always going to happen with a new game, and will keep happening for a long time. It may make for a lovely community, but the casino doesn't have to care as long as there are enough suckers (and there are always enough suckers). I think what you're not realizing is that you're in a small minority of people who take the time to figure out how the game really works. The vast majority of people dumping money in will never do that. If they did, the system would fall apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:31
|
|