Forum Menu
Forum Info
- Town Status : Outlaw
- Wanted Reward: $419
- Topics Started : 48
- Replies Created : 965
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
It’s not always as simple as posting a link – many of the facts I posted certainly can be easily referenced and verified by going on other websites, for example the Gambling Commission, whereas others for example as far as I know, there’s no Wiki page on how RTP works, but it is a distinct mathematical model I’ve explained in granular detail on this forum before.
Ah I see, right yeah I can’t explain it, not a game I ever played and I think it came out while I was already on my break from gambling.
I don’t think the thread I created should have been locked, really. It wasn’t a call out thread or personally targeting anyone, it didn’t break any forum rules and it was a dedicated space to have the discourse of fairness Vs corruption so it wouldn’t spill over in to other threads. The aim was to have a thread for the civil discussion of that topic in a fact-based debate.
I have no objection to being told I’m wrong about something, provided the claim comes with supporting material to justify it. But if anyone says “you’re wrong and you have no facts” and that’s the entire response, why shouldn’t I post a list of facts which are on my side? I never start this drama, I just point out factual errors or logical flaws in other people’s unproven claims, in relation to a topic I think is both relevant and important to talk about on a gambling forum.
In response to this thread, I’m not going to pretend I get on with JB or that I think there’s validity to his claims, I don’t. I also think it rings hollow for him to claim he respects me barely half an hour after calling me a bell-end in another thread. However much he gets wound up by my responses to his posts about rigging/corruption/etc., I am always civil to him and don’t hurl insults. I do not always get the same basic civility in return. If not being able to rationally counter the content of my posts is something which makes him angry or upset, that’s not my problem and I’m not going to apologise for it.
In any other topic of discussion on the forum, there doesn’t tend to be friction between us, there are many threads we’ve both posted on which don’t end up in drama. I never aim to wind anyone up here, but I do and will continue to call out and argue anything I perceive as bullshit.
1I’ve read this 3 times and I must be being blind because I don’t get what the question is.
Posting casino screenshots of deposits or withdrawals doesn’t prove shit unless it’s a major reputable casino such as Casumo which we can be sure isn’t giving certain affiliates dummy accounts the casino itself is funding. You show me withdrawals on Casumo, I’ll accept you’re genuine, but some no-name dodgy casino outside UKGC regulation? No. Doesn’t convince me it’s not fake.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s actually on streamers to prove to any viewer’s satisfaction that they’re genuine, rather it is on us as viewers and players to decode who we trust, just like it is when we sign up with a casino, and to not watch the streamers we don’t trust. I don’t trust Roshstein or the casinos he promotes, simple as that. You can learn to act and fake the excitement of big wins, but faking the crushing disappointment of a big loss is much harder.
Okay so Dazza’s explanations are plausible, but I think still dishonest on at least some level. I mean, even if I accept at face value “sometimes I play spins on low stakes to round the balance before I start a video”, he still often creates the intentional impression that we are watching entire sessions from the very first spin.
Labowsky – this is gonna sound kind of weird, but his voice makes me hungry. Like literally, it makes me want to eat food. I don’t know why, it’s just something about the way he speaks.
He’s explained himself on afew CM threads but who knows.
What’s his explanation?
Nothing about Dazza’s videos strike me as untrue.
Go check the 2 bonanza videos Dazza has up on his channel, and see how he doesn’t start on 34300 megaways before he starts spinning. What’s up with that? Cus I just checked and I always do.
Interesting, never noticed that. Suggests best case scenario he’s not showing his full sessions.
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions yet. Im sure he has a valid reason.
Doesn’t seem the type to con.
And I’m a perfect judge of character lol
I always found it weird how he seemed to get so many bonuses compared to me, and I have over 300,000 spins on the game. However, he might have just not uploaded all his sessions, who really knows.
His stakes make him seem legit, but the way he deposits 100x stake and gets tons of bonuses on almost every video is weird to me, cus when I do the same I rarely get a bonus before I RIP.
I was gonna say the same thing in relation to JB saying he regards Dazza as one of the most trustworthy features. After all that stuff about casinos and providers and streamers all being in cahoots to fake wins and the guy he trusts is the one who regularly hits an ungodly number of features on a game notoriously difficult to bonus? You have to smile at the irony. It is legit though, in respect of hitting the bonus Dazza is just a) lucky and b) almost never plays anything else, despite how much he appears to detest the game. I also have hit seven features in a single session on Bonanza before, so I can attest that kind of freak run does happen sometimes. But you can also go literally over 2000 spins without hitting it once and if that ever happens to Dazza, he doesn’t seem to show it on his videos.
Who’s called Dazza out for fake Bonanza videos? Always seemed totally legit to me, just very annoying (example: hits a 500x win in the base game, still yells “you utter bastard!” as if it’s just robbed him).
1I’m not known for my brevity either on or off the forum. I also say what I want to say, but I like to be unambiguous and that often means taking longer. But I’d rather express what I’m thinking accurately than quickly.
1Notice how it’s all vague, non-specific language too, to obfuscate the absence of any concrete facts and thus remove the need for justification. They both have the same tactic of using this kind of dystopian language (corruption, prisons, dictatorships, lies, etc.) but describing a world which would not look any different to one in which their claims aren’t true. This means for example they can claim people are being manipulated, but can’t say in what way or by whom in any detail which doesn’t fall back to abstractions (“newspapers lie to you”, “things are not as they seem”…), which sufficiently protects them from being told “you’re wrong”, but doesn’t actually claim anything of substance. In other words, you can’t be wrong when you’re not really saying anything in the first place.
-
AuthorPosts