If they're advertising the RTP as 96%, and it's actually lower, then that's fraud.

There could be a 750x max and the RTP could still be 96% though.

And your assumption that you figured out the max win after 3500 bets is not based on a proper sample size.

Bit off topic, but an example of transparency in slots would be the regulators in Vegas and Atlantic City test each game, they're able to simulate 10's of millions of bets and determine if the RTP is below the legal limit or not.  They track everything.  Casino isn't allowed access the software without permission from the regulator, and if they get caught doing so, even if by accident, they pay massive fines.

They also publish monthly revenue reports, that show exactly how much was wagered on slots and table games, and how much the casino profited.  

Here are the results for November 2019: https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Financials/MGR2019/201911revenue.pdf

You won't find that kind of transparency at a site like Bitcasino, unfortunately. 

There's variance.

If you played the slot infinite times, you can expect to see the true RTP.

You made 3500 bets.  Maybe it has a .00001% chance of paying out 100,000x + your bet.  If that's the case, you'd need a sample size in the millions to prove anything.

That's the problem with online casinos who aren't regulated by anyone that forces transparency.  They could be rigged, and there's just no way to prove it because we can't get a big enough sample size and don't have access to the software to see for ourselves.

This is unremarkable.

How often do you expect a 1000x outcome?

Even if it was programmed to pay out 1000x 1 out of every 1,000 times, and every other time the result was a win of 0, it would still be well within normal variance to go 3500 in a row without a 1000x.

It seems like you made 3500 bets on a high variance game and didn't get lucky.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-boeing-ukraine.html

A Boeing 737 carrying 180 people crashed shortly after takeoff from Tehran because of technical problems, according to the Iranian Students News Agency, a state-run media agency.

The conditions of the passengers and crew were not immediately known.

The plane was bound for Ukraine, the news agency reported.  


Perfect, one can blame Iran, US, or whoever else for this that fits the narrative they believe.

I don't think Congress will be able to slow this down, the War Powers Resolution is vague enough that it might as well not exist, and they would need a veto proof majority to pass a new one.

Best chance of things slowing down enough to begin some sort of negotiation would probably be someone who can really kiss his ass and make him feel good, like Rand Paul or Lindsay Graham or even Mitch, convincing Trump that his maximum pressure strategy could have a worse result than Bush and Iraq and offering some scenario for him to back down and convince his followers he didn't actually back down and any negative side effects are 100% the democrats fault.

Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran state TV says Tehran has launched “tens” of surface-to-surface missiles at Iraq’s Ain Assad air base housing U.S. troops over America’s killing of a top Iranian general.

State TV described it early Wednesday as Tehran’s revenge operation over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

If any Americans died, it's Trumps turn to hit back harder or back down.

It would need to be better than a 3:1 win ratio to prove your point (I spend 1, you spend 1 + 2).

Let's say you bought 10 tickets though and 10 other people each bought 1 ticket.

Let's also just say first ticket costs $1 for simplicity.

You would spend a total of $1,023 on your 10 tickets and the other 10 players would spend $1 each, so the total spent on tickets would be $1,033.

$1,033 total spent
3% fee = $30.99
Prizepool = $1002.01

You would have a very high chance of successfully turning your $1,023 into $1002.01.

No.

Risking $1 to win $100 1% of the time and risking $100 to make $1 99% of the time will be equally 'successful' bets.

The only thing that changes is variance. 

Buying more tickets allows you to win more often, but your profit will be less than if you bought just one ticket.  This is basic stuff here.

All I'm saying is that with a 3% fee, each ticket is worth 97% of the price, so the more tickets you buy, the more you lose.  Buying more tickets for one game will increase your chances of winning, but it won't make you more successful.  It doesn't matter how much you spend, 3% of it will go to you and the rest will go to the players.

You're the owner of the site right? 

You also said:

And there are poker tournaments that allow players to buy in unlimited times.

Poker tournament, unlimited players with unlimited prize pool, there is no dealer if it's online, they use software...same as you.

I recommend you stop playing if you think it's a scam.  You already have 400+ recordings, what difference would one more do?

Post a link to the recording if you do, I'll def check it out.

How is this different than a poker tournament that costs $100 to enter and $97 goes to the prize pool, 3% to the house.
True, but the more you buy, the lower your return on investment will be.

The value will remain the same though, each ticket sold is worth 97% of whatever they paid for it.


Huh?  If there are 10 players who each bought the same amount of tickets, would they not each have a 10% chance to win?\

Perhaps it's an extremely high variance game?

If each bonus buy has a 2% chance of paying back more than the original bet and a .1% chance of paying out 750x or more, streaks like the one your on would be pretty common even if the house edge was 0%.

Today Bolton said he would testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed without going to court first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html

Lots of interesting questions now.

Keep in mind that other than Trump, and possibly Mulvaney, nobody knows more about the situation than Bolton and he can't be flagged as a 'never Trumper' or Democrat.  He's as conservative as it gets.  He also called the whole thing a 'drug deal' while it was going down and claims to have relative information that has not been made public.

- Does the Iran situation have anything to do with his announcement?
- Are there 4 Republicans willing to vote to subpoena him? ( They need 51 total, Romney seems to be a yes, Murkowski and Collins are wishywashy, but are in a tough spot politically, there are a couple other maybes)
- Would Mitch be willing to agree to allow a vote on whether or not to allow any witnesses before the trial begins?
- Would Mitch be able to find a way to not allow a vote after the trial starts?
- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?