Bitcoin Forum

~snip~
I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance is from 66% to 61.87% for the 2000 rolls. The actual average win chance for all 2000 rolls is 65.3%, which is fine and fair. But the win chance for each bet amount decreased while the bet amount was doubled:
Bet amount 0.001, win chance 65.5% (>65.3%)
Bet amount 0.002, win chance 66.8% (>65.3%),
—here is where the trick comes in—
Bet amount 0.004, win chance 65.0% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.008, win chance 63.4% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.032, win chance 64.3% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.064, win chance 55.6% (<65.3%).

See? The higher the bet, the lower the win chance!

Even one lose on a high bet may cost all you won on low bets. So a slightly decrease in win chance with increased bet amount can be a disaster for each player on the long run.
~snip~

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

It seems to me that Lucky7btc does not say that its his 2k rolls history.. The post is confusing but there's a mention at the beginning and in the end, hinting that it was a story of another user.

It is the same report as what Lucky7btc did on the ANN thread of Fortunejack here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774929.msg49896015#msg49896015
So basically who did the evaluate the 2000 rolls? You or Lucky7btc?
I'm not trying to defend fortunejack, but is it a valid proof that their provably fair system is a fraud?

Since respected people say that 2k rolls is not enough, maybe you could get more betting history now?

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

Yeah, that just isn't sufficient. You'll need to have a sample size with at least 4 standard deviations of significance probably to even start to "prove" that shenanigans are going on. My guess is that you aren't anywhere close to that.

since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls

Well, it then be good for op to increase the sample size and probably reach a definite conclusion on whether your aligation is true or not. O P can equally send the me the data so that I can help him run a regression analysis and see what will be the out come of the result.

You should at least provide some more evidence to become more clear.

2000 Rolls are not ENOUGH to reach some specific "100%" conclusion.
That might also be some random probabilistic downgrade between your bets.
Try to get more then 10k at least even if you had to somehow create some software to store them.

That way i believe you would be able to get enough proof.

Well, you know the rule "The house always win".

It is all about random. Even if you have 99.9% win chance, it doesn't means that out of 1000 rolls you will lose only once.

It is too technical complicated for me, with my limited technical knowledge and skills.
In short, your evidence shows that Fortune Jack has not scammed, or broken their rules of rewards to their supporters and users, DarkStar_?

Am I missing something?

I do not play on fortunejack but on other websites you can ask for the history end they will send you an illimited or limited history.

Now if the history is limited to the latest games played, you can play more and ask for a new history, and you can add results from 2 histories.

Since OP seems to be a player with thousands and thousands of played game, he can play more download new history and add data on a spreadsheet to get a more realistic statistic.

You should at least provide some more evidence to become more clear.

2000 Rolls are not ENOUGH to reach some specific "100%" conclusion.
That might also be some random probabilistic downgrade between your bets.
Try to get more then 10k at least even if you had to somehow create some software to store them.

That way i believe you would be able to get enough proof.

No matter how many rolls he can provide, even if he has 1 million rolls data but it wont prove anything. Something related to provably fairness is not about the winning chance by bet amount. Provably fairness is about algorithm where players are able to verify the outcome. 1 bet is enough to prove if there is really something fishy on the provably fair system of any sites. Just like what Loycemobile said, what is posted by OP has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism.

This is BS. All your results are close to the expected result except for 0.064 where you only have 9 total rolls. 9 rolls is an insignificant sample size.

You think provably fair system is the ONLY way to verify if it's fair, and ignored the game data, that's funny. Did you see FJ dice game code and verified it? But yes what I posted has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism, what I posted is the data that clearly shows FJ dice is not fair except house edge. The higher the bet amount, the higher the chance to lose.

You think provably fair system is the ONLY way to verify if it's fair, and ignored the game data, that's funny. Did you see FJ dice game code and verified it? But yes what I posted has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism, what I posted is the data that clearly shows FJ dice is not fair except house edge. The higher the bet amount, the higher the chance to lose.

Am I missing something?

I do not play on fortunejack but on other websites you can ask for the history end they will send you an illimited or limited history.

Now if the history is limited to the latest games played, you can play more and ask for a new history, and you can add results from 2 histories.

Since OP seems to be a player with thousands and thousands of played game, he can play more download new history and add data on a spreadsheet to get a more realistic statistic.

Yeah, I also thought about it. But you see I kind of understand that the op does not want to make another 2k rolls just for the sake of increasing the sample, especially since he/she is convinced that FortuneJack is a scam. And besides, nobody said how many rolls is enough, so even if he goes through another 2k I bet there'll be people saying 'nah, still not enough to prove anything'. And I don't understand why FortuneJack won't provide more bet history.. I read the reply, I just did not understand whether it sounds like a real reason.

It is a unintentionally typo inside your thread, Sir.
You should correct it, predetermined, instead of predetemined.

Open accusation on fortunejack on the scam section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116404.0, this is not good and will harm the repuation of Fortunejack you all know people who are not into gambling are reading the scam section and if they will not recommend Fortunejack to their friends, they've been here for long time hope they can resolve this.

you are right, but I dont' dare play more, coz I know I will lose more on FJ dice.

To prove this scam you'll have to lose many money, which I have done, it's just that FJ team dont provide the evidence, becuase they are afraid.

Fair point. That's the shadiest thing - no official response here. FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll. That happens when there are no valid arguments.

The same rule applies to all gambling sites.
You have 2000 rolls and known seeds so go, verify results and post proofs here.

You probably missed few posts. But go with good old "payed shills", that usually works  ::)

Which posts did I miss?

Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.

FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll.

Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System.
Why should they response to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence?

The same as your post:
Only thing I can see here is that someone has created "bad luck" graph. I don't think anyone here has crystal ball.

Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System.
Why should they response to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence?

The same as your post:
Only thing I can see here is that someone has created "bad luck" graph. I don't think anyone here has crystal ball.

Maybe you should go to your doctor to check your eyes.

Everyone can see the evidence which is the data from no one else but FJ themselves.

Wait... so the OP is claiming that an effective sample size of 9 rolls is statistical "proof" that FJ is a scam? ??? ::)

If you had made all 2000 rolls wagering 0.064 ... and the result was still at 55.6%, then that might be worth further investigation... however, I would suspect that you would find that it would still be in the ~65% range

You shouldn't "cherrypick" results that match your hypothesis... that's called "confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)"

You have conveniently ignored that 0.0015 bets (total of 10 bets, similar sample size) are at 50% winrate and that the 0.003 btc bets are at 55.6% winrate and are actually double the number of 0.064 wagers... why have you ignored them from your pretty graph? oh... because they're actually "lower" bets... and work against your hypothesis ::) ::)

In addition, your graphed doubled up on 0.008... which excludes the 0.016 result at 67.8% which makes your chart look a little different. And your chosen vertical range really exaggerates the drop off at the end...

Ignoring for the moment the inclusion of the "9 roll outlier", this is your data, but including the 0.016 results, with your chosen vertical scale of 53% to 70%:
https://i.imgur.com/nrSkRZk.png

That 0.016 result that you omitted changes this a little... that upspike in the higher wagers kind of goes against your hypothesis doesn't it? Still, the last datapoint looks a bit shocking... such a drop! ZOMGWTFHAX! :o


Until you then view it in the whole 0% to 100% range :P
https://i.imgur.com/VsSSD74.png

And we see results fairly evenly spread around the "average"... except for a 9 roll "outlier" datapoint :P


If we then exclude that outlier we see this:
https://i.imgur.com/vECJdBt.png


If we go the other way and include ALL the outliers (I included every data line where there were more than 2 wagers), we get this:
https://i.imgur.com/xjyIqV5.png


Note the light blue "trend" line, that actually indicates an upwards trend in results... interesting.

0.016 is above the fair win chance, but the trick is a higher wager is always at a lower win chance than the lower wager.
Win chance of 0.04 & 0.08 is lower than of 0.001 & 0.002.
Win chance of 0.32 is lower than of 0.16.

I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance is from 66% to 61.87% for the 2000 rolls.

Tell me, if you bet 1000 or whatever times on each wager with the chance shown in this graph, will you win or lose?

Any update? Did you receive any response from FortuneJack?

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

Not yet, you can check the lastest update here https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof

Hi,
We kindly ask @askgamblers to show this case to someone who is well aware in the provably fair games and knows the theory of probability.
We have already explained why the player is wrong and ask @askgamblers for the fair judgment.

“Provably fair” is just a term casino invented. If you do wanna prove to the public it's fair technologically, the most convincing way is to disclosure the dice game code, and let people who is well aware in programming judge. After all, player seeds are what players can see, but what about the game codes in the server we can not see?

Could you tell us why your site don't provide access to players' bet history while other sites can? What are you hiding?

Your browser will generate a random clientseed. However, you could and should adjust this clientseed before you start. This way you can make sure the site does not know your clientseed in advance.

I checked out that provably fair bit once before. It really is provably fair... BUT what they don’t make obvious is how easily they can take advantage of someone who just trusts its fair by running the code and getting the “Fair” message.
The whole thing is predicated on having a random seed that “cuts” the deck, so to speak. It’s generated client side and then mixed with a server side seed. But, with nitrogen, the client seed does not regenerate each hand. In fact, it only regenerates once you click their button to regenerate a new one. If you don’t click regenerate every time, they can start generating server side seeds that will be favorable to them once mixed with the seed that they can assume you will not change.
In other words, if you don’t generate a new seed each hand, they can start assuming you will cut the deck in the exact same spot each time and start pre-arranging the deck in their favor.
I haven’t looked at their blackjack in over two years now, so maybe that’s changed, but last I checked you had to open the “provably fair” menu and generate a new seed yourself.

you still didn't get it , Don't you !!! All Gambling games are scam , What makes you gamble your hard earned money , ofcourse GREED to make easy money from few buttons clicks (when you Win means there is a person in other side lose , its like a circle of nonstop scam and ofc the House is always the final winner ), STOP giving your money to scammers.

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

Complaint unresolved. https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof
Anyway,  think twice before you decide to paly FortuneJack Dice, guys!

Stop trying. FJ has been very responsive and explained several times why your accusation makes no sense.

3.4    Reversed Commitment Order
 
Suppose Alice manages to convince Bob to provide 𝑠𝐵 before she provides 𝐶(𝑠𝐴). We will show in this case how Alice can gain a slight advantage over Bob (in excess of the advertised house edge) using very little computational power. One example of a site employing this flawed scheme is FortuneJack [11].
 
One additional aspect of the scheme used by FortuneJack is that the client can define what constitutes the winning outcome. After providing 𝑠𝐵 and receiving 𝐶(𝑠𝐴), the client can freely choose the corresponding winning range and thereby the payout. The server fixes a house edge, so that defining one of the winning range or the payout automatically fixes the other value such that in expectation, the house edge is achieved.  
 
 
 
The client will generally pick between two game variants. The first is a high risk, high reward game. In this game type, the client wins in less than 50% of the output space. The other option is a low risk, low reward game where the client wins in more than 50% of the output space. An example of this can be seen in the image above. By observing the public log for some time, we noticed that a vast majority of players choose the high risk, high reward game, which is perhaps more in the spirit of gambling.
 
Undoubtedly, the server has more clear data regarding client preferences. If the server can target clients who play the high risk, high reward game, it is able to skew results in its favor by selecting an advantageous 𝑠𝐴 given its observation of 𝑠𝐵. The reason is that if the client wins in less than 50% of the output space, there is a range in the middle for which regardless of which side the client chooses, the server will always win. For the example in the image, the client wins if 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) ∈ [0,20) or 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) ∈ [80,100).
 
The client does not always switch its seed after every roll. Instead, the game function is computed with an incrementing nonce over many rolls. This complicates the attack slightly, but still allows for noticeable deviations assuming a reasonably bounded maximum nonce
value. The server can simply compute the average maximum nonce value for a given client and use that as is target nonce.
 
Given both the client’s preference for the high risk, high reward game and a bounded nonce 𝑛∗, the server simply tries a few different hash values and computes the function below. Note that 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) will output a list of rolls of length 𝑛∗.
 
𝑣(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) = ∑(𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵)[𝑖] − 50)2 𝑛∗−1 𝑖=0
 
 
arg max 𝑎
𝑓(𝑥) = {𝑣(𝑎,𝑠𝐵) ∣ ∣ 𝑎 ∈ 𝜎𝐴 }
 
In effect, the server is looking for a seed value 𝑎 = 𝑠𝐴 such that for a given 𝑛∗ and 𝑠𝐵, there are more numbers close to 50 than would be in expectation. The value function 𝑣(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) is just one example of what the server might be optimizing for. A more sophisticated attacker would use the behavior of the client to adjust the value function.
 
It is not feasible to get the most optimal value 𝑎 ∈ 𝜎𝐴, since the space of all seeds is too large. However, it is enough for the server to select a small subset of 𝜎𝐴 and look for the best 𝑎 within that subset. To reduce suspicion, the server could simply generate random 𝑎 values and compute the value functions for these seeds up to a certain time threshold, so that it is harder to detect foul play.
 
There is not much the client can do to defend against this attack aside from choosing to play the low risk, low reward variant of the game. Proving that the server is employing such a scheme would be equally difficult without access to the entire history of rolls, which is not available to the public. Testing the random number generator would require a large amount of cryptocurrency, which might be out of reach for most clients.
 
https://pasteboard.co/IB99iCp.jpg