⚖️ Crypto Gambling Foundation ⚖️ - Fair Gambling For All

[Alge89]

As expected, you failed my simple brain test!  

A 1) 1,000 USD start - 980 USD leave = 20 USD lost = 2 bets lost

B 1) 1,000 USD start - 1,020 USD leave = 20 USD won = 2 bets won

C 1) 1,000 USD start - 1,000 USD leave = 0 USD lost or won = 0 bets lost or won


How did you calculate A 2) , B 2) and C 2) ?

Failed what? 

A) 100 bets --> 2 bets lost
B) 100 bets --> 2 bets won
C) 100 bets --> 0 bets lost or won

Do you realize how absurd Case C is?
According to your own logic, you made 100 bets… and somehow won or lost zero of them. 😂

[BlackyJacky]

As expected, you failed my simple brain test!  

A 1) 1,000 USD start - 980 USD leave = 20 USD lost = 2 bets lost

B 1) 1,000 USD start - 1,020 USD leave = 20 USD won = 2 bets won

C 1) 1,000 USD start - 1,000 USD leave = 0 USD lost or won = 0 bets lost or won


How did you calculate A 2) , B 2) and C 2) ?

Failed what?  

A) 100 bets --> 2 bets lost

The 2 bets net loss are the 2% experienced house edge you have concluded. 

B) 100 bets --> 2 bets won

The 2 bets net win are the 2% experienced player edge you have concluded. 

C) 100 bets --> 0 bets lost or won

Do you realize how absurd Case C is?

According to your own logic, you made 100 bets… and somehow won or lost zero of them. 😂

No, I made 100 bets and won 50 and lost 50 and the net loss or win is 0.  

When the net loss of bets is zero, nothing went to the casino = no house edge.

This confirms that the house edge depends on the player having a net loss of bets.

[Alge89]

I don’t understand anything about Blackjack, please refund me 30k USDT.

You know what I don't like about people like you who name themselves BlackJack and pretend to understand the game? The arrogance of coming to a forum and accusing a casino like Stake, which uses an algorithm so sophisticated you wouldn't understand it even after 100 years of study. Now I'm going to say this one last time, and I won't stretch it any further.

In blackjack, payouts are not symmetrical like in a coin flip. Your reasoning only works if every outcome pays +1 or -1. But in 100 hands, I have no way of knowing how many blackjacks you hit or how many pushes you had, so even if you play without doubling or splitting, what you're saying still makes no sense.

Just drop it, trust me! You’ve already made a fool of yourself enough. Haha 

[BlackyJacky]

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%.

You are contradicting yourself here, because

A) If you do not lose more bets than you win = no money goes to the casino = no house edge

C) When the payout system and rules are mathematically favorable for the casino, this means a player loses more bets than he wins.

It must hurt in your head!

[nutildah]

A) If you do not lose more bets than you win = no money goes to the casino = no house edge

Nope, that's not true. This is not how the house edge is calculated. You could play a game where a win pays out 1.8x, win 10 times, lose 9 times, and still be at a net loss.

Wins:

10 wins × $0.80 profit per win = +$8.00 (You get back $1.80 per winning bet, so net profit is $0.80 per win)

Losses:

9 losses × $1 = -$9.00

Net result:

+$8.00 - $9.00 = -$1.00

You are down $1 even though you won 10 out of 19 bets (52.63% win rate).

[BlackyJacky]

A) If you do not lose more bets than you win = no money goes to the casino = no house edge

Nope, that's not true.

If you made 100 bets and won 50 and lost 50, then you did not lose more bets than you won.

And if you did not lose more bets than you won, then you did not lose anything.

And if you did not lose anything, nothing went to the casino = no experienced house edge.


Why did you skip the primary school?

[BlackyJacky]

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

What do you mean with "the payout values are not symmetric"?

The payout value is the same like the lose value, you do not win 0,9 bets and lose 1 bet.

In case of a won Black Jack, you win an additional half bet.

As the bet payout and lose value is the same (1:1), money can move to the dealer only when the dealer wins more bets than it loses.

Because when you made 100 bets and the dealer won 50 and lost 50, nothing went to the pocket of the dealer = casino.

Whereas, when you made 100 bets and won 49 and lost 51, then 2 bets went to the pocket of the dealer = casino = house edge.


Please tell us how did you calculate A 2) , B 2) and C 2) ?

Example A)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2% experienced house edge

Example B)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2% experienced player edge

Example C)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 0%

You have clearly shown that your sole intent here is to commit the criminal offense of willful deception!

[nutildah]

You can keep waiting for eternity as you don't have a case.

For anyone who wants to understand why they don't have a case, please read this user's negative trust reference from January 2023.

TwitchySeal

2023-01-03

Reference

All of this persons claims that have anything to do with provably fair gambling are nonsense due to his ignorance when it comes to basic math.

Even back then it was very clearly explained to this person why their concept of "house edge" was wrong. Since then, at least 10 people have explained it to them in clear mathematical terms, yet they bulldoze through it to maintain their initial claim, which is false.

In short, nobody shares the definition of "house edge" believed by BlackyJacky. You won't find a single person anywhere on earth claiming the same thing.

[BlackyJacky]

Hallucinated nonsense...

What is the sense of your hallucinated nonsense?

Even your friend @Alge89 confirmed that the number of bets you lose more than you win is the experienced house edge:

Example A)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 980 USD (2 bets net loss)

1) How many bets did you lose?

2) How much percentage is your experienced house edge?

Example A)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2%

@Alge89 also confirmed that the numer of bets you win more than you lose is the experienced player edge:

Example B)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,020 USD (2 bets net win)

1) How many bets did you win?

2) How much percentage is your experienced player edge?

Example B)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 2%

@Alge89 also figured out that if you lose 50 bets and win 50 bets, there is no experienced house or player edge:

Example C)

After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,000 USD (0 bets net loss or win)

1) How many bets did you lose or win?

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

Example C)

1) Impossible to determine

2) 0%

Now compare the reality with your hallucinated nonsense.

Btw, until today, you did not explain how the experienced house technically moved from the player account to the casino?

[nutildah]

For anyone who doesn't yet realize whats going on, BlackyJacky has tried to extort money from casinos for years. They are terrible at it but they never give up. Long story short: don't take any of their claims at face value. Research them for yourself.

As a reminder:

You can keep waiting for eternity as you don't have a case.

For anyone who wants to understand why they don't have a case, please read this user's negative trust reference from January 2023.

TwitchySeal

2023-01-03

Reference

All of this persons claims that have anything to do with provably fair gambling are nonsense due to his ignorance when it comes to basic math.

Even back then it was very clearly explained to this person why their concept of "house edge" was wrong. Since then, at least 10 people have explained it to them in clear mathematical terms, yet they bulldoze through it to maintain their initial claim, which is false.

In short, nobody shares the definition of "house edge" believed by BlackyJacky. You won't find a single person anywhere on earth claiming the same thing.

[BlackyJacky]

@nutildah

Why does your signature sponsor pay you for posting hallucinated nonsense?

Why do you quote hallucinated nonsense delivered by others, instead of giving your own analysis and explanation based on the reality?


Let's take a look @TwitchySeal you are referring to:

TwitchySeal says that Stake commits the criminal offense of willfull deception with false and misleading stating that the house edge is only 0,5%, while in reality the house edge is 7%!

Are you sure that you are referring to the nonsense hallucinator TwitchSeal?

You're doing stupid math that doesn't make any sense.  LIke almost nothing what you're saying makes sense.

If you were playing perfect strategy you would lose ~49.1% of your hands and win ~42.4% and Push ~8.5%  

49.1% losing minus 42.2% winning = 6.9% house edge!

[bitcoinchaserteam]

The house edge is a long-term expected percentage the casino keeps from all bets. It is not determined by how many hands you win or lose in a single session.

In blackjack, payouts are not always 1:1. A blackjack pays 3:2, and pushes (ties) return your bet. So, you can win more hands than you lose and still have a net loss.

Short-term sessions have high variance. Only over millions of bets does the actual outcome approach the theoretical house edge.

BlackyJacky’s method — calculating edge from 2 net bets lost out of 100 — is incorrect. It reflects a single session, not the true edge.

Posting the same flawed argument repeatedly can be considered forum spam, which is why moderators and users flagged it.

[BlackyJacky]

Since 3 YEARS and 2 months!!! I wait for 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!

[roastnipple]

What is the source of your quote from the Stake legal department?
Could you post a link to that material, or post the full context please.

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.

[nutildah]

What is the source of your quote from the Stake legal department?
Could you post a link to that material, or post the full context please.

The source is "just trust me bro."

The previous partner in crime, Antillephone N.V., forwarded to me an email they received from Stake's alleged "Legal Department"

They posted the same letter on the forum 28 times, I just checked. You are attempting to converse with one of the biggest scumbags this forum has ever seen, just FYI. Perhaps you know them better under their former moniker, game-protect. If not, consider yourself lucky.

The part in the letter about being contacted 30 times makes sense for game-protect.

[alani123]

I've conversed with blackjacky that playing blackjack without optimal strategy results to larger losses.

He has a large betting history and ended up getting lower return to player rates than one could theoretically get on blackjack.

This can be a combination of bad luck and bad choices. There is choice involved in blackjack. And blackjacky apparently is not a perfect blackjack player.

I've checked Stake TOS and there's nothing against using API/bots/agents to play the Stake original blackjack game. If he wanted to play perfect hands every time he could have played with a bot. He chose to play for fun and try his intuition more than experience and he lost more than perfect hands would have lost, exactly as expected.

He had been in denial repeating the same points over and over.

By just a brief look at his betting history it's obvious that he isn't playing perfect hands. The theoretical BJ house edge is only as low when you play perfect hands. Now if you make bad choices... It becomes higher and harder to calculate. But it's certain you'll be losing more than the minimum edge.

[I_am_Not_a_lemon]

Blackjacky
As you have probably realized disputes with easygo the operators of stake.com
eventually hit a wall. Throwing yourself against that wall repeatedly wont
achieve anything. You have to talk to a lawyer, and they will tell you if you
have a case or not.

As far as making complaints in the Crypto Gambling Foundation thread,
there is no longer a foundation to register a complaint with.The CGF was
effectively abandoned in March 2020 no further development
of that organization took place after that, very little occurred before that.

The stake forum admin was managing the CGF, it was his brainchild, but he
left easygo in June 2024. That's about when the email stopped functioning,
now any email will just bounce back to the sender.

Easygo staff themselves removed the Verified Operator Badge from the stake.com
front page last August 2025, and are now trust signaling under a new badge.
If any operators are still displaying the CGF Verified Operator badge displayed
on your home page I suggest you take it down.

[nutildah]

Blackjacky
As you have probably realized disputes with easygo the operators of stake.com
eventually hit a wall. Throwing yourself against that wall repeatedly wont
achieve anything. You have to talk to a lawyer, and they will tell you if you
have a case or not.

Again, you're attempting to converse with a well-known extortionist scumbag. They know they don't have a case. They were just throwing buckets of shit up against the wall and then saying "well, would you look at all the shit on this wall?" This is actually a fairly common business model for those in the crypto gambling industry.

[alani123]

Blackjacky
As you have probably realized disputes with easygo the operators of stake.com
eventually hit a wall. Throwing yourself against that wall repeatedly wont
achieve anything. You have to talk to a lawyer, and they will tell you if you
have a case or not.

Even if blackjacky had a case, Stake doesn't care to lose the Curacao license. It doesn't grant them access to any real markets, it's just a title licenses. They know most of their players signed up with a VPN to avoid the title screen soft lock.

Even if he takes a case all the way to Curacao court successfully winning it, Stake had no seizable assets there. So the only risk is having to find another license. A large casino like stake already has accounted for such scenarios. Like BC games changed licensed after losing a court case. Courts in Curacao are pointless against online casinos. You can win the case and still not earn anything from it
 

Even in that case, blackjacky has no case. His claims are outrageous and that's why he just spams hoping to get some pitty money while he acts paranoid.

[BlackyJacky]

Karma hit the Curacao Gaming Authority

Who is the next?

Long time ago, I informed you with proof that the Curacao Gaming Authority (CGA) knowingly issues licenses to known shady online casino operators!

Karma hit now the CGA, its system got hacked and all the data and documents they have in regard to online casino operators is published.

The data leak confirms now that the CGA knowingly issues licenses to known shady online casino operators.

This is the biggest blow to the Curacao fake licensing scheme in history!

They thought they are untouchable, but now they learned their lesson.


Long time ago, I informed the CGA with proof about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system and nevertheless they gave them a license!

But now they have additionally multiple more problems:

1) Owner and operator of stake.com is Medium Rare N.V., owner and UBO of Medium Rare N.V. is Mladen Vuckovic, while the CGA knows that Bijan and Edward are the owners and beneficiaries of stake.com.

2) Stake's accounting shows that Bijan and Edward did not make their USD 5,6 billlion fortune with Stake!  

Since March 2020!!! the Curacao Gaming Control Board (GCB) has been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

On December 7, 2023, 45 months! after they have been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector, I informed (with proof) the GCB about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system and asked them to intervene.

6 months later and 51 months! after they have been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector, they answered the following:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately, the Curaçao Gaming Control Board (GCB) is currently not able to handle your request.

The government of Curaçao is actively in the process of modernizing our gambling legislation and setting up our online gaming policies and procedures.

We expect to be of more help as soon as the new legislation enters into force, which we expect to be the case in the second half of 2024.

We kindly point out in advance that the GCB will not investigate all complaints. For example, the GCB does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes between the complainant and the accused party and to settle claims or award damages. Only if a complaint indicates a violation of the applicable regulations, the supervisory task of the GCB entails that this will be investigated further.

For the time being, we kindly suggest, that at all times you seek legal advice for any claims you may have vis-à-vis the license holder or other party or parties. We refer to the following page that contains a list of law firms established in Curacao that may be able to assist you:

http://www.dutchcaribbeanlegalportal.com/legal-contacts/law-firms?sid=102:Law-Firms-Curacao.

Sincerely,

Curaçao Gaming Control Board

55 months! after they have been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector, they accepted a license application by Medium Rare N.V. / stake.com and even gave them a "Certificate of Operation" during the license application process, even though 10 months before I informed them (with proof) about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system!

5 years! after they have been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector, I sent the following email to the GCB:

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: Medium Rare N.V. , stake.com in-house Black Jack system provably rigged!

We are deep into the first half of 2025 and meanwhile you even accepted a license application for Medium Rare N.V. / stake.com and even gave them a "Certificate of Operation", even though I informed you (with proof) already in December 2023 about their provably rigged in-house Black Jack system!"
 
Running a rigged in-house Black Jack system is a violation of the applicable regulations, so do your job and investigate!
 
 
Please confirm receipt of this email.

5 years and 2 months! after they have been tasked with the licensing for and supervision of the online gaming sector, they are not willing to investigate Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system, even though this is a violation of the applicable regulations!

The GCB is an authority and not a nameless venture like the 4 master-license holders were!