GR1ZZL3R

Neither did I, I meant a live trader that approves bets prematch, 👍 rather than automated approval. I'd also be interested to see what the actual limits are, not that I'm ever going to put a bet on that will get near them. 😄 Jami left UB a few weeks ago. 😪 Probably CS could give some answers but I'm not that desperate to find out.🤔

My 10 free spins.

I'm not saying it's ok at all. 🤨 I'm saying you've got two different limits, one in the terms and conditions and one with live traders, you're now saying there's a third, automated one. If you've never won a bet that should pay you out at more than the advertised limits you'll never know which limits to trust. 🤔 Personally I'm saying why risk it, I have accounts with a few betting sites as it seems you do, so why run the risk of a massive disappointment,? 😭 Spreading these possibly risky payouts a bit thinner just seems sensible.

Sorry but I think I do actually. If I'm not expressing myself clearly enough for you to understand then I apologise and will try again. If a bet is forwarded to a trader to be approved for a higher limit than those advertised, say 1M against an advertised 250,000, then you would expect, should your bet win, to be paid out at that higher limit. Unfortunately there are so many cases that when one of these bets does hit then the operator (I'm not saying Unibet or indeed naming anyone) can simply claim that the bet was accepted in error, by an inexperienced or unauthorised trader for example, or a myriad of any other excuses. The overriding statement will be "see our terms and conditions" and "payout limits." Someone may well have a bet with "possible winnings 1,000,000" approved by a trader, but actually cashing it if it wins could be a different matter. I would actually like it if someone did win a million just to see what, if anything, happened, but I wouldn't say it was a done deal to be able to collect, I'm merely pointing out one of the many possible pitfalls that can be encountered when large sums of money are at stake. Punters have to be on very sure ground in these cases, I'm suggesting an example where things might not always be clear cut. One obvious solution if your bet would pay out at twice the advertised limits is to split it and bet with 2 bookmakers, surely a far safer proposition than testing the limits of any one bookie to pay out "over the odds."

Back in "the good old days" bets to pay out more than the limits were sometimes accepted by mistake and the rare winner would lead to disappointment and arguments. I have not heard of any bookie paying out more than the advertised maximum. These days it shouldn't be possible for these bets to be accepted but mistakes are made and sometimes programming errors do occur, and even a bet manually accepted will be unlikely to be honoured at over the stated limits, it would simply be called human error and that the bet was accepted by mistake. I wouldn't recommend keep making bets that would pay out more than the stated limits, I suspect you would have an extremely difficult if not impossible task trying to get paid the full amount. Surely "better safe than sorry" applies here. 🤔

Hi @jjokio Most if not all bookmakers will have a limit on bets, most varying from sport to sport and particular types of bets. These will be usually found in their t&cs which are the ones you should focus on. If indeed it says maximum payout of 1M euro and your bet wins at odds that should pay 2M euro you will only receive the maximum payout allowed. This is something to take into consideration when making these small multiples trying for a huge payout. Good Luck in your betting.

Just as a corollary to the above I've spent a couple of hours collating the missing Aces from my own data base (Unibet Hand History Replayer.) The researcher found that big pairs, especially AA, were not dealt as often as would be expected. My stats absolutely confirm this shocking revelation, a sad indictment of the rogue poker sites we have to put our money on. Of the previous 5,893 (I think a fair sample for an old wreck rec like me) hands I have been dealt, expecting AA at a rate of about once every 220 hands therefore 26 times, I have only been dealt them a paltry 21 times, a huge under representation. I've always considered myself unlucky at cards but now the truth will out, I don't get a fair chance to slam all my money in with Pocket Rockets and make far more money than I have been doing. But to be absolutely fair I'm in a bit of quandary what to do really, as an oft quoted statistic states that AA will beat a random hand 85% of the time. In an effort for full and frank disclosure I have to say that my Aces won 20 of the 21 times, an incredulous 95% success rate. Could the RNG be dealing me less than the "correct" number of paired AA but letting me win more than my fair share of times with them as an inbuilt compensation factor? If you get dealt more than your fair share of AA do you lose more often as an effort to "balance." These and more questions can only be answered in the fullness of time by more minutes of researching more hundreds of hands and jumping to a fair percentage of conclusions before anyone else. Maths is hard "If there is a 50-50 chance of something going wrong then 9 times out of 10 it will."

I've read the first two chapters of the Pokerstars case study, and have always been interested in maths based stuff if never actually any good at it, so would be interested to hear opinions of anyone that knows the subject better. Anyway , here goes some layman's points of view. Firstly it almost reads as if someone has come to certain conclusions before doing any statistical work and is merely doing the actual study to prove his point. Isn't that the wrong way round? I seem to recall reading that good research is coming up with a hypothesis then trying to do everything you can to prove it wrong before making any conclusions. Anyway there seems to be an obvious (to poker players) issue with the sample size which crops up a couple of times because it's only 50K hands. If something should statistically happen 23% of the time but actually occurs 46% then this is noted as a huge difference, but... the 46% refers to 7/15. A sample size of 15. Is that really significant? The case of two players getting quads is worked out at 81 million to 1, but the guy bangs on about the player no way having played 81M hands. He doesn't seem to realise that you don't actually have to play 81 million hands for an 81 million to one chance to occur, it could happen the first hand someone ever played, couldn't it? I've seen two players get quads in the same hand, I'm sure some of you will have, and I've not played 81 million hands, not yet anyway. I've seen the same number come up 5 times in a row on a roulette table, about a 60 million to one shot, so am I just lucky or a statistical freak. Some of the statistics are astonishing, incredible or astounding, I'm more inclined to rate them as maybe slightly odd in the Poker Microverse, or maybe Unibet's RNG is slightly more random than Pokerstar's. Any thoughts anyone?

The first time I heard the number of hands played as a reference point was some years ago, Blackrain79 saying he'd had a losing stretch over 100,000 hands. Matt Berkey uses a 100,000 hand sample size fairly regularly as a possibly fair sample size to get any sort of meaningful statistics, even then variance could produce some anomalies, so as stated 55K hands is probably meaningless. Recently I somewhat flippantly asked "how many hands" in (yet) another conspiracy thread, (no answer yet 🤔) so I suggest each of these and new threads are first and foremost greeted with similar questions before going any further. "A sample size of how many hands were used as proof of something dodgy going on." I suspect there will be a very small number of answers, admittedly from a small sample size. 😂

or until everyone has fallen asleep. Over how many hands?

😄 I had no need to stop doing that because I've never done it in the first place. 🤣

Can't quite get my head round this statement Does that mean rigging the game makes winning players stay away. So all the players coming back are losers and then become winners so stay away. And what's left of the losing players come back... and win... or lose. Help!

The dates and times look a bit wrong, even the year. 😄

Any deposited money in the main account can be used for any product (as long as there are no bans or self exclusions). 👍

.

.

So as we have established you are a whore willing to take some of sugar daddies money, from now on it's just a matter of finding the level. As 'tool puts it, "sweet."

So you do have a price and consider an individual doing what a country, league or club does is somehow different? Is the going full Lawrence etc conditional on that being part of your earning a salary or would you do it purely for the money? As usual you're simply arguing for the sake of it. We know what you are, now we just have to establish the price!

Nonsense again. It's purely a matter of degree. A country taking money is whoring themselves out, an individual taking money from the same source is not. How come? At what size down, country, league, club, branch of a club, sub division of a branch of a club, an individual entirely unconnected with any club, does the source of the money change. They take the money but if the money is tainted going to a country or a club how does it become cleaner going to an individual?

So finally despite the many rants and raves about sugar daddies and dirty oil money not being acceptable a shocking admission... you do have a price!

I've finally finished the last cash ticket I bought. It's taken quite a while and has been ultimately disappointing, at one stage being up to over 90E. A combination of run bad and indeed some tilting took a heavy toll, but maybe the one positive as such is that without rake I may well have been up a small amount. Always look on the bright side of life, eh? 😍 I won't use tickets again, they seem to distract me too much following the ups and downs too closely. I'm going to try to check my balance only once a week, cash only play, all my BP's to only be used on tourneys, if any, maybe save them for the anniversary missions and promos. Give me a break, it was my first attempt, I hate the current trend in many videos to talk faster than a speeding bullet and flash info on the screen as if they're paying for the time it spends there. Yes, story of my life. Rather than setting goals I'd just like to be able to say I was a winning player, hoping no one would ask at what stakes. Thanks, I feel I'm going to need it! So I'm taking a break for this next week apart from the last 10E ticket for the live qualifiers (playing tonight) a 50E on Sunday and not playing more qualifiers till next year. Hopefully back refreshed and eager to go at the start of the new quarter. Maybe.

.

Not any more though! 😪

I don't quite understand it all 🤔 but nice to hear from you again anyway. 👍