⚖️ Crypto Gambling Foundation ⚖️ - Fair Gambling For All

[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.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

I also have never believe that provably fair system is real, what I've always believed is that this is one those languages business use to confuse and convince our brain to believe we are been treated fairly when in reality, we are just being used..
I don't know much about how a game can be confirmed as being provably fair to the players, some tell it's by some code generated by the SAME casino, an idea I do not buy and can never buy.
But nevertheless, I still gamble and try as much as possible to ensure I am enjoying every game I choose to play, because this is feel is the only benefit, aside winning something here and/or there.

And speaking of having a casino that runs on a public smart contract, that's a decentralized casino you are talking about, I think we have few around already though I've never tried any, but to be honest with you, I personally still prefer playing on a centralized casino than playing on a decentralized casino, especially when decentralized casino hasn't received any full smart contract audit from a reputable audit company.

[nutildah]

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.

This is not how house edge is calculated for Blackjack. People have been explaining to you how it works since 2022:

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.  

Stake has already made their final decision in this matter and continually posting the same incorrect information about house edge will not change anybody's mind. You would have to make your claim more technically correct if you wanted to get the support of anybody. Anybody who knows how casino odds work is not going to take you seriously with your current approach.

[BlackyJacky]

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.

This is not how house edge is calculated for Blackjack. People have been explaining to you how it works since 2022:

- Hallucinated nonsense -

Hallucinated nonsense is not an explanation of something.

People who skipped the primary school are not able to understand basic math!

Stake has already made their final decision in this matter and continually posting the same incorrect information about house edge will not change anybody's mind.

The 2 RuneScape players made a (stupid) decision, but this is not final.

The final word will have the court!    (I will keep you updated)

Their hallucinated fantasy social casino stake.us is already sued in California and now they quickly decided to close their illegal Primedice operation.

Sometimes, hallucinations (social casino) hit on the real world reality!

List of defendants:

Sweepstakes Ltd. dba Stake.US , Easygo Group Holdings Pty Ltd. , Medium Rate N.V. , Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. , Ed Craven , Bijan Tehrani , Veriff , Veridian (Gibraltar) Limited , Tamaris (Gibraltar) Limited

Evolution AB , Evolution Malta Holding Ltd. , Evolution US LLC , Evolution Malta Ltd. , Bigtime ,  Gaming Pty Ltd. , Red Tiger Gaming Ltd. , Red Tiger International Ltd. , Netent Nolimit City Holding Ltd. , Nolimit City Ltd. , Hacksaw AB , Hacksaw Gaming Ltd. , HGMT Ltd. , HGIM Ltd.

You would have to make your claim more technically correct if you wanted to get the support of anybody.

My claim is technically perfect and I do not look for support of someone, I simply inform.

Bitcointalk support is anyway not possible, because the 2 RuneScape players do anyway what they want, until sued.

Anybody who knows how casino odds work is not going to take you seriously with your current approach.

What is my approach?

What is your approach?

[nutildah]

What is my approach?

Your approach is lying and being full of shit 100% of the time.

Look at your account: -3 trust and over 600 posts without a single merit. This is all anybody needs to know about the worth of anything you have to say.

Maybe there's some other platform where you can make money by extorting casinos, but this isn't it. I doubt you've actually ever been successful at that. Its more likely you're just batshit crazy.

[BlackyJacky]

Let us compare Bijan's and Edward's hallucinated "social casino" stake.us with the reality:  

INTRODUCTION

1. Since 2022, Defendants have operated, controlled, promoted, and/or aided and abetted one of the largest and most profitable illegal casinos in California:

Stake.us

2. Stake.us follows in the footsteps of Stake.com, an online casino that its co-founder Bijan Tehrani boasts has “the highest [betting volume] in the world out of any casino, land-based or online.”

Because Stake.com could not easily enter the U.S. market, where online gambling is highly regulated or banned in most states, Bijan Tehrani, his co-founder Ed Craven, and their companies created Stake.us:

a mirror image of Stake.com that was marketed to U.S. customers as a “social casino” that does not permit “real money gambling.”

3. Stake.us thus presents itself as a “safe and free gaming experience.”

4. This was and is a ruse.

Stake.us has deceptively portrayed itself to regulators and consumers as offering harmless gameplay when, in fact, it was and is an illegal online casino.

Stake.us offers games that are designed to look and feel like traditional casino games in a traditional casino:

5. Stake.us offers more than 1,900 casino games, including slots, table games, live dealer games, scratch cards, and exclusive “Stake Originals.”

6. Just like in a traditional casino or at Stake.com, players place a bet on a contingent or uncertain event using special casino chips.

If the player wins the bet, Stake.us pays the player their winnings in virtual casino chips.

The player can then place more bets or redeem the casino chips for cash.

This is quintessential gambling.

7. Stake publicly proclaims that its enterprises raked in approximately $4.7 billion in gross revenue in 2024—after winnings were paid out.

A large portion of that revenue came from the United States, including from California in which unregulated gambling is illegal.

8. Stake.us attempts to skirt California’s anti-gambling laws by offering two types of virtual currency:

(1) Gold Coins (“GC”), which have no “real money” value and cannot be converted into real money; and

(2) Stake Cash (“SC”), which can be redeemed for cryptocurrency or digital gift cards on a 1 SC to 1 United States Dollar (“USD”) basis.

...

As Bijan and Edward persisted to not give back the 30,000 USD they have illegally taken from me via their provably rigged in-house Black Jack, I decided to report their hallucinated "social casino" stake.us to US authorities!

Would have been much cheaper to compensate me and move on, but when you deal with criminal sickheads!  

Who laughs last, laughs best!  

[gunhell16]

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.

This is not how house edge is calculated for Blackjack. People have been explaining to you how it works since 2022:

- Hallucinated nonsense -

Hallucinated nonsense is not an explanation of something.

People who skipped the primary school are not able to understand basic math!

I think no matter what explanation you give, dude, it doesn't make sense anymore, because your reputation is already ruined in this forum, in accordance with the trust that long-time,
reputed members of this forum had in you or gave to you.

What @nutildah said is also correct: out of your more than 600 posts, you haven't received even a single merit, which shows that you are not a trustworthy person on this forum platform. Sorry, but you are truly discredited on this forum platform. So, just stop posting because whatever you post, the community here will no longer believe you.

[BlackyJacky]

@ gunhell16

When someone gives false "ratings", then that person is wrong and not the falsely accused person.

Despite of this, Bijan and Edward will be held accountable by authorities and not by Bitcointalk!

Hence, relevant is that authorities are able to understand my proof, like they did in regard to my stake.us fantasy "social casino" report in California.

What people think on Bitcointalk does not bear any relevance for holding Bijan and Edward accountable.  

Not one Bitcointalk member was able to prevent Bijan and Edward from being sued in California.  

Facts count much more, than personal nonsense hallucinations! 

[QWWERT]

Announcing the Crypto Gambling Foundation

The Crypto Gaming Foundation is going to be setting a standard for transparency and fairness in our gaming community. Online casinos are amongst the least trusted businesses in the world with only 34% of people believing that online gambling is fair and can be trusted.

Personally, I remember when this community was much smaller and websites with poor fairness and dishonest practices were shunned. It worries me that crypto gambling is becoming more and more similar to real money gambling with some of the top crypto casinos regularly taking advantage of players with abusive practices.

Because of this I am happy to join and help this group encourage fair gambling in this space. Check it out, browse our articles and join the forum. Membership is of course free.  

Main Site: http://cryptogambling.org      Forum: http://forum.cryptogambling.org/


https://image.ibb.co/kwH4m5/Artboard_140.png

why is your site primedice running away with peoples level up bonues? is that fair?

[QWWERT]

@ gunhell16

When someone gives false "ratings", then that person is wrong and not the falsely accused person.

Despite of this, Bijan and Edward will be held accountable by authorities and not by Bitcointalk!

Hence, relevant is that authorities are able to understand my proof, like they did in regard to my stake.us fantasy "social casino" report in California.

What people think on Bitcointalk does not bear any relevance for holding Bijan and Edward accountable.  

Not one Bitcointalk member was able to prevent Bijan and Edward from being sued in California.  

Facts count much more, than personal nonsense hallucinations! 

yeah, these forum is very one sided. people are paid to defend these scammers annoyingly

[RichGang]

Announcing the Crypto Gambling Foundation

The Crypto Gaming Foundation is going to be setting a standard for transparency and fairness in our gaming community. Online casinos are amongst the least trusted businesses in the world with only 34% of people believing that online gambling is fair and can be trusted.

Personally, I remember when this community was much smaller and websites with poor fairness and dishonest practices were shunned. It worries me that crypto gambling is becoming more and more similar to real money gambling with some of the top crypto casinos regularly taking advantage of players with abusive practices.

Because of this I am happy to join and help this group encourage fair gambling in this space. Check it out, browse our articles and join the forum. Membership is of course free.  

Main Site: http://cryptogambling.org      Forum: http://forum.cryptogambling.org/

why is your site primedice running away with peoples level up bonues? is that fair?

watch the paid members come defend these fradulent site.
when a bet is placed, primedice gets its commision upfront. if they are closing, its only fair to pay the users accordingly
if you are 20% plat 3 you should be paid for the percentage. anything less is scam

[BlackyJacky]

Daddy Did It First: The Hidden Mastermind Behind Stake Casino is Jamie Craven

Jamie Craven, a convicted fraudster who learned how to dodge the system decades ago is now running the biggest casino empire in the world under his son’s name Eddie Craven.

On paper, Stake looks like the brainchild of two young Australian entrepreneurs: Eddie Craven and Bijan Tehrani. The press paints them as “disruptors,” riding the crypto wave to create the world’s biggest crypto casino.

But the deeper you dig, the clearer it becomes: Eddie and Bijan are just the faces. Also Eddie Craven is less the mastermind and more the mascot. He has no programming skills and no deep grasp of algorithms. Supposedly, even streamers and celebrities who partnered with him, laugh at him, one whistleblower told a unique story of the rapper Drake supposedly calling Eddie an “idiot” and a “moron” with others. Whether true or not, the running gag is that Eddie isn’t the brain of the operation, he’s the billboard.

The real mastermind? Eddie’s father, James Ashley Craven (aka Jamie Craven).

Jamie Craven isn’t new to shady business. In the 1980s, he was jailed and bankrupted after the collapse of Spedley Securities, an infamous financial scandal in Australia.

His expertise? Fraud, financial manipulation, and dodging accountability.

So when Eddie and Bijan needed the kind of “guidance” that could turn a casino idea into a billion-dollar unregulated scam machine, it wasn’t Eddie’s coding skills (he had none). It was his father Jamie’s fraud expertise that became the secret weapon.

Back in 2023, Christopher Freeman sued Eddie and Bijan in U.S. courts, claiming he was the true originator of the idea, Primedice and that Bijan got Eddie onboard and then cut him out out of his original idea.

But here’s the twist: Bijan didn’t bring Eddie onboard for his programming skills. He brought his father Jamie Craven’s scam expertise guidance on board.

Eddie was just the placeholder, the son whose name could be slapped on the paperwork. The U.S. case was dismissed. Stake argued it had no jurisdiction since they weren’t registered or operating in the U.S.

The Grey Zone Strategy

This is Jamie’s true genius: Operate only in legal shadows where no regulator can touch you

- Australia: Stake doesn’t cater to Australians, so local commissions shrug. Doesn’t matter that the whole scam operation is based there.

- United States: Courts have no jurisdiction because Stake isn’t U.S.-registered. Case dismissed.

- Curacao: The company’s registered there, where you can buy a license for $500 with no oversight.

With this three-pronged dodge, Stake can run global scams — draining players in Europe, Asia, and America, while sitting comfortably in Australia.

It’s not Eddie and Bijan who built Stake’s empire of grey-zone gambling. It’s Jamie Craven’s master plan, operating only in loopholes, running crypto scams with no oversight, dodging accountability, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Go to Stake’s official Twitter, and you’ll see the message loud and clear:

“World’s Leading Betting Platform | u stakef1team_ks | u Drake approved | u stakeusa u stakecolombia | Not in US, AU, UK | 18+”

At first glance, it looks like a standard disclaimer. But look closer. This isn’t aimed at players, it’s aimed at regulators in US, Australia & UK. The only regulators who have power to bring them down.

Not in US AU UK is a smirking “We don’t operate here, so you can’t touch us.”

A quiet middle finger to gaming commissions across three continents.

So all the regulators & gaming commissions in US, Australia & UK can look the other way.

What looks like a sleek crypto casino is, at its heart, a meticulously engineered shadow empire to launder crypto funds and legitimize their income sources.

And as long as regulators keep looking the other way, the Craven family will keep printing money from innocent players, with zero accountability.

Source: https://medium.com/@rethink.phylum/daddy-did-it-first-the-hidden-mastermind-behind-stake-com-jamie-craven-059a9791066b


Sounds plausible, what do you think?

[Alge89]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

I'm sorry for what I'm about to write, and I want to make it clear that I have zero interest in defending Stake.
Let's get straight to the point and put an end to this circus.

I used to be a member of this forum, but I lost the credentials to my old account.
So I apologize if, at first glance, this might look like the analysis of a newbie.


1. How Stake Original Blackjack Works

Stake’s Blackjack has the following characteristics:

Standard payouts:

• Normal win: 1:1
• Blackjack: 3:2
• Insurance: 2:1

House edge: approximately 0.57%, which is perfectly normal for a 3:2 blackjack game.

The game is provably fair, meaning the deck is generated using server seed + client seed + nonce + something else.

Most importantly: The house edge of 0.57% applies to the money wagered, not to the percentage of hands you lose.


2. Your Actual Recorded Statistics

You reported the following totals:

• Total hands played: 180904
• Wins: 78285
• Losses: 86612
• Pushes: 16007 (calculated by me LOL)

Which corresponds to:

• Win rate: 43.3%
• Loss rate: 47.9%
• Push rate: 8.9%

Now compare these to the theoretical probabilities for standard blackjack:

• Typical win rate: aprox. 42%
• Typical loss rate: aprox. 49%
• Typical push rate: aprox. 8–9%

Your results are almost perfectly aligned with the mathematical expectations of real blackjack.
In fact, your win percentage is even slightly higher than the theoretical value.

These numbers alone already contradict the idea that the game was unfairly configured.


3. Why "4.6% house edge" Is Incorrect

In your report, you calculated:

• Difference between losses and wins: 8327 more losses
• Dividing that by total hands: 4.6%

Then you call this "house edge".

This is not accurate.

The number of hands won or lost has nothing to do with the house edge, because:

• Blackjack wins and losses do not pay the same amount.
• Blackjack hands include splits, doubles and blackjacks.
• Pushes exist and do not contribute to losses.
• Some hands pay 1.5× the bet, others pay 1×, others lose 1× or 2×.

House edge is based on long-term money expectation, not on the ratio of wins and losses.

This is why calculating hands lost minus hands won does not measure advantage, return or fairness in blackjack.


4. Real Blackjack Variance Explains Large Swings

Blackjack is a high-variance game.
Over a large sample like 180000 hands, it is completely normal for results to be thousands of betting units above or below the theoretical expectation.

In real numbers:

• With Stake’s house edge, a typical long-term player would expect to lose around 900 betting units over 180k hands.
• Normal swings can easily reach 1000 to 2000 units, even with perfect play.
• Losing tens of thousands of dollars can be normal depending on your average bet size.

This means that a loss of $30000 can be:

• statistically normal if you were betting $20 per hand on average
• even less than expected if you were betting $50 per hand
• unusual but still fully possible if betting $10 per hand

Without knowing your actual average bet size (including doubles and splits) your total loss does not indicate manipulation.


5. Why the "maximum possible deviation = 0.4%" argument is invalid

Your report assumes:

• Blackjack behaves like coin flips (50/50 outcomes).
• There is a "maximum deviation" after 180000 bets.
• Any deviation above that means "rigged".

All of these points are incorrect:

Blackjack is NOT a coin flip

Win rate is not 50%.
Payouts are not symmetrical.
Pushes exist.
Some outcomes multiply your stake.

There is NO "maximum deviation" for a sample size

You can always have uncommon statistical swings; they just become less likely, never impossible.

Stake Blackjack probabilities match real blackjack

Your actual win/loss/push percentages match known blackjack statistics.

This entire part of your report is based on a statistical model that simply does not apply to blackjack at all. 


6. Final Assessment

Putting everything together:

• Your recorded results (win %, loss %, push %) match real blackjack distributions
• Your interpretation of house edge is based on a misunderstanding.
• Your conclusion of "4.6% house edge" is based on an invalid method.
• Your deviation calculations use the wrong statistical model.
• The variance of blackjack fully explains large losses over long sessions.
• Stake’s system is provably fair by design.

Nothing in your data or calculations demonstrates that Stake’s Blackjack was rigged.

Your experience fits well within the normal statistical behavior of a game with a 0.57% house edge and high variance.

[BlackyJacky]

Most importantly: The house edge of 0.57% applies to the money wagered, not to the percentage of hands you lose.

So you say Stake reduces 0,57% house edge from the money wagered after every hand?

For example, I wagered 50 USD in a hand and Stake reduces 0,57% = 28,5 cents?

[Alge89]

Most importantly: The house edge of 0.57% applies to the money wagered, not to the percentage of hands you lose.

So you say Stake reduces 0,57% house edge from the money wagered after every hand?

For example, I wagered 50 USD in a hand and Stake reduces 0,57% = 28,5 cents?

No, that's not how house edge works. 

The house edge is not a fee and it's not applied per hand like a tax.

It means something very different:

If you played an extremely large number of hands, your long term average result tends to be a loss of about 0.57% of your total wagering volume.

Also, the 0.57% is probably the house edge as seen by Stake over billions in wagering volume. Because if we want to be precise, you can easily reduce the house edge to around 0.35% by playing perfect strategy, avoiding human mistakes, and tweaking certain plays.

Good Luck 

[BlackyJacky]

Most importantly: The house edge of 0.57% applies to the money wagered, not to the percentage of hands you lose.

So you say Stake reduces 0,57% house edge from the money wagered after every hand?

For example, I wagered 50 USD in a hand and Stake reduces 0,57% = 28,5 cents?

No, that's not how house edge works.  

The house edge is not a fee and it's not applied per hand like a tax.

It means something very different:

If you played an extremely large number of hands, your long term average result tends to be a loss of about 0.57% of your total wagering volume.

Also, the 0.57% is probably the house edge as seen by Stake over billions in wagering volume. Because if we want to be precise, you can easily reduce the house edge to around 0.35% by playing perfect strategy, avoiding human mistakes, and tweaking certain plays.

Good Luck  

1) You say the house edge is not losing more bets than you win.

Most importantly: The house edge of 0.57% applies to the money wagered, not to the percentage of hands you lose.

2) When you lose the same number of bets like you win, then it is a coinflip game.

3) In case of a coinflip game, the only way for the casino to collect a house edge is reducing a certain percentage from every bet amount.

But you say:

The house edge is not a fee and it's not applied per hand like a tax.

But in Black Jack, the casino has technically only 2 possibilities to collect a house edge:

A) Player loses long-term more bets like he wins

B) It is a coinflip game (what you claim) and to collect a house edge the casino reduces a certain percentage from every bet amount.


You say it is neither A) nor B) and instead somehow magically 0,57% of the total wagered amount went to the casino.

Please explain how 0,57% of the total wagered amount went technically to the casino?

[Alge89]

cut cut cut

You're mixing up several concepts, so let’s straighten them out once and for all.


1. Blackjack is NOT a coinflip game

A coinflip has two symmetric outcomes: win +1, lose –1.
Blackjack does not work like this.

In blackjack:

• Some wins pay 1:1
• Blackjack pays 3:2
• Some hands are pushes
• Some losses cost double because of double-downs
• Splits create multiple bets
• Dealer rules change the probabilities
• Player decisions change EV

So even if you win and lose roughly the same number of hands, the payout values are not symmetric. This alone creates a house edge.


2. The house edge is NOT about "winning more bets than you lose"

You can lose fewer hands but still lose money overall if:

• your losses cost more (double downs, splits)
• your wins are smaller
• dealer rules favor the house

Blackjack edge comes from payout structure, not from counting wins vs losses.


3. The house edge is NOT a per-hand deduction

Casinos do NOT take a percentage of every bet.
This is simply not how expected value works.

House edge means:

"Over a huge number of hands, the average result trends toward –0.57% of total money wagered"

It’s not a fee, not a tax, not a hidden deduction.
It’s the mathematical effect of the rules and payout asymmetry.


4. So where does the 0.57% come from?

From the combination of:

• Dealer acting last
• Player busts immediately lose
• 3:2 blackjack frequency
• Push frequency
• Double-down and split structure
• Basic strategy EV
• Dealer hitting/standing rules

When you compute the expected value of all possible outcomes under these rules, the final long-term average comes out to about –0.57% for the player.

No magic.
No hidden deductions.
No per-hand tax.
Just plain probability based on the rules of blackjack.


Summary

A) The casino does not win by making you lose more hands.
B) The casino does not win by subtracting a % from each bet.
C) The casino wins because the payout system and rules are mathematically favorable.

That’s the entire mechanism behind the 0.57%.


Personal Opinion

A casino like Stake has no need to cheat its players, because they generate billions in wagering volume every month, and getting caught doing anything dishonest would make absolutely no sense. I’m not saying Stake is perfect or beyond criticism, but as someone who understands algorithms, I can assure you that the model they use is one of the most professional and has the least statistical micro-bias in favor of the house.  

[speeder]

At first, I thought it was a new thread that got some decent replies. But then I saw it was created back in 2017. Guess what? Six years running since the thread was created, and I can see only a few numbers of websites were verified by https://cryptogambling.org/. I don't know why the numbers are not increasing after passing a few years. Only fourteen websites were verified by them, while a couple is under the same ownership. Stake and Primedice, Onehash and Cyberdice, Bitkong, Simpledice and LuckyDice under the same ownership. So, seven of them come from three owners. If I am not wrong, Onehash announced they wouldn't continue their service. After six years of creation, Only fourteen websites have been verified, which is somewhat scarry.

Yeah.. kind of felt that way. I really don't want to speak out of turn since I might be wrong, it was so long ago, but I think I tried to get MintDice on there, a provably fair casino which fit the requirements. I think I was ignored (though I could be wrong).

In general, I think the idea of this foundation is a very good one. Inform people of the importance of provably fair options and to keep things open and transparent whenever possible. Which the vast majority of casinos don't abide by.

But if there's no real process to get in... it's kind of worthless.

The concept behind the foundation is great, yet lacks a clear and active process of approval it is not worth much. The fact that platforms such as MintDice do not even receive a response is an indicator that the system is not operating correctly. The transparency should begin with the foundation itself otherwise the idea will become symbolic to a large extent.

[BlackyJacky]

@ Alge89

I have a simple brain test for you.

You go to a brick and mortar casino with 1,000 USD and make 10 USD bets at a Black Jack table:

Example A)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 980 USD

1) How many bets did you lose?

2) How much percentage is your experienced house edge?

Example B)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,020 USD

1) How many bets did you win?

2) How much percentage is your experienced player edge?

Example C)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,000 USD

1) How many bets did you lose or win?

2) How much percentage is your experienced house or player edge?


To answer my questions, please use the following format:

Example A)

1) ? bets

2) ? %

Example B)

1) ? bets

2) ? %

Example C)

1) ? bets

2) ? %

[Alge89]

@ Alge89

Example A)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2%

Example B)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2%

Example C)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 0%