⚖️ Crypto Gambling Foundation ⚖️ - Fair Gambling For All

[Hispo]

You aknowledge that you aren't able to do very basic math and therefore you aren't qualified to comment in regard to the house edge!

You cannot determine a house edge from wins and losses when it comes to Blackjack.

Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding of statistics, there are games in which it is fairly easy to calculate the actual edge of the house if one is willing to gamble multiple rounds to get enough data. I assume you mean blackjack is increasingly difficult to do it because there is factor of choice by the gambler on whatever option they will take when they first receive their first to cards at the beginning of the round, it is like added entropy.
On the other hand, it comes to my mind games like coin flip, which does not have those factors and added entropy, so one could calculate the real house edge of one plays enough and keeps track on the losses and wins. I could be done with a spread sheet and enough patience.

I am a blackjack player, and sometimes when I feel like burning some time I go for some rounds and end up just wagering a few dollars, but even if I was more dedicated, I could not effectively calculate the edge, is that how it works?

[BlackyJacky]

You cannot determine a house edge from wins and losses when it comes to Blackjack.

How did Stake calculate the 0,5% advertised house edge?


Kind reminder:

It suggests a net 2 bets lost,

Correct, and 2 bets net loss out of 100 bets made is how much percent?

[alani123]

I can't believe this conversation is still going on.

I'm beyond baffled by the attitude of this user. He released his play logs and it was more than obvious that he didn't play the optimal strategy. He was unaware of that. I even pointed out some examples but it flew right above his head.

Blackjack is a game where if you use suboptimal strategy you rely even more on your luck and actually put your odds against you even more. So you can even raise the house edge. Exactly as blackjacky did and lost. Although he disk actually have some lucky streaks too.

Anyway, that should be the end of the discussion. I wonder why stake support didn't include that in their rrsponse too but perhaps they realized it's a stupid case and left it to their lowly support agents for handling instead of wasting the time of an expert.

[Danydee]

Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding of statistics, there are games in which it is fairly easy to calculate the actual edge of the house if one is willing to gamble multiple rounds to get enough data. I assume you mean blackjack is increasingly difficult to do it because there is factor of choice by the gambler on whatever option they will take when they first receive their first to cards at the beginning of the round, it is like added entropy.
On the other hand, it comes to my mind games like coin flip, which does not have those factors and added entropy, so one could calculate the real house edge of one plays enough and keeps track on the losses and wins. I could be done with a spread sheet and enough patience.

I am a blackjack player, and sometimes when I feel like burning some time I go for some rounds and end up just wagering a few dollars, but even if I was more dedicated, I could not effectively calculate the edge, is that how it works?

Exactly !

Below is proof that the Stake in-house Black Jack system is rigged!

Info 1)

The advertised house edge for Stake's in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means long-term I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed.

However, if you take a look at my Stake bets statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers: ...

When it comes to Blackjack RTP depends very much on the game and the regularity of the player, so to score a 0.5% house edge on BlackJack you should manage to always play with perfect basic strategy.. making the mathematically correct move on every hand.

Instead, think of RTP like your casino gaming “batting average” stretched across thousands of hands. It tells you what you’d get back, on average, if you always played with perfect basic strategy—making the mathematically correct move on every hand. Hit a detour from those optimal plays, and that generous RTP number starts shrinking faster than a stack of chips during a cold streak.

4% isn't bad play BTW !





* To PROVE any provably fair system is rigged/fallacious,  just review the system (if there are flaws inside it) and the verification tools / (The maths behind!).. + eventually make some trial bets enssuring saving all the PF data and review/verify them.

[nutildah]

BlackyJacky (aka game-protect) is a remorseless liar that will say anything in an attempt to discredit a casino. They are just hoping nobody will counter their insanity so that way they can make their target "look bad." As hard as it is to believe, I can't help but think that somebody is paying them to do this, because my god, what an utter waste of lifetime, pushing the same flawed arguments day in and day out, over and over in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

[BlackyJacky]

I can't believe this conversation is still going on.

As long as desperate signature spammers are desperate to place their hallucinated nonsense to get some cents, the conversation will go on!

I'm beyond baffled by the attitude of this user.

I crushed the scam artists Bijan and Edward, no wonder you are baffled by my attitude.  

Let us see how baffled you will be when the handcuffs click on Bijan and Edward?  

He released his play logs and it was more than obvious that he didn't play the optimal strategy.

Ahh, so you claim that it is more than obvious that I didn't play the optimal strategy, but why don't you publish the proof?

He was unaware of that.

Correct, I am unaware that my optimal drawing strategy caused a 4,5% house edge, instead of the advertised 0,5%.

I even pointed out some examples but it flew right above his head.

You did not publish the proof of my drawing strategy, even though you are in the possession of it!

So you mean, you posted some examples of your hallucinated nonsense?

Blackjack is a game where if you use suboptimal strategy you rely even more on your luck and actually put your odds against you even more.
So you can even raise the house edge. Exactly as blackjacky did and lost.

Why don't you show the proof that my drawing strategy caused a 4,5% house edge instead of the advertised 0,5%?

Publishing hallucinated nonsense is only proof that you are mentally severly insane, but isn't proof of what you claim!

Although he disk actually have some lucky streaks too.

Proof?

Anyway, that should be the end of the discussion.

No, as long as desperate signature spammers are desperate to place their hallucinated nonsense to get some cents, the conversation will go on!

I wonder why stake support didn't include that in their rrsponse too but perhaps they realized it's a stupid case and left it to their lowly support agents for handling instead of wasting the time of an expert.

Let me guess, the Stake Legal Department is wrong and the mentally severly insane nonsense hallucinator is right?

Oh wait, the Stake Legal Department didn't say my drawing strategy caused my experienced 4,5% house edge, because I used optimal drawing strategy!

It is your hallucinated nonsense against the Stake Legal Department declaration:

The user has reached out to the complaints department more than 30 times for the same inquiry.

We have provided the user with the requested information and guided them on validating the license in accordance with Antillephones' preferred procedures.

The User has also been attempting to claim that the 8048/JAZ license is invalid for cryptocurrencies.

Our system allows users to access their complete bet history from the date of registration, and there is no limit on the data storage.

All data stored under the "bet archive" and other sections of your account, are protected by our License, which we strictly adhere to.

For the Blackjack game, users can easily filter data in their bet archive spreadsheet.

Our licensing information and regulations have been transparently available on our website since Stake's inception.

Upon registration, the User acknowledges and accepts our Terms of Service which provide information the above and also provides this clearly.

Prior to using our services, it's crucial for users to comprehend the inherent risks associated with gambling, as winning cannot be guaranteed.

Regarding RTP, it's important to note that this figure is based on a calculation involving at least 1 million bets.

In short sessions with a few hundred or thousand bets, variability is expected, it is impossible to make accurate calculations based on these sessions.

Overall, the frivolous claims made by this User have been explained to them many times by Support and other members of the community:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2178857.400.

It is clear to us that there are no ground for reimbursement.

[gunhell16]

You cannot determine a house edge from wins and losses when it comes to Blackjack.

How did Stake calculate the 0,5% advertised house edge?


Kind reminder:

It suggests a net 2 bets lost,

Correct, and 2 bets net loss out of 100 bets made is how much percent?

I don't know what else you're fighting about here, but according to what I've read, the reasons you're giving here don't seem to make sense, dude.

It's true what others are saying here that it's better to just end the discussion here because you've become an issue here so there's nothing left for you. I can tell you frankly.

[BlackyJacky]

@gunhell16

People who don't know simple math can't comment on the house edge!

[nutildah]

I just realized BlackyJacky has been repeating the same nonsense for 2.5 years now! The exact same nonsense. They really have refused to learn a single thing. Haven't budged an inch. Its extraordinary.

Whats funny is TwitchySeal tried to set them straight about house edge on Day 1:

0.5% house edge doesn't mean 99.5% of your best will be winning bets.  It means the house averages a profit of 0.5% of each wager (assuming the player makes optimal strategy).

Each blackjack hand has a ~42% chance of winning, ~8.5% chance of pushing and ~49.5% chance of losing.  That means over 180,000 hands you should expect around 89,000 of them to be losing bets. 

They've done nothing but say "no, no, no" and repeat the same incorrect assertions ever since. WOW.

[BlackyJacky]

@nutildah

Why did you skip the primary school?

I will inform about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system until the handcuffs will click on Bijan and Edward!

Whether you like it or not.

[BlackyJacky]

Since 2 YEARS and 9 months!!! I demand compensation for the unjustifiably lost 30,000 USD at Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system!

Until today, Stake's alleged "Legal Department" is not willing to compensate me, even though they are clearly at fault here!


Below is proof that the Stake in-house Black Jack system is rigged!

Info 1)

The advertised house edge for Stake's in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means long-term I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed.

However, if you take a look at my Stake bets statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers:

Bets: 180,904

Wins: 78,285

Losses: 86,612

If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285 = 8,327)

Losing 8,327 bets out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost.

0,5% house edge out of 180,900 bets placed I should lose 900 bets + a possible small deviation.

8,327 bets lost - 900 bets I should lose = 7,427 bets too much lost.


Info 2)

Bets

After 180,900 bets, the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome is 0,4%, according to the law of large numbers (See Info 3) below).

180,000 bets x 0,4% = 720 bets I could maximal additionally lose on top of the 900 bets I will lose based on the 0,5% house edge.

7,427 bets too much lost minus 720 bets I can additionally maximal lose = 6,707 bets = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

House edge

0,5% house edge = 900 bets plus 720 bets maximal possible deviation = 80% additional maximal possible deviation from the house edge.

0,5% house edge plus 0,4% (80% additional maximal possible deviation) = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge!

Experienced house edge 4,6% minus 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge = 3,7% additional experienced house edge!

3,7% additional experienced house edge : 0,4% additional maximal possible deviation = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

Stake's own bets statistics is 100% proof that their in-house Black Jack system is rigged!


Info 3)

When the house edge is 0,5% and you placed 180,900 bets, you will lose 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips.

The remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because you will win 50% = 90,000 bets and lose 50% = 90,000 bets.


Now let's take a look at the technically maximal possible deviation for 180,000 coin flips:

A) Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (In 68% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0,12%)

B) 3 times standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 0,36% (In 99,7% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0.36%)
 
What does 99,7% mean?

When you make 333 times a series of 180,000 coin flips, then 332 times the deviation from the expected outcome will be up to 0,36% and only one time the deviation will be higher than 0,36%.

I was not able to find how much the deviation could be in this one case where it is higher than 0,36%, but likely not more than 10% of the 0,36% = 0,4%.


Below is Stake's deliberate deception answer:

The user has reached out to the complaints department more than 30 times for the same inquiry.

We have provided the user with the requested information and guided them on validating the license in accordance with Antillephones' preferred procedures.

The User has also been attempting to claim that the 8048/JAZ license is invalid for cryptocurrencies.

Our system allows users to access their complete bet history from the date of registration, and there is no limit on the data storage.

All data stored under the "bet archive" and other sections of your account, are protected by our License, which we strictly adhere to.

For the Blackjack game, users can easily filter data in their bet archive spreadsheet.

Our licensing information and regulations have been transparently available on our website since Stake's inception.

Upon registration, the User acknowledges and accepts our Terms of Service which provide information the above and also provides this clearly.

Prior to using our services, it's crucial for users to comprehend the inherent risks associated with gambling, as winning cannot be guaranteed.

Regarding RTP, it's important to note that this figure is based on a calculation involving at least 1 million bets.

In short sessions with a few hundred or thousand bets, variability is expected, it is impossible to make accurate calculations based on these sessions.

Overall, the frivolous claims made by this User have been explained to them many times by Support and other members of the community:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2178857.400.

It is clear to us that there are no ground for reimbursement.

How stupid a multi-billion USD profit online casino operation can be?

While the exact house edge applies only after 1 million bets, the law of great numbers determines the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome based on the number of attempts.

And the higher the number of bets is, the lower is the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome!

And after 180,900 bets, the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome is 0,4%.

0,5% advertised house edge plus 0,4% maximal possible deviation = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge after 180,900 bets!

My experienced house edge 4,6% - 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge = 3,7% ADDITIONAL technically not possible house edge!

[Shishir99]

@nutildah

Why did you skip the primary school?

I will inform about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system until the handcuffs will click on Bijan and Edward!

Whether you like it or not.

Oh, look who is here criticising nutildah
Look at your own profile, mate, before you criticize anyone. Don't think people are dumb enough to understand who is the stupid one here. We just don't feed the trolls. I wish you better luck proving Stake's rigged games and I hope you will success one day

To others - I think it is fine not to argue with stupid people. Just tell them you are right and move on so they can be satisfied.

[internetional]

The fact that CGF doesn't answer when you use their contact form and that they haven't updated any information about themselves in this thread for years and that they have taken their own forum off-line all indicate a likelihood that they no longer operate. The fact that nobody from CGF has replied to your persistent spamming of this thread is another clue.

I just came across this thread. After reading through it, I realized that for a very long time now the discussion has been focused entirely on the same conflict, while the organization this topic was originally about seems to have stopped operating long ago.

But here’s what I’m curious about: I’m actually one of the kinds of people mentioned in the very first post. I carry a negative bias toward online casinos. I suspect that many of them operate dishonestly.

An organization like CGF could, in theory, be very useful for the industry. Why didn’t such an initiative “take off”? Is it because there’s no real problem to solve, or because the businesses involved simply aren’t interested in transparency?

[Zwei]

To others - I think it is fine not to argue with stupid people. Just tell them you are right and move on so they can be satisfied.

you just can't help it sometimes, lol.

An organization like CGF could, in theory, be very useful for the industry. Why didn’t such an initiative “take off”? Is it because there’s no real problem to solve, or because the businesses involved simply aren’t interested in transparency?

imo, there was just no need for it anymore.
at some point it became standard for crypto casinos to offer transparent provably fair games if they wanted to compete in the original games market.

and anyone who plays on a casino that offers provably fair games can verify for themselves whether a game is fair or not. so there is no point having a foundation do it for you.

[BlackyJacky]

An organization like CGF could, in theory, be very useful for the industry. Why didn’t such an initiative “take off”? Is it because there’s no real problem to solve, or because the businesses involved simply aren’t interested in transparency?

The "provably fair" system as such is nonsense!

1) When you don't change the client seed after evey bet, the casino knows your client seed for the next bet and can calculate a server seed that is favorable for the casino.

When you made 100,000 bets and changed the server seed 100,000 times, then you need to check the outcome 100,000 times!


2) Stake's in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged, so whatever effort you put in with changing the client seed after every bet and check the results, it does not prevent you from getting scammed.


3) Checking if your betting statistics is within the deviation limit of the law of large numbers is not only much much more quicker, but it also gives usable proof that a system is rigged when your result is outside the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome.

[Shishir99]

The "provably fair" system as such is nonsense!

1) When you don't change the client seed after evey bet, the casino knows your client seed for the next bet and can calculate a server seed that is favorable for the casino.

When you made 100,000 bets and changed the server seed 100,000 times, then you need to check the outcome 100,000 times!


2) Stake's in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged, so whatever effort you put in with changing the client seed after every bet and check the results, it does not prevent you from getting scammed.


3) Checking if your betting statistics is within the deviation limit of the law of large numbers is not only much much more quicker, but it also gives usable proof that a system is rigged when your result is outside the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome.

You are right. 
So I suggest you leave Stake.com and play elsewhere because their games are rigged. There is no reason to play in a rigged casino knowing they cheat you. We appreciate that you took the time to write your report here, and we think you have been helpful all the time. Let's move forward and stop playing at stake 

To others, this guy was helpful in reporting a potential scam. We should appreciate him so he can stop playing at Stake.com, Good luck BlackyJacky. Please do not make another deposit on Stake and do not complain again.

[internetional]

The "provably fair" system as such is nonsense!

Yes, I find it hard to believe as well. Personally, my biggest fear is that the casino might refuse to pay out my winnings or even return my deposit. "Provably fair game" doesn't necessarily mean "provably fair casino".

Maybe we don't need an organization if there are casinos that operate on publicly accessible smart contracts. But for Bitcoin gambling, that can still be a bit complicated. That's why something like an auditing organization would be very appropriate.

[RezaBlueTop]

You and the sites that claim to be “provably fair” are all thieves, dishonorable, and inhuman.

I only checked stake.com and found that the other sites you (the thieves) have endorsed are all cheating.

The provably-fair mechanism is not that the site or casino changes the server seed hash after the client seed is changed. It’s true the casino can’t alter the outcome, but the fact that it knows the outcome and can construct whatever outcome it wants is enough. Every time I changed the client seed, the stake casino immediately changed the server seed hash. Yes, on the surface everything looks normal and then it reveals the server seed and you foolishly say “yes, the casino didn’t manipulate the result,” but the poor users don’t know that the casino keeps changing the server seed so many times after the client seed is revealed — by trial and error — until it reaches their desired outcome, and then it shows the hash of that chosen server seed to the user.

For example, in stake’s dice game I looked and they’re cheating very blatantly, and thieves and partners like you endorse them. The casino says “pick a number between 0 and 100; numbers above that number win and numbers below lose.” If the site decides you should lose, it can easily do that. The moment you give it the client seed, in a fraction of a second with high-performance computers it can change the server seed so many times that the result gets very close to zero and the site’s chance of winning rises.

If the site were honest, the betting model wouldn’t be one-sided for players. For example, if I describe a 50% chance: the die number from 0 to 50 or from 50 to 100 — either choice has the same chance. Or if you say the die will fall between 0 and 30 or between 70 and 100, both are equally likely. But cheating casinos say 0–50 is for the casino and 50–100 is for you. In reality, the zero side is for the casino and the 100 side is for the player — and that’s exactly where the casino cheats.

If the site provided the server seed hash along with the client seed, the result wouldn’t change, but then the site wouldn’t know in advance whether the user would pick 0–50 or 50–100, and that’s where it would get stuck. Instead, with their stupid one-sided scheme they make everyone lose. If they decide you should lose, they just generate a number close to zero and that’s it.

A casino can prove its honesty in two ways. First, by being genuinely unaware of the outcome — truly provably fair — in which case the casino should not change the server seed hash after the client seed changes, because then it would easily get its desired outcome. Second, even if the casino does know the outcome, it should not fix the betting model in a biased way against players; it should let players place whatever bets they want. For example, a user might once bet “my number will be under 50” and another time “my number will be over 50” — both have equal chance; that way the site can’t know what bet the user will place in order to cheat.

Curse all the thieves and dishonorable people. Curse everyone who deliberately approves these sites. Humanity is dead in you. These cheating casinos are the filthiest people — don’t collaborate with them for money.

I will eventually find a way to file a complaint against you and track you down.