Notices

View Poll Results: What is your opinion?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will never work

    1 25.00%
  • It won't work due to limitations

    1 25.00%
  • It can work

    1 25.00%
  • I don't take this seriously

    1 25.00%
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By jocular

Thread: Cheat Casino's

  1. #1 Cheat Casino's 
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    There's a way you can rip off casinos with sports betting. The tactic ensures profit if you win your bet at any point.

    1) Take out a loan

    2) Bet it all on a team with 50/50 odds

    3) If you lose then continue to step 4

    4) Take out a loan 3 times greater than your last

    5) Continue this back at
    step 2


    This is all assuming you're able to take out many loans to ensure your probability of success is incredibly high. It can be higher than 99.999% with a 10-loan limit. Just the taboo idea of using loans to cheat casino's, the very same thing that they often profit off of, is simply delicious.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since people have been putting me on ignore lately, I think it's a good time to actually post something interesting. You know, cause the weak links have been weeded out and won't be able to view this thread. Neener neener neener!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    The tactic ensures profit if you win your bet at any point.
    But there is always the chance you won't win. And by tripling your bet each time, you make it worse.

    You have a 50% chance of losing your stake; let's say, a modest $100. OK. No problem go to Step 4: stake $300.

    You have a 25% chance of losing $400 (your original 100 plus the new tripled stake). Hmmm... lets try Step 4 again: stake $900

    You have a 1 in 8 chance of losing $1300. Beginning to sound a bit scary. Step 4: stake $2700

    You have a 1 in 16 chance of losing $4000. I am not liking these odds. Step 4: stake $8100

    You have a 1 in 32 chance of losing $12,100. Step 4: stake $24300. "Sorry bub. Unless you start repaying some of these loans you keep taking, we are going to have to break your legs."

    If you get the loan, you now have a 1 in 64 chance of being $36,400 down.


    jocular likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    978
    If you run into a losing streak you won't be able to find a lender. You could then declare bankruptcy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,509
    Interestingly, this doubling idea is what makes using the idea of arbitrage pricing so technical and yucky in continuous time. The general forms of the fundamental theorems of asset pricing do a lot of heavy lifting to make sure that this sort of strategy is excluded.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The tactic ensures profit if you win your bet at any point.
    But there is always the chance you won't win. And by tripling your bet each time, you make it worse.

    You have a 50% chance of losing your stake; let's say, a modest $100. OK. No problem go to Step 4: stake $300.

    You have a 25% chance of losing $400 (your original 100 plus the new tripled stake). Hmmm... lets try Step 4 again: stake $900

    You have a 1 in 8 chance of losing $1300. Beginning to sound a bit scary. Step 4: stake $2700

    You have a 1 in 16 chance of losing $4000. I am not liking these odds. Step 4: stake $8100

    You have a 1 in 32 chance of losing $12,100. Step 4: stake $24300. "Sorry bub. Unless you start repaying some of these loans you keep taking, we are going to have to break your legs."

    If you get the loan, you now have a 1 in 64 chance of being $36,400 down.
    Whatever the game is, for each game the probability space is independent. The odds of losing do not decrease from game to game, but the stakes are substantially increasing for each successive game. Mistaking independent probability spaces for dependent probability spaces is known as the Gamblers Fallacy; Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I figured this would be something you knew Strange.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The tactic ensures profit if you win your bet at any point.
    But there is always the chance you won't win. And by tripling your bet each time, you make it worse.

    You have a 50% chance of losing your stake; let's say, a modest $100. OK. No problem go to Step 4: stake $300.

    You have a 25% chance of losing $400 (your original 100 plus the new tripled stake). Hmmm... lets try Step 4 again: stake $900

    You have a 1 in 8 chance of losing $1300. Beginning to sound a bit scary. Step 4: stake $2700

    You have a 1 in 16 chance of losing $4000. I am not liking these odds. Step 4: stake $8100

    You have a 1 in 32 chance of losing $12,100. Step 4: stake $24300. "Sorry bub. Unless you start repaying some of these loans you keep taking, we are going to have to break your legs."

    If you get the loan, you now have a 1 in 64 chance of being $36,400 down.
    Whatever the game is, for each game the probability space is independent. The odds of losing do not decrease from game to game, but the stakes are substantially increasing for each successive game. Mistaking independent probability spaces for dependent probability spaces is known as the Gamblers Fallacy; Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I figured this would be something you knew Strange.
    According to my mathematics, you have better odds using this tactic even with a loss included, versus gambling like you normally would. They are confusing mathematics in a sneaky way but I'm pretty certain I'm right about it giving you better odds with the more max-bets you can make. Maybe someone can do this math for me, because I still can't figure it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Amazingly (or perhaps, in retrospect, not so amazingly, given the mentality), I have many times encountered in casinos (which I frequent more or less habitually) gamblers who firmly believe, after observing the white ball drop on red 10 times in a row, that the next spin ABSOLUTELY (almost) MUST produce a "black" drop! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Amazingly (or perhaps, in retrospect, not so amazingly, given the mentality), I have many times encountered in casinos (which I frequent more or less habitually) gamblers who firmly believe, after observing the white ball drop on red 10 times in a row, that the next spin ABSOLUTELY (almost) MUST produce a "black" drop! jocular
    I've been to a casino and there's so many shitheads there in general. A morbidly obese Latino woman(insert "Moon is racist" remark here), I swear, conned someone out of $4, claiming there was $4 in the slot machine before money was inserted. Arguments all over the place too, especially couples. I see guys who refuse to pull out of a slot when they're winning, because "you're doing good, c'mon big winner!!" which is stupid, because you're bound to lose at some point.

    I do think I can beat casino's slot machines but just barely. Specifically, some identical slot machines have a much higher jackpot than others based off whether there's been enough players without a jackpot winner. I think this COULD be taken advantage of. From my observations, slot machines have separate determinations of how winners are "selected". Some are by completely random, others by the build-up of enough losers that force the machine to eventually grant a winner, some I think could be based off if the casino is having a bad day or other custom configurations.

    My personal classic tactic is stalking people from behind in expensive slots, and if they lose a lot, hijacking their slot machine once they leave. Usually I use this trick with slots using 30cent minimum gambles and pull out with a 20cent profit, because I am just that pro. I am able to do this many times and profit off casino's, granted it's literally just a few bucks. And the one I went to had free drinks, so my lunch and dinner was soda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Amazingly (or perhaps, in retrospect, not so amazingly, given the mentality), I have many times encountered in casinos (which I frequent more or less habitually) gamblers who firmly believe, after observing the white ball drop on red 10 times in a row, that the next spin ABSOLUTELY (almost) MUST produce a "black" drop! jocular
    I've been to a casino and there's so many shitheads there in general. A morbidly obese Latino woman(insert "Moon is racist" remark here), I swear, conned someone out of $4, claiming there was $4 in the slot machine before money was inserted. Arguments all over the place too, especially couples. I see guys who refuse to pull out of a slot when they're winning, because "you're doing good, c'mon big winner!!" which is stupid, because you're bound to lose at some point.

    I do think I can beat casino's slot machines but just barely. Specifically, some identical slot machines have a much higher jackpot than others based off whether there's been enough players without a jackpot winner. I think this COULD be taken advantage of. From my observations, slot machines have separate determinations of how winners are "selected". Some are by completely random, others by the build-up of enough losers that force the machine to eventually grant a winner, some I think could be based off if the casino is having a bad day or other custom configurations.

    My personal classic tactic is stalking people from behind in expensive slots, and if they lose a lot, hijacking their slot machine once they leave. Usually I use this trick with slots using 30cent minimum gambles and pull out with a 20cent profit, because I am just that pro. I am able to do this many times and profit off casino's, granted it's literally just a few bucks. And the one I went to had free drinks, so my lunch and dinner was soda.
    The original "slot machines" concept as dating way back to even the 1920s, when my Dad worked for Mills Novelty Co. in Chicago, making the dies which blanked out the metallic parts used in the machines, involved 3 reels spinning independent of each other on a common axle, each having 13 "characters" imprinted on their faces. If chance lined up certain combinations of these characters across a center line, a "win" was at hand. They were entirely mechanical, the only adjustments being provided were to limit reel speed, and time of spinning. Mathematical odds of winning/losing were not tamperable.

    Today's machines are entirely electronic, but for traditions' sake, still simulate spinning reels, even including "bounce" at the end of spin, as the old mechanicals occasionally did. The payoff "odds" are now obviously entirely controllable. States have "Gaming Commissions" whose rigors include guaranteeing "fairness" of odds in the setting up and use of these ridiculously modern gambling machines. To watch the patrons' intensively applied gaze to these absurd electronic displays opens a whole new panorama of cognizance of Albert Einstein's proclamation, made sometime before his death in 1955, that "If science continues it's now relentless march, we will see the creation of entire generations of idiots".

    We are there. jocular
    Dave Wilson and scheherazade like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Man this is beyond dumb. Casinos love people with systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Casinos Today 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Not sure if "Mathematics" is exactly the right slot, but here goes:

    Wanna talk casinos and organized gambling? As a green young man born and raised in the American Midwest, the only cognizance I had of gambling was a vague awareness of occasional "Crook" County (Illinois) Sheriff's busts of blossoming gambling enterprises. Marrying and heading on honeymoon for Los Angeles to visit my uncle, we entered the magical kingdom of Lost Wages: My first view of the inside of a casino was that of the Fremont Hotel, downtown Las Vegas, and the impression of disbelief persists yet today, 48 years later! If ever I expected to see, in this world, a "den of inequity", well, here it was! Quickly "hooked", my new wife and I planned many return trips, in coming years, during one of which I spotted a most interesting book displayed in a store there: "Beat the Dealer", by Edward Thorpe. I hadn't yet graduated to the "ballsy world" of table games, but bought the book, found it immensely enjoyable, and in ensuing months employed Thorpe's tactics nightly at home back in Chicago, my wife dealing Blackjack to me as a player, she adhering to "Casino Rules", and soon I consistently cleaned out our tray of poker chips, time and again. I was for Table Games!

    Thorpe's book debuted in about 1962 or so, thus by 1966, I was beginning at the tail-end of consistent Blackjack winning credibility, though I did not know it then. One day, playing downtown at Binion's Horseshoe, my wife also playing, a few tables away, the "Pit Boss" sauntered over, and politely informed me I could no longer play Blackjack at their establishment. Astounded, I considered a "bandwagon" proclamation which would have boisterously called all patrons' attention to the fact that my money was not green enough to be used there! Fortunately, all I DID tell him, was, he had also better ban the Blonde playing several tables over; he promptly did! Perhaps 4 months later, during a return to Vegas, I sauntered in to Binions', was noted by the SAME PIT BOSS, who politely reminded me I could not play Blackjack! Amazed, after this man had dealt with countless individuals over the past months, he REMEMBERED me! I told him he was in line for a certain raise in pay!

    Predictions were that Casino Blackjack would die. However, the immense popularity of the game obviously well-known to Management, was kept in vogue simply through a variety of rules changes which made consistent winning at the tables very difficult for the "card counters", like me. Thus, "banning" consistent winners became much less common, as that process was highly frowned upon by both house and player alike: it created the impression that the house will not tolerate 'losing", this being an exceedingly bad P/R thing. I still play the game, after all these years, marvel at the inconsistencies displayed by most players, occasionally walk away from a table "down" some money, still greatly enjoy the challenge of being able to gamble and not lose, and note that last night, my nephew, visiting me from Flagstaff, he and I greatly enjoyed stuffing some winnings in our wallets at the Edgewater Casino, here in Laughlin, NV.

    For anyone interested in the "rules changes" instituted over the years by the casinos to circumvent consistent winning at Blackjack, you need only ask, and I will be glad to go into greater detail. Needless to say, casino Blackjack, instead of disappearing as was predicted, has remained and still is an extremely popular casino game. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Whatever the game is, for each game the probability space is independent. The odds of losing do not decrease from game to game, but the stakes are substantially increasing for each successive game. Mistaking independent probability spaces for dependent probability spaces is known as the Gamblers Fallacy; Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I figured this would be something you knew Strange.
    The odds on every game are 50%. I was basing my argument on the odds of a sequence of losses. The odds of losing 6 times in a row are 1 in 64. Which isn't particularly improbable and would leave you with a massive debt (and possibly some rather nasty debt collectors after you). I certainly wouldn't take those odds.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Whatever the game is, for each game the probability space is independent. The odds of losing do not decrease from game to game, but the stakes are substantially increasing for each successive game. Mistaking independent probability spaces for dependent probability spaces is known as the Gamblers Fallacy; Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I figured this would be something you knew Strange.
    The odds on every game are 50%. I was basing my argument on the odds of a sequence of losses. The odds of losing 6 times in a row are 1 in 64. Which isn't particularly improbable and would leave you with a massive debt (and possibly some rather nasty debt collectors after you). I certainly wouldn't take those odds.
    Losing 6 times in a row is 1 in 64, huh? Sounds about right. Now think of it this way: What happens if you make 64 attempts at this tactic with the 6-bet limit you speak of? Assuming the 1st bet is set at $1 for the sake of simplicity: $1, $3, $9, $27, $81, $263.

    If that 1 in 64 chance of a big loss happens, then you've lost all the possible bets along with $384. But the big question here is, are the other 63 wins enough to counter a loss of $384? We know since the minimum bet is $1, you'll at least have a $63 gain. And you'll at least be winning at further limits such as $9 or maybe $27, so the imminent(or rather probable/eventual) loss of $384 can easily be countered if this is the case. Now here's some actual math:

    Odds are winning the 1st bet will occur 1 in 2 times, so that's 32 potential winners in this category if we're doing 64 attempts at this tactic, so this is $32 so far. Then for the 2nd bet, it's 1 in 4(think 64 divided by 4) so that'd mean 16 $3-bets won and additional profit of $42, but $74 when added to the first-bet winnings. Continuing: 3rd bet = 1 in 8 = $72, 4th bet = 1 in 16 = $108, 5th bet = 1 in 32 = $162, 6th bet = 1 in 64 = $263, combined winnings are $679. Including a $384 loss, your probable outcome is $295 profit. If you factor in the "house advantage" that takes 1/10(typically but rates vary) of your sports bet winnings, it's actually a $265.50 profit that is probable to occur if you try this a total of 64 times. If you use more possible bets, odds further tip in your favor.
    Last edited by MoonCanvas; September 15th, 2013 at 12:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    Losing 6 times in a row is 1 in 64, huh? Sounds about right. Now think of it this way: What happens if you make 64 attempts at this tactic with the 6-bet limit you speak of? Assuming the 1st bet is set at $1 for the sake of simplicity: $1, $3, $9, $27, $81, $263.

    If that 1 in 64 chance of a big loss happens, then you've lost all the possible bets along with $384. But the big question here is, are the other 63 wins enough to counter a loss of $384? We know since the minimum bet is $1, you'll at least have a $63 gain. And you'll at least be winning at further limits such as $9 or maybe $27, so the imminent(or rather probable/eventual) loss of $384 can easily be countered if this is the case. Now here's some actual math:

    Odds are winning the 1st bet will occur 1 in 2 times, so that's 32 potential winners in this category if we're doing 64 attempts at this tactic, so this is $32 so far. Then for the 2nd bet, it's 1 in 4(think 64 divided by 4) so that'd mean 16 $3-bets won and additional profit of $42, but $74 when added to the first-bet winnings. Continuing: 3rd bet = 1 in 8 = $72, 4th bet = 1 in 16 = $108, 5th bet = 1 in 32 = $162, 6th bet = 1 in 64 = $263, combined winnings are $679. Including a $384 loss, your probable outcome is $295 profit. If you factor in the "house advantage" that takes 1/10(typically but rates vary) of your sports bet winnings, it's actually a $265.50 profit that is probable to occur if you try this a total of 64 times. If you use more possible bets, odds further tip in your favor.
    hi MoonCanvas

    This calculation isn't correct (I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the mistake, hint - if you cap yourself to 6 tries and add up the probabilities given here you don't get 1). However you do not need to even do the calculation as we know that the game here is a martingale and any adapted process times a martingale is still a martingale. Martingales have a neat property that the expected value at any point in the future is the same as the value now - which in this case says that the average profit for playing the game 6 times (and having to stop after that) is zero.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 08:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The odds on every game are 50%. I was basing my argument on the odds of a sequence of losses. The odds of losing 6 times in a row are 1 in 64. Which isn't particularly improbable and would leave you with a massive debt (and possibly some rather nasty debt collectors after you). I certainly wouldn't take those odds.
    I just KNOW, that you KNOW, that this is not quite the case, is it? For example, if the chance of winning a bet was 1 in 37, and the payout was even money, only a damn fool would make the wager, right? Thinking of Roulette: 36 numbers, half of them black, half red, PLUS two green ones, "0" and "00", they ALWAYS win for the house, (except in Europe, where there is usually only "0". Thus, the payoff on numbers is 35:1, red or black 1:1, and green, I forget, likely about 15:1, if you bet on one or the other.

    Now, the second highlight: If one bets, say, red, and loses, doing this six times in a row, the reality of LOSING the 7th. time is still roughly 1:2, neglecting those damn green spots. Am I wrong? Do you think the odds of the ball finding black 100 times in a row are astronomically high? The reality is, roughly 1 in 2. Pit the theory against my claim, please. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The odds on every game are 50%. I was basing my argument on the odds of a sequence of losses. The odds of losing 6 times in a row are 1 in 64. Which isn't particularly improbable and would leave you with a massive debt (and possibly some rather nasty debt collectors after you). I certainly wouldn't take those odds.
    I just KNOW, that you KNOW, that this is not quite the case, is it? For example, if the chance of winning a bet was 1 in 37, and the payout was even money, only a damn fool would make the wager, right? Thinking of Roulette: 36 numbers, half of them black, half red, PLUS two green ones, "0" and "00", they ALWAYS win for the house, (except in Europe, where there is usually only "0". Thus, the payoff on numbers is 35:1, red or black 1:1, and green, I forget, likely about 15:1, if you bet on one or the other.

    Now, the second highlight: If one bets, say, red, and loses, doing this six times in a row, the reality of LOSING the 7th. time is still roughly 1:2, neglecting those damn green spots. Am I wrong? Do you think the odds against the ball finding black 100 times in a row are astronomically high? The reality is, roughly 1 in 2. Pit the theory against my claim, please. jocular
    ////
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Posts
    33
    You could always bet your life savings on a Floyd Mayweather fight. You probably won't make much, but it's guaranteed money! (No pun intended)

    Anthony
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    I Vegas you can cheat the casino on their specials. They used to have free chips. They'd just give you some free chips with a $20 buy in. To cheat you just took your $22 in chips to the cashier and go back to the table and buy another $20 with 2 free. They changed that one pretty quick. Then they came up with free play. You have to actually play the chips on a table. So you play one on black and the other on red. You will come away with one real chip and one play chip. Play again and you will either have the same or 2 real chips. You cash out and go back and do it again. Took a little longer but the casinos stopped that offer too. So they came up with match play. You have to use one of your own chips with their match play chip. Still the same you can cheat that too. So then they changed to match play but the match play chip was only good for one play. Win or lose they took it back. Less per cycle but still a winning cycle.

    The point being the casinos are always trying new games to attract you. The old games have had centuries for players and the house to work out the cheats. But not the new games. Play the coupon books. All casinos have them, but go to the low end motels (north of the strip). The casinos put their coupon books in a "news stand" display. You can get the coupon books for all the casinos all at once there. Study the coupons and get a bunch of the books that have the highest payoffs. Free buffet, candy, airline bottles of booze, shrimp cocktail, free keno plays etc. One time they offered a free chip just for taking the keno card. The cocktail waitress gave them out. She didn't know you didn't play the card. Every time she came by you just say gimme another card, and another chip. You got a free chip and a free drink. Of course you tip her good to keep her coming. Sometimes it really is that easy. You leave with a whole trunk full of crap. Pens, hats, t shirts, candy, booze, keychains, cards, dice, out dated chips, etc. You can stay a whole month in Vegas, cover every square inch of most large casinos, leave ahead of the game, and not spend a penny on play.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is sigurdV a troll?
    By sigurdW in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 29th, 2012, 03:30 AM
  2. How students cheat exams thru interconnected PCs?
    By bezoar in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 13th, 2012, 05:15 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 09:54 AM
  4. Is Mach a troll?
    By PhoenixG in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 29th, 2009, 08:15 PM
  5. Hi-tech gamblers clear up at casino
    By (In)Sanity in forum In the News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 8th, 2004, 01:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •