 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Stop trying. FJ has been very responsive and explained several times why your accusation makes no sense. Is refusing to provide more than 2000 rolls history being responsive? That's funny. Btw, here a thread about Is there any way for casinos to cheat the provably fair? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1070228Casinos can cheat on provably fair system too, if they want. So guys, you can't be too careful. |
|
|
|
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.
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proofBelow is my lastest reply to the complaint on ASKGAMBLERS: You provided 2000 rolls hisotry on 11th Feb, and provided the same 2000 rolls on 17th Feb. again when I asked for my complete gaming log in the email. You've been delaying and refused to provide my complete gaming log because you are afraid of your scam being exposed! And now you said logs "might" have been deleted. Might? Are the logs deleted or not? If they are deleted, why you say "might"? Do you think people will believe that a reputed big company like FJ only keep players' latest 2000 rolls on the servers? Maybe you are just hiding the crime you've been commited! If your team want convince to all your players that Fortunejack Dice is provably fair, just provide all my gaming log. |
|
|
|
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.
you are right. Greed always exists with scams. |
|
|
|
dont' be too confident on Provably fair system. even wiki shows page issues for the term "provably fair" This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.ways ways ways ways ways ways Another post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283547.0 [EDU] Provably fair and how it can be exploited by casino owners against you. |
|
|
|
It is insane that people think just 2000 bets would somehow "show the real odds in fortunejack" while not realizing there is a luck chance involved in shorter amount of bets so you would need to play thousands of hands to make it possible to determine the reality, maybe even a million.
You can't just gamble 2 thousand times and expect that everything will be exactly the same, there are tough luck times and there are lucky times, its all about the timing, if you want the house edge to get into affect you would have to look at so much more bets that in the end you should be tired even if its autobet. Companies with high cpu power do auto betting for hundreds of millions of times in order to determine if a casino is legit or not for white hack security purposes, your 2 thousand is funny compared to that.
The man said FJ would NOT give him his complete history but only 2000. So based on the 2000 he was able to obtain its shows that the game is indeed rigged. I'm just the man you mentioned. FJ refused to give me my complete history without any reason. I had 181 thousand rolls in fact. the lastest are just the sample of the 181 thousand rolls. What's more, similar things happened through out the 181k rolls, which included the 2000 ones of course, that the chance for a losing streak happening when you keep doubling the bets to a rather high value. But long losing streaks seldom happen on bets being kept low. So dont' say my conclusion is based on 2000 rolls! It's a fact throught out 181k rolls! |
|
|
|
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.
Could you tell us why your site don't provide access to players' bet history while other sites can? What are you hiding? |
|
|
|
|
我也是深受比特币期货和赌博之害，一共输了几十万，关键绝大部分都是负债。
赌博是世界上仅次于吸毒的害人玩意。但赌博本质上和毒品最大的共同点是，在你坐上牌桌（赌场）的那一刻，表面上看你还是原来的你，实际上那个时候你是没理智的。
赌场的铁律只有自己经历过才相信，但已经晚了：
1. 赌徒一定是输光才会走。
2. 只要你还在牌桌上，钱就不是你的。（言外之意，赢多少，都别高兴，因为只要你没走，钱下一秒可能就不在你口袋）
3. 赌徒在赢的时候，都认为自己是赌场里技巧最好的那一个。
4. 赌徒开始下的都很小，都认为只要自己下小点，就没太大风险。但赌徒最后下的都特别大，大到你离开牌桌后你自己都不敢相信。
5. 赌徒的绝望只是暂时的，只要他能借到钱，赌徒可能重蹈覆辙。
赌博就是害人的东西，谁沾上谁就到了八辈子霉。
想其他的都没用了。回头是岸，不赌为赢。
只能重新开始了。为自己的错误买单。
人生就是这样。接受现实，是赌徒最难做到的。但别无他法。
|
|
|
|
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" 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%:  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!  Until you then view it in the whole 0% to 100% range   And we see results fairly evenly spread around the "average"... except for a 9 roll "outlier" datapoint If we then exclude that outlier we see this:  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:  Note the light blue "trend" line, that actually indicates an upwards trend in results... interesting. You took all wagers into account while you question the wager with 9 rolls is not enough as evidence. That's why I bold some wagers in the chart, which are the major wagers I bet when I played the game. I guess you all agree that the accusation would not be well-grounded if the sample is too small, so if we delete the minor wagers that only bet several time, and only see the major wagers , you'll get a graph more close the fact : That's the provability for major wagers: 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.16 0.32. 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. Tell me, if you bet 1000 or whatever times on each wager with the chance shown in this graph, will you win or lose? It's may not be a straight line downward if hte sampe is enough, but the final statistical outcome is always minus according to the graph. To be more accurate, I need the complete bet log from FJ team. Of course the sample is not 100% accurate, but at least the general trend can be seen. |
|
|
|
Which posts did I miss?
Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System. Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.
Why should they response to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence? The same as your post: FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll. 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. So, the graph is not something I "created", it's just a fact alway there in the game, but hard to notice without enough data. |
|
|
|
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.
I dont think you get the point for 2 reasons: 1. You said this because you didn't see all my 181 thousand rolls. I had a lot more than 9 rolls on 0.064 and the win chance is also less than the expected chance. 2. When we talk about the win chance for different bet amounts, it's not a "close" thing, it's the trend that matters! Now, think about trend A: if the win chance increase with increased bet amount but still in a close range, then the player always win. And the fact is trend B: the win chance decreased with increased bet amount, that trend shows the game is against the player. So win chances in both 2 trends can be close to expected chance, but isn't there a huge difference? Which trend will you choose as a player? Like I said, a slightly decreasing in win chance with increased bet amount can cost all you win on the long run! |
|
|
|
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. 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 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.
Actually I had 181 thousand rolls so far, but why can't FJ provide it ? That's the problem. I also played on some other sites, where I can get all my bet history. The statistic is only a sample of my 181 thousand rolls, I played it myself, all the other rolls had the similar thing with the 2000 rolls, which is higher the bet, higher the lose chance. So I know my proof is enough, though FJ can't provide it all. |
|
|
|
Did they give you any reason why it took 4 days to get your money ? I had the same issue with somewhere else as well and I feel like this late withdrawals are getting more common. I don't think any casino has given us a reason why but it has been constantly happening for the past 2-3 weeks so far, they always delay their withdrawals, not just here don't get me wrong, among many many casinos and for each amount, not just small or big ones.
They are random as well, some people get it in 30 minutes but some people get it in 2 days. Considering this is getting more common in all of casino and has no pattern at all, I kinda can't stop wondering what happened a month ago that made all casinos randomly select few withdrawals to delay. I don't the reason but I would love to hear it.
People just don't listen when I try to tell them FJ is a rigged and rogued casino. But they are so happy to just continue to troll for them. Here is a complaint just been filed by someone who says they have proof their dice game is rigged! I used to submitted a complaint about Fortunejack dice scam, you told me I don't have enough data to prove it, now I have it. But Fortunejack team only sent me my lastest 2000 rolls, and refused to provided more. As a sample, I count and ananysis the data and found the issue. The chart in this email shows clearly that the higher you bet, the higher the chance you lose. To put it another way, your bet amount will influence the roll. I'll list some data here: I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance 66-61.87%. The overall win chance of my lastest 2000 rolls is 65.3%, well, this is fine. But the win chance decrease while the bet amount is 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! We can see clearly the trend from 2000 rolls, the trend will be more clearer if the Fortunejack team can provide all my history. If you insist the data is not enough, the Fortunejack should be obliged to provide enough data against my proof and conclusion. But yet FJ refuses to provide this player with the remaining data that they asked for to further prove his case, and they also refused to even comment on his complaint (thus far) That's because you're both idiots. That isn't "proof", is an obscure data chunk that just happens to loosely follow his uninformed hypothesis. That's not how roll outcome generation works. The only things used to calculate roll outcomes are client seed, server seed, and nonce. If they tried to influence it somehow using your balance or bet amounts, then you wouldn't be able to verify your rolls because they'd come back as false (in which case, then you could call it rigged). It's always the people that don't understand Provably Fair that cry scam and rigged all the time. I'm one of the "idots" you mentioned. People are always too confident on technology. They thought technology is 100% trustworthy so when casinos come up with the concept of "provably fair", they are at ease. That complaint is mine. I know what I was talking about. It is no hypothesis, it's fact based on 181 thousand rolls! If you deny the real outcome of FJ dice as proof, then what is? Can you tell me? |
|
|
|
since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls
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 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. |
|
|
|
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_?
Sorry for the confusing, English is not my first language so. To put it simple, the actual win chance is higher when your bet amount is low. The actual win chance is lower when your bet amount is high. Especially when you keep doubling or increse the bet amount largely, it more likely to trigger the long lose streak. Am I clear? |
|
|
|
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.
If you'are talking about house edge, that's another thing. House edge is disclosed and accpeted by players before players play in casino. But fraud is different. It's totally fine if lose or win is purely a random thing. But the issue now is that this "provably fair" game is manipulated against players, which is unfair for players. It's not about luck or something, it's SCAM! |
|
|
|
2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.
The problem is, Fortunejack refused to send me more history, even ASKGAMBLERS asked them to do so. I guess they worried that this trick is more clear once they provided my complete history. But the trend is already there even for 2000 rolls. |
|
|
|
|
