858
Lemmy today
(i.imgflip.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
858 points (96.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
32707 readers
417 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I am making an example to prove a point. The point is simple "industry" doesn't contain the scammers who try to abuse it.
Genius take!
Answer the question, though. I repost it for your own convenience. We clear out all the bullshit semantic you brought up, and go straight to the point:
Let’s pretend you actually believe your bs, and let’s make a distinction:
To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:
?
It does. To illustrate this I linked to a bank website containing advice on combating phishing.
Here's the definition I'm happy with.
Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry
Fake casinos = scammers
Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos
Combined because users find it hard to tell the difference.
Answer the question, your definition doesn't add much.
To which ones does your initial answer apply? Both legitimate and fake casinos?
It's not a hard question.
P.s. I bet you wouldn't be able to show me a fake casino if I asked. That's because they are not a common problem. You are overinflating it to make your absurd definition more reasonable. But let's not get into this...
Online casinos.
https://www.askgamblers.com/online-casinos/blacklisted
Your definition of "legitimate casino" excludes any casinos that rig games.
All businesses with financial operations are exposed to money laundering to some degree.
Regulations increase costs to implement. Only "legitimate casinos" fight them.
It's YOUR definition ahahah I literally took what you said and I am asking a question.
YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online. Now you are saying it doesn't?
So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don't rig games?
Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money, now you are retracting saying "are exposed". No dude, taking a cut has intentionality behind, being exposed is a natural risk for any business which moves money. You claimed the first.
So, one last time:
Nope. It's you who is obsessed with separation of "legitimate casinos".
Correct
Incorrect.
You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don't rig games.
Incorrect. I said casinos are used to launder money.
No retraction necessary.
Online casinos rig games. You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don't rig games. A normal internet user cannot tell the difference.
Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.
Your quote:
You forgot already? A link to your own comment.
I didn't define shit, you defined legitimate casino as a partition of online casino.
Look what triple jump you are making to avoid saying a very simple thing: legitimate casinos, defined as YOU did (established businesses in the casino industry) don't rig games. All because you can't admit to be wrong :)
So, I will ask once again:
Yes or no question.
I would argue with this point, but I won't. It doesn't matter, I accept the theoretical possibility of money laundering. For some reason I was mistakenly taking the top comment of this thread as your comment. I even quoted it several times and you didn't note that that's not your comment... my bad.
Here is your definition (not mine) where you separate "legitimate businesses" from "scam organizations"
So when I talk about online casinos, I refer to the legitimate businesses that are gambling businesses, not scam organizations that happen to use gambling as their cover
I'm saying this line is not clear cut, particularly for the average Internet user. A yes/no answer is not possible.
Easily done. Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, but I am asking to answer according to your own definition! I specified it, I quotes it, I wrote YOUR in caps, I can't add flashing lights or I would.
You provided a definition, I am asking a simple question with that definition in mind.
According to YOUR definition, do legitimate casinos rig games?
Come on, how many more comments do you need to answer this simple query?
Online casinos rig games.
From the end user point of view, the subset of legitimate casinos (that, following your definition, don't rig or scam) cannot be easily identified.
I give up. You refuse to engage in good faith.
What user can tell is irrelevant, we are talking about your "taxonomy" and the properties that carries being in one or other category.
You might not be able to distinguish a legitimate casinos by a fake one, but if in your opinion legitimate ones also rig games, this is irrelevant. If they don't, then what users can tell is a completely separate problem.
No. That's what you are trying to forum slide to.
I'm sticking to the point that online casinos are scammy, including legitimate, regulated operators.
Not just me. Any average Joe.
Your doggedness for wanting agreement that some casino games may not be rigged is impressive
But a problem very much related to "what's wrong with online casinos".
Indeed I want to make a distinction. Because thinking legitimate casinos rig games is completely different from thinking scammy ones do.
In fact, you had no argument whatsoever to prove those do, including your external sources that recommended basically in all cases to stick to licensed sites, proving that there is a difference (duh). On the other hand, having worked in the industry and understanding both how casinos integrate games and how compliance works, I have explained to you why there are generally not technical means AND no economic incentive for legitimate casinos to rig games.
I will repeat the points for you:
The above applies to essentially every licensed casino, every legitimate casino.
You failed to acknowledge any of these points, and you argued for 15 comments about scammy websites, bringing now the conversation back to where we started.
The reason why I want an agreement that legitimate (not some!) casinos don't rig games is specifically because I provided arguments (technical and economical) for why that's the case. So your refusal to make any distinction while also refusing to provide any proof to support your claim just results in a vague and messy discussion, exactly like your insane definition of "online casinos" that includes scam websites. You refuse to be accurate :)
It's not. It's something casinos (real ones) can't do anything about, the same way banks or shops can't do anything about. This is an extremely tiny problem because official means exist to recognize legitimate ones since there are trusted authorities that certify them. In fact, given the existence of central national authorities it is much easy to be sure that a casino is legitimate than a shop, for example. I will tell you more: rigged games (and therefore fake casinos) are a MINOR problem in the industry in general. It is absolutely a terrible argument to say what's wrong with casinos, because it's something the vast majority of the people will never even encounter in a life of gambling. However, there are plenty of reasons why casinos can be considered bad based on the regular operations of legitimate casinos, not based on your fairytales.
So yes, I am stuck on wanting an acknowledgement that legitimate casinos don't rig games because I know how that works, unlike you. Here is how I conclude this conversation, since we are at a moot point:
If you fail to acknowledge tha rigging games is very very unlikely (I will keep the theoretical possibility in case there are suicidal CEOs) in legitimate casinos, then I will call your argument bullshit until you have any proof. Specifically, you should explain what economic incentive do legitimate casinos (licensed) to rig games, and how do you think they can do that. If you fail to provide any argument in support of this while also refusing to make a distinction in your original claim, then I know you are arguing in bad faith, so I will simply block you and move on.
You have defined legitimate casinos as only ones that don't rig games or do scams. A priori you are correct.
There are enough illegitimate online casinos to create a problem for the whole industry.
Online casinos = scam
They don't have enough users so they need to squeeze their regular punters harder.
Even your beloved "legitimate" casinos do "rig" games by offering different odds at different times to different people. They scam people by restricting the amount that can be withdrawn (and other ToS tricks). They create user interfaces to maximise player losses.
I am in no way using this definition right now, I am using the definition you provided (established businesses) and I generally use it interchangeably with "licensed", because to operate you need at least a license.
So it's not a tautology.
Incorrect. Also creating a problem for is not defining the industry itself. There are phishing bank sites to create a problem for the banking industry, but only an idiot would answer "they steal your identity/card details" to the question "why are online banks bad".
Incorrect. You forgot to address "how". I will also add another item to the "you have no idea what you are talking about". Players losing is a sure way to lose even more customers. In fact if you knew something about the industry you would know that new companies operate on much lower margins that established ones. Bet365 might operate on a 7-9% margin, a new company operates on 1,2,3%. The idea that squeezing more existing customers, besides being technically impossible, is absurd. It's a huge business risk (you lose your license and then you will have 0 customers).
First, I don't like casinos, despite having worked for one, I have played on less sites than you did. I like even less bullshit though, hence my pleasure in clearing the world from yours. Second, that is not rigging at all. You know it, I know it, it is absolutely not what you meant, and I am embarrassed for you for trying to use this terrible rethorical trick to now bend the word rigging. Rigging means that you expect the odds to win are X but instead behind the scene are Y (<X). Offering odds first of all is not a casino thing, it's a sportsbook thing, and second of all is transparent to the user. Finally, odds obviously change over time, as estimated probability does...
Listen, you are just a guy on the internet with a big mouth and a family supply of bad faith. I showed you multiple times that your claim are bullshit and that much smarter people than you took care of the problems you claim affect casinos (rigged games and money laundering).
You failed to provide any argument from any of your claims and now you proved to argue in bad faith. As promised, I will make you a favour and block you, so you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself. Take this as a chance to reflect on maybe not arguing on something you don't understand fully, and maybe to learn from someone who knows more than you, as I try to do in the many occasions where I make mistakes or know little about something. Your claim at the moment is false. It's a conspiracy theory that you repeat and might believe, but it's false. Deal with it. You can use the very real and many reasons to consider casinos bad, do that.
Blocking someone is the Lemmy equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la I can't hear you".
But if this civil discussion has led you to that point then maybe we should let the topic lie and get on with our lives.