👑 CoinRoyale.com - Original Bitcoin Casino | Trusted Since 2013 ✔️

[arallmuus]

Really appreciate you answering in this thread (and your previous reply on clarifying provably fair). 

No problem 

Do you support that decision? Do you play at this casino?

I did and literally I dont mind them for not showing it as they have proven themselves so far (yet this doesnt mean anything for future reputation though ) . Plus that it is not like that they are giving thousands of BTC jackpots unlike the other site

I will make a video of the bug and show the proof.  Then I will bet you 10BTC that there is a bug that gives the player an advantage.  We can use a reputable escrow service.  Then once you and the escrow agent have viewed the video, he can release the BTC. 

Tempting but I will have to decline this

The reason for the big dollar amount is to compensate us for the money you could make from exploiting the bug.

You can use that for yourself as well though. Exploiting things is not really my way though I would love to get compensation for providing some bug .

I personally to not gamble but I do not see this as gambling because I know with 100% certainty there is a bug that gives the player an advantage if it is exploited.

There is and you can get more than 10BTC if there is literally a bug like you have quoted . Simply provide the proof to Coinroyale and they will compensate you though  .

2- We have stated that even with the edge of knowing when we will win, we cannot beat your game.

Depends, you cant expect to win most of them in a very short run even with the edge in your favour. Variance is there to ruin it though.

we can tell when the dealer is going to hit

Am I reading this correctly? Of course you know when the dealer is going to hit. The house is using the rules of soft17 which means that unless dealer has 17 or higher then it will keep on hitting

[1714211274]

1714211274

[1714211274]

1714211274

[1714211274]

1714211274

[FrozenOne]

This StatsMan guy is making me lol. You found a bug, huh? While that is possible I find it highly improbable. I'll be watching this closely. I love this site!

[win win win]

Do you support that decision? Do you play at this casino?

I did and literally I dont mind them for not showing it as they have proven themselves so far (yet this doesnt mean anything for future reputation though ) . Plus that it is not like that they are giving thousands of BTC jackpots unlike the other site

They have a BTC2 max bet per box on BJ a player can win 100's of BTC's in a very short time.

[arallmuus]

This StatsMan guy is making me lol. You found a bug, huh? While that is possible I find it highly improbable. I'll be watching this closely. I love this site!

He actually "think" that he found a bug ( atleast this is my impression is ) but it seems he is having more losses rather than win which is why he is accusing things to be not fair here ( again this is my impression judging from the whole conversation ) which means that either there isnt any "bug" at all in the firsthand or that he is having a very bad run. Eitherway this whole conversation wont be happening now if he is winning the game

I did and literally I dont mind them for not showing it as they have proven themselves so far (yet this doesnt mean anything for future reputation though ) . Plus that it is not like that they are giving thousands of BTC jackpots unlike the other site

They have a BTC2 max bet per box on BJ a player can win 100's of BTC's in a very short time.

Some dice site even has 20 BTC max payout and some other site advertized over 60k BTC jackpot without providing any proof of cold storage as well. If CoinRoyale is a new site around here than I would agree with you it is better for them to show proof of their cold storage but so far there they have seem to be able to maintain their reputation here

P.S : do note that my opinion isnt mean to take their sides as Im merely neutral in this case and I am merely stating my opinion

[cryptosmoker]

Arallmuus
1- Obviously you are not understanding correctly, we know if the dealer is Pat or will take a card BEFORE the down card is exposed.   

2- I am glad you know that a dealer needs to hit until he has a 17 that is invaluable info to have

3 - As for the comment about variance, we have played in excess of 15,000 hands at this casino and have the data from 12,000 of them that was given to us by CoinRoyale. 

Last point, we do not care about the bug, refer to the post above.  We have not accused anyone of cheating at CoinRoyale.  We are simply saying that we know of a bug that gives us an edge and even after playing 15,000 hands we are not winning even close to half of the time.  Therefore we are saying that there is a potential problem with the game, most likely in the shuffling. 

We are trying to work with CoinRoyale to figure it out, and have asked appropriate questions that have not been answered yet.   

If you want to think that the software is PERFECT and that there is NO WAY possible the shuffling could have an issue then I'm happy for you.  Maybe we need to get these guys jobs at Microsoft or writing a True Random Number generator since no one else writes perfect software or has figured out a true random number generator.

You forgot the part where you post facts to back up your argument. You've been given all the tools you need, theyre being completely transparent (Unlike so many others...)

[arallmuus]

1- Obviously you are not understanding correctly

Obviously it is you that is not

Last point, we do not care about the bug.

It seems you do , based on the references below that you keep on insisting that there is a bug that give an edge to the player but you are getting more losses then wins. If you simply dont care about this then there is no point in discussing this further isnt it? but the fact is that you keep insisting that there is a "problem" .

If you will enlighten the conversation here, how many percentage of edge are we discussing about? Either way there will be two scenarios later , the former will be that there is an issue with CoinRoyale shuffling method and the later is that there is no bug that you give you an edge . I am merely more into the later option though Im eager to see how this turns out 

References :

We are simply saying that we know of a bug that gives us an edge and even after playing 15,000 hands we are not winning even close to half of the time. 

[arallmuus]

-snip-

Are you a schill?

Obviously nope, why would I be shilling here? If you are a regular here then you would obviously know which site that I support 

now you are misrepresenting what we have stated. 

Which? Obviously I put in references based on your post. If you think I am misrepresenting it then simply make your post clearer ( which I think Im not )

Only a schill would make such ignorant comments.

Very funny, just because someone is not in the same boat with your opinion doesnt mean that the person is a shill  . Not ignorant comments but simply against everything of yours

Also I have made my stance clear here as I will see how things turns out

References :

Im eager to see how this turns out 

If we have a statistical edge and consistency lose after playing a statistically significant number of games then it could be a problem with the game. 

Yes and correct but you have repeated this few times already and I am aware of this. Now you leave the important part of my previous post

References :

If you will enlighten the conversation here, how many percentage of edge are we discussing about?

Obviously disclosing this will not give you any disadvantages as Im not asking on how you get it but merely the number for it 

We have asked fair questions about the shuffle that is suppose to be easy to follow and have not received any answers.

Obviously it is a fault from CoinRoyale and out of my league, so this has nothing to do with me

I have not put the numbers out because the raw data provided makes or very difficult to analyze what occurred in each hand. 

Numbers? are you merely pointing this "numbers" to the edge that you are claiming or that I missed something else? If this "numbers" actually refers to the edge that we are discussing about then it is safe to assume that

"you had no idea about how many edge that you have due to this bug but keep insisting that you got the edge? "

P.S : Again, not a shill comment whatsoever just merely interested with this "numbers" 

[masterzino]

Victorhing, you and your team did not read the email correctly.  The example you gave was not what was implied in the email.  I am ok if they dismiss it, I guess you would prefer that the bug be released to the public.
The bug allows the person to know if the dealer has a pat hand or will need to draw, and it also allows the player to know who will win the hand before it is played.  This is easy to take advantage of by doubling down on any hand you know you are going to win, thereby giving the player an advantage.  The only flaw in the game is that the cards seem to be dealt on the dealers favor more than a random amount.

I am not only looking into the actual cards dealt, but also how the cards were dealt - For example, here is a quote from your website regarding Fisher Yates

"We first hash the Player Seed using SHA-256 and truncate the result to 32 bits. That becomes the seed to the Mersenne Twister PRNG. We use the seeded PRNG as the random input to our Fisher-Yates shuffle, which takes the Initial Deck to arrive at the Final Deck."

This is a quote from the Fisher Yates wiki which you link in your website.

"many programming languages and/or libraries may often have only 32 bits of internal state, which means it can only produce 232 different sequences of numbers. If such a generator is used to shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards, it can only ever produce a very small fraction of the 52! ≈ 2225.6 possible permutations. It's impossible for a generator with less than 226 bits of internal state to produce all the possible permutations of a 52-card deck"

How it is possible for your system to not only shuffle a 52 card deck effectively, but to shuffle 4-8 decks adequately.

So looking further into it, the Mersenne Twister has a problem, which may account for the large number of 20's that the dealer will run in succession.  Here is the problem with the Mersenne Twister -
"It can take a long time to start generating output that passes randomness tests, if the initial state is highly non-random" and then it says "will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging"

So I was wondering how you work around the limitations of both the Mersenne Twister and the Fisher Yates Shuffle.  Once again, I am not making accusations, just inquiring about how the shuffling actually works.

You found a big problem with cards shuffling... i am waiting to get answer on this question by CoinRoyale ... after long play cards repeat....

[arallmuus]

after long play cards repeat

It would be nice if you would read the few older post before posting this again. Just because the cards repeat doesnt mean something fishy is going on , simply just note down the hashes before you play and verify it after you play ( which obviously takes less than 10 seconds to do so ). However it is quite unlike for the exact same cards for both dealer and player to be dealt again ( the 4 first card could be the same however the next one after that would obviously be different )

[masterzino]

after long play cards repeat

It would be nice if you would read the few older post before posting this again. Just because the cards repeat doesnt mean something fishy is going on , simply just note down the hashes before you play and verify it after you play ( which obviously takes less than 10 seconds to do so ). However it is quite unlike for the exact same cards for both dealer and player to be dealt again ( the 4 first card could be the same however the next one after that would obviously be different )

cards are not properly shuffled according to Fisher Yates wiki they should not truncate to 32bit and it cant ever produce all possible permutations... i use one seed it is hashed and truncated and it is not real hash of seed

[arallmuus]

We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.  

Just for some clarification regarding the bolded part. Having provably fair mechanism doesnt mean that the gambling site wont be able to cheat you , in fact the thing with this provably fair is more like an insurance for the player which incase the gambling site tries to cheat then the player will know it . Also regarding them advertising provably fair is pretty much not weird or suspicious as it is a pretty much industry standard around here

P.S : To clarify some off topic things, Im neutral in this case and just providing some blurry things around . Im not part of CoinRoyale nor a shill of them 

[masterzino]

We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.  

Just for some clarification regarding the bolded part. Having provably fair mechanism doesnt mean that the gambling site wont be able to cheat you , in fact the thing with this provably fair is more like an insurance for the player which incase the gambling site tries to cheat then the player will know it . Also regarding them advertising provably fair is pretty much not weird or suspicious as it is a pretty much industry standard around here

P.S : To clarify some off topic things, Im neutral in this case and just providing some blurry things around . Im not part of CoinRoyale nor a shill of them 

Did you read reddit article posted by StatsMan there are many ways to manipulate outcome when result is still provably fair and player can not notice... i see players complain there that they lost bets after they had to refresh page ...

[FrozenOne]

We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.  

Just for some clarification regarding the bolded part. Having provably fair mechanism doesnt mean that the gambling site wont be able to cheat you , in fact the thing with this provably fair is more like an insurance for the player which incase the gambling site tries to cheat then the player will know it . Also regarding them advertising provably fair is pretty much not weird or suspicious as it is a pretty much industry standard around here

P.S : To clarify some off topic things, Im neutral in this case and just providing some blurry things around . Im not part of CoinRoyale nor a shill of them  

That statement is incorrect, they can cheat you and you would never know it, even with the Provably Fair mechanism in place.

In fact, we have screen pictures of it occurring, on that occasion we did notify CoinRoyale and they refunded the 0.5 BTC but we have no idea of how many times it happened previously.  That is why we have been monitoring closely and last night when it happened again and we reloaded the page the cards were in a different location and who knows if they were the original cards or not.  We did monitor some activity from their server and it appears we were cheated on those bets as well.

Holy shit. This is serious! No response from victorhing yet, either? Hmmmmm.

[victorhing]

Sorry for the late response guys. I just saw this Like I said earlier, our team are sprinting for a new project and didn't spend as much as time on the forum as we'd like to. Anyways...

Statsman, regarding your earlier question of shuffling, you are right about our Mersenne Twister (MT) truncates to 32-bits. However, our dealer shuffle doesn't just use MT and Fisher-Yates, it also uses the Java RNG and therefore the process as a whole has enough randomness.

[victorhing]

We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.  

Just for some clarification regarding the bolded part. Having provably fair mechanism doesnt mean that the gambling site wont be able to cheat you , in fact the thing with this provably fair is more like an insurance for the player which incase the gambling site tries to cheat then the player will know it . Also regarding them advertising provably fair is pretty much not weird or suspicious as it is a pretty much industry standard around here

P.S : To clarify some off topic things, Im neutral in this case and just providing some blurry things around . Im not part of CoinRoyale nor a shill of them  

That statement is incorrect, they can cheat you and you would never know it, even with the Provably Fair mechanism in place.

In fact, we have screen pictures of it occurring, on that occasion we did notify CoinRoyale and they refunded the 0.5 BTC but we have no idea of how many times it happened previously.  That is why we have been monitoring closely and last night when it happened again and we reloaded the page the cards were in a different location and who knows if they were the original cards or not.  We did monitor some activity from their server and it appears we were cheated on those bets as well.

Oh, you're talking about the 0.5 BTC? Yup, I remembered that. You sent us screenshot of the cards not loading correctly (which we assumed probably some cache/client connection error), and I refunded you the wager + comp immediately as a gesture of customer service. Despite your "mission of exposing us" (as you mentioned in the email), we still think you are a loyal customer and still intend to treat you like one

[victorhing]

One example, the "Stalling" technique that is discussed on the reddit link happened to us tonight - not only once but twice.  I think the second time it happened it was on a .7 BTC bet, of which we lost. It not only stalled, when it was reloaded the cards were in a different circle then the original.  We have seen this happen many times over the weeks but nothing like we have witnessed the last few days.   

If you reload the cards and the hands are in different circle, perhaps it's a front-end bug. I did try to reproduce it just now but couldn't. (Feel free to send me a video/screenshot if you successfully reproduce it). However even if the "reloading" bug exists, the hands should be still the same (as the hands data sent from our backend API remains).

[StatsMan]

In regards to the .5 BTC - I did state you refunded that amount, I was eluding to it happening 2 more times last night and the second time it happened it was on a .7 BTC wager.  

About the MT comment - instead of writing it all out for you I will quote TrevorXavier from reddit.

"When the second round of shuffling comes into play with Mersenne Twister ("MT"), I am genuinely concerned about the poor distribution quality due to frequent reseeding. MT is known to suffer when poorly initiated (see the original paper), and randomizing a deck first with a stronger random number generator before MT does not imply it will be immune to a poor reshuffle, as MT may not exhibit uniform distribution across multiple reseeding operations. Many statistical tests will be needed to confirm this from a fair-game standpoint, so at this point I only consider it a "concern" and not a proof.
So, you make a wonderful point. It may actually be better to use a primitive for the "cutting" of the deck before dealing, rather than an algorithm. As libertaad stated in another comment, it looks like he intends to push bitZino away from MT and onto something different.
Thank you again for your excellent comment. Very good points made."

FYI - libertaad was the guy that came up with the system used by CoinRoyale and was the owner of BitZino.  Liberated also stated that the MT was going to be changed because of the limitations t has.

The points above are exactly what we stated prior to finding the write up.

[victorhing]

OK, I think we are about ready to start our effort of showing how CoinRoyale is nothing but another run of the mill casino with a bunch of tricks to keep people playing, while giving the players no chance to win.  We will show how they have used tactics to essentially steal peoples BTC.  

We've been around for a while and our players win from us regularly (some with huge payouts).

We just gave our last BTC to CoinRoyale - if yo want to see CoinRoyal's tricks in action, bet a few hands at like .02-.08 BTC until you are past the initial phase of the shuffle - usually about 12-15 hands.  Then kick it up to .2-.8 BTC per hand and see how many hands you win.  

We appreciate you playing with us and happy to give you a lost comp. And as I repeatedly said to you, we do not manipulate the outcome based on your wager size or even how many hands have you played. This is easily proven with our Provably Fair system. The initial data was generated before the game started. It seems to be you don't fully understand how our Provably Fair system works. My offer to walk you through the system personally still stands.

Make sure you are monitoring for partials sent from the server - otherwise you will miss the cheat.

I have no idea what this means. Could you elaborate this further?

We knew something was going on, not only with the shuffle, but the way the house seems to routinely get 4-6 pat 20 hands in a row and the player will almost never see them.  It is very common for the house to get several in the first 6-10 hands - which may come from the Mersenne Twister -
"It can take a long time to start generating output that passes randomness tests, if the initial state is highly non-random" and then it says "will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging"

I answered your question about Mersenne Twister in the previous post.  

I'll answer your remaining question in a separate post below (before making this one too long).

[victorhing]

In regards to the .5 BTC - I did state you refunded that amount, I was eluding to it happening 2 more times last night and the second time it happened it was on a .7 BTC wager.  

About the MT comment - instead of writing it all out for you I will quote TrevorXavier from reddit.

"When the second round of shuffling comes into play with Mersenne Twister ("MT"), I am genuinely concerned about the poor distribution quality due to frequent reseeding. MT is known to suffer when poorly initiated (see the original paper), and randomizing a deck first with a stronger random number generator before MT does not imply it will be immune to a poor reshuffle, as MT may not exhibit uniform distribution across multiple reseeding operations. Many statistical tests will be needed to confirm this from a fair-game standpoint, so at this point I only consider it a "concern" and not a proof.
So, you make a wonderful point. It may actually be better to use a primitive for the "cutting" of the deck before dealing, rather than an algorithm. As libertaad stated in another comment, it looks like he intends to push bitZino away from MT and onto something different.
Thank you again for your excellent comment. Very good points made."

FYI - libertaad was the guy that came up with the system used by CoinRoyale and was the owner of BitZino.  Liberated also stated that the MT was going to be changed because of the limitations t has.

The points above are exactly what we stated prior to finding the write up.

We know who libertaad is We understand the limitation of MT as well that's why our dealer shuffle doesn't just use MT and Fisher-Yates, it also uses the Java RNG and therefore the process as a whole has enough randomness.

[StatsMan]

I have frozen the game successfully 3 times in a row - it is very easy to freeze it.  Also, I will try and recreate the freezing and the cards relocating but it may take a day or two because I do not remember how it happened, I know I lose BTC everytime it happens.  If you want to review the hand I think it was the last 2 hands I played last night that were .2-.7 BTC each. 

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.12.43%20PM_zpsr6iuastb.png


http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.22.27%20PM_zps4j0vfi8w.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.13.32%20PM_zps5oyu8ce4.png