Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot!

[MICRO]

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.

That's why i asked u how would u handle it, he doesn't have email probably like from any of them, also alot of them might not be active, and those who still are they made new accounts on pd3 . So i would say its almost impossible to contact them and refund them even if he finds them all .

[dooglus]

But Primedice isn't as simple as Just-Dice...

I don't think that's true.

Just-Dice was doing a lot of pretty complex stuff, keeping track of 1000 different investors, and distributing the profits and losses of every bet in proportion to the size of people's investments.

PD has a bunch of "fluff" like achievements and levels, but none of it is really very important to the actual game. As I understand it they're just a bunch of extra counters per player which affect how much the faucet pays you.

[dooglus]

I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised.

Why do you and Stunna keep repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% higher than advertised?

I just gave lots of examples of what the house edge actually was:

The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets.

Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance.

On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were).

That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge.

Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge:

Code:

>>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10  ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055

You even replied to that post, and yet keep on repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% too high.

One the 0.01% game the house edge was 50.5%, which is 49.5% too high.
On the 0.1% game the house edge was 5.95%, which is 4.95% too high.

Sorry to keep repeating this, but I'm not sure why you aren't getting it.

Do you not understand what I'm saying? Or do you think that if you keep repeating yourself then people will believe you?

The chance of winning a bet was 0.005% lower than advertised. That doesn't mean the house edge was 0.005% too high. The house edge was too high by an amount which depends on the chance of winning. When the chance of winning is meant to be 0.01%, reducing that by 0.005% is halving the chance of winning, and so increasing the house edge to 50.5%, not to 1.005%.

[MICRO]

But Primedice isn't as simple as Just-Dice...

I don't think that's true.

Just-Dice was doing a lot of pretty complex stuff, keeping track of 1000 different investors, and distributing the profits and losses of every bet in proportion to the size of people's investments.

PD has a bunch of "fluff" like achievements and levels, but none of it is really very important to the actual game. As I understand it they're just a bunch of extra counters per player which affect how much the faucet pays you.

Yeah that is true, but design , and animations , makes it more pleasing and inviting.
Also Chat commands: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg8349172#msg8349172
Makes player stay on the site, tips option , transaction log, and all other stuff.

Jd is alot different , when players invest in the site they are almost part owners , and they want to promote, they want to advertise, they want to be active on it and so on. So its alot easier when u have army of investors trying to bring as much players on the site as possible.

All bugs will be sorted out eventually.

[MICRO]

I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised.

Why do you and Stunna keep repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% higher than advertised?

I just gave lots of examples of what the house edge actually was:

The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets.

Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance.

On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were).

That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge.

Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge:

Code:

>>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10  ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055

You even replied to that post, and yet keep on repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% too high.

One the 0.01% game the house edge was 50.5%, which is 49.5% too high.
On the 0.1% game the house edge was 5.95%, which is 4.95% too high.

Sorry to keep repeating this, but I'm not sure why you aren't getting it.

Do you not understand what I'm saying? Or do you think that if you keep repeating yourself then people will believe you?

The chance of winning a bet was 0.005% lower than advertised. That doesn't mean the house edge was 0.005% too high. The house edge was too high by an amount which depends on the chance of winning. When the chance of winning is meant to be 0.01%, reducing that by 0.005% is halving the chance of winning, and so increasing the house edge to 50.5%, not to 1.005%.

Oh sorry , i thought u posted that house edge was 1.005% on average ?
I understand that on 9900x house edge was 50.5% . Which is big mistake on devs account . :S .

Now its sorted but biggest problem is how to make it right, coz its rly hard, and i know Stunna wants to do it . We talked about it.
Making pd3 house edge 0.91% somewhat did that ? Right ?

And if he can't find a way to refund that particular players that are affected he will just giveaway that coins to the community ?
I think that is pretty cool from him.

[galbros]

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.

It seems like this is mostly resolved.  Dooglus has once again helped out a site and Stunna has said he'd make it right.  It's really nice to see some professionalism on the forums.

Stunna maybe you can just keep PD2 up for awhile longer and see how many accounts were effected?  Then you could post the user names of who may have coins coming to them and ask that they send you their login credentials (ID # and password) or log into oldprimedice to collect their funds?

Dooglus, I, for one, get your point.  The rounding error was most pronounced at the high odds bets.  I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Thanks to you both.

[MICRO]

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.

It seems like this is mostly resolved.  Dooglus has once again helped out a site and Stunna has said he'd make it right.  It's really nice to see some professionalism on the forums.

Stunna maybe you can just keep PD2 up for awhile longer and see how many accounts were effected?  Then you could post the user names of who may have coins coming to them and ask that they send you their login credentials (ID # and password) or log into oldprimedice to collect their funds?

Dooglus, I, for one, get your point.  The rounding error was most pronounced at the high odds bets.  I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Thanks to you both.

Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better.
Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback.

Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever .

[Stars]

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.

It seems like this is mostly resolved.  Dooglus has once again helped out a site and Stunna has said he'd make it right.  It's really nice to see some professionalism on the forums.

Stunna maybe you can just keep PD2 up for awhile longer and see how many accounts were effected?  Then you could post the user names of who may have coins coming to them and ask that they send you their login credentials (ID # and password) or log into oldprimedice to collect their funds?

Dooglus, I, for one, get your point.  The rounding error was most pronounced at the high odds bets.  I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Thanks to you both.

Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better.
Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback.

Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever .

Yea, I agree with you 100%.

[Ejaculation]

Screenshot

I could only catch this, there were two more after this within 2 minutes of the all bets tab scrolling down.

Insane!

[dooglus]

I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Exactly.

[MICRO]

Screenshot

I could only catch this, there were two more after this within 2 minutes of the all bets tab scrolling down.

Insane!

Yeah we see people hitting jackpots much more than expected .

I guess my idea for bot to post on chat when somebody hits jackpot, wasn't good after all , it would only spam chat .

[dooglus]

Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better.
Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback.

Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever .

It's very hard to tell the difference between deliberate scamming and accidental coding/design errors.

PD2 was advertising a 1% edge while actually running with up to a 50.5% edge. Most bets were at 49.5% with a 1.01% edge. I suspect it was accidental, but even if it was done cynically with a view to making a few extra coins it would look exactly the same. It's hard to justify shouting "SCAM" in big red letters when it could just as well be "MISTAKE" that I should be shouting.

So when I see something wrong, I point out, and wait to see what the site owner says about it.

[coinfist]

If only verification documentation is wrong what it seems to be than i guess its not that bad situation ?

I don't know if it's that clear cut. If you launch a site with the documentation saying "we are provably fair because we do A, B, C to generate your rolls" but what you actually do is "A, B, D", then when the outcome of A, B, C and A, B, D differ, such that the player would have won if you did what you said you were going to do, but he loses because you actually do something different... then it seems like he has a winnable case there.

He took you at your word that you were doing A, B, C but it turned out you weren't doing that at all, and the difference caused him to lose.

I think dev has that already updated but as i said he wasn't online for whole day , he shoulda pushed some other updates today also .

I think the code snippet was updated recently. It was just updated wrongly, making it even worse than before since now it often computes very low rolls, like the 00.02 in the case that brought the error to light.

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

I personally feel that your point about the "difference' causing him to lose is invalid, would he have adjusted his client seed etc knowing that the system used was different? This only seems to be important after the fact given that he lost.

I'm doing my best to provide a fair experience, I'm also working on code so I can be less reliant on developers to solve these sorts of issues. At the end of the day though his roll was fair and unmanipulated.


Also coinfist is a shill for another casino: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=365873;sa=showPosts  (Notice all his posts are him screaming that PD is a scam in all caps) I'm not refunding him 0.01 which he lost placing a 100% fair bet. He literally created his forum account to simply type anti PD posts. Instead of proving that the verification section text  was incorrect you should instead try and prove that he did not get a 100% fair bet.


Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.


Primedice is 100% fair but our verification page text has mistakes on it and is inaccurate end of discussion. We will edit this page today (hopefully without error this time)

How can you say your site is 100% fair and even provides a script for everyone to verify. After someone finds that you site is cheating by using different algorithm, you say it's lack of documentation.
So what's the purpose of the verification which can't verify the result? 
During 3 days I was using PD, I found 2 unfairness. And the site seems they are totally OK. I know it's ok for you because you are the one cheating.
And you think I would expect you to return my stolen bitcion?  I would not, because you site is a totally scam site.

[waterpile]

How can you say your site is 100% fair and even provides a script for everyone to verify. After someone finds that you site is cheating by using different algorithm, you say it's lack of documentation.
So what's the purpose of the verification which can't verify the result? 
During 3 days I was using PD, I found 2 unfairness. And the site seems they are totally OK. I know it's ok for you because you are the one cheating.
And you think I would expect you to return my stolen bitcion?  I would not, because you site is a totally scam site.

can you post the proof of your findings, so that people can see it also?

[coinfist]

How can you say your site is 100% fair and even provides a script for everyone to verify. After someone finds that you site is cheating by using different algorithm, you say it's lack of documentation.
So what's the purpose of the verification which can't verify the result? 
During 3 days I was using PD, I found 2 unfairness. And the site seems they are totally OK. I know it's ok for you because you are the one cheating.
And you think I would expect you to return my stolen bitcion?  I would not, because you site is a totally scam site.

can you post the proof of your findings, so that people can see it also?

see the post here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg8438316#msg8438316

[Candystripes]

Looking for a reply to the cheating post as well.

Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that.  Explanation please?

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

[jjc326]

Looking for a reply to the cheating post as well.

Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that.  Explanation please?

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

What does it say your number should be?  I'm still 1 off on there and it's making me question where the error is.  WIth the accusations it makes me worried the one "affiliate" that's not showing up is making big bets 

[Candystripes]

Can there be an option to set all bets to see one specific users bets, like JD did? Sometimes I want to see my friends bet.

[Stunna]

Looking for a reply to the cheating post as well.

Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that.  Explanation please?

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

Just to clarify the previous brought up situation

There was no cheating, on our verification page verify script one line was incorrect which caused certain bets to not verify, now all bets do including ones made prior. Coinfist is a shill but I'm glad he brought this to my attention. Coinfist, go check if your verification works now.

Please read for further detail
From our developer:

This is due to a missing * 5 multiplication from the substring selection that was added later on in development to the servers but not properly updated on the frontend. There is no way we can exploit this (as backend used the correct algorithm and therefore gave the correct roll numbers), it's an inaccuracy in our check script and our provably fair system still holds. The page has been updated and fixed, the few cases of bets that failed this verification will now verify properly using that script. Most bets verified but some failed due to the "shift over 5" nature, with the missing * 5, the verify script was using characters 5-6 (index + 5) instead of characters 5-10 (index * 5 + 5) for the second and subsequent tries when looping through viable roll numbers.

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

[dooglus]

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

[/quote]

The script is still wrong:

               lucky = parseInt(hash.substring(index * 5, index * 5 + 5), 16);

                    //if we reach the end of the hash, just default to number over 100
                    if (index + 5 == 128 + 1) {
                        lucky = 99.99;
                        break;
                    }

I don't know where you found your developers, but given the number of issues you've had since launching PD3 and the fact that they *still* can't get the verification script right, even on their third attempt, I think I would be looking elsewhere in future.

I've bolded and underlined the remaining incorrect part. Maybe that will help.

Also note that 99.99 isn't over 100, but that's just an incorrect comment, so that doesn't matter, right?

Fuck.