FORTUNEJACK dice game "provably fair" is now provably fraud!

[vincentzjx]

Well, you know the rule "The house always win".

It is all about random. Even if you have 99.9% win chance, it doesn't means that out of 1000 rolls you will lose only once.

If you'are talking about house edge, that's another thing. House edge is disclosed and accpeted by players before players play in casino. But fraud is different. It's totally fine if lose or win is purely a random thing. But the issue now is that this "provably fair" game is manipulated against players, which is unfair for players. It's not about luck or something, it's SCAM!

[1715664894]

1715664894

[vincentzjx]

It is too technical complicated for me, with my limited technical knowledge and skills.
In short, your evidence shows that Fortune Jack has not scammed, or broken their rules of rewards to their supporters and users, DarkStar_?

Sorry for the confusing, English is not my first language so.
To put it simple, the actual win chance is higher when your bet amount is low.
The actual win chance is lower when your bet amount is high. Especially when you keep doubling or increse the bet amount largely, it more likely to trigger the long lose streak. Am I clear?

[vincentzjx]

since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls

Am I missing something?

I do not play on fortunejack but on other websites you can ask for the history end they will send you an illimited or limited history.

Now if the history is limited to the latest games played, you can play more and ask for a new history, and you can add results from 2 histories.

Since OP seems to be a player with thousands and thousands of played game, he can play more download new history and add data on a spreadsheet to get a more realistic statistic.

you are right, but I dont' dare play more, coz I know I will lose more on FJ dice. To prove this scam you'll have to lose many money, which I have done, it's just that FJ team dont provide the evidence, becuase they are afraid.

[vincentzjx]

You should at least provide some more evidence to become more clear.

2000 Rolls are not ENOUGH to reach some specific "100%" conclusion.
That might also be some random probabilistic downgrade between your bets.
Try to get more then 10k at least even if you had to somehow create some software to store them.

That way i believe you would be able to get enough proof.

Actually I had 181 thousand rolls so far, but why can't FJ provide it ? That's the problem. I also played on some other sites, where I can get all my bet history.
The statistic is only a sample of my 181 thousand rolls, I played it myself, all the other rolls had the similar thing with the 2000 rolls, which is higher the bet, higher the lose chance. So I know my proof is enough, though FJ can't provide it all.

[FinneysTrueVision]

This is BS. All your results are close to the expected result except for 0.064 where you only have 9 total rolls. 9 rolls is an insignificant sample size.

[vincentzjx]

You should at least provide some more evidence to become more clear.

2000 Rolls are not ENOUGH to reach some specific "100%" conclusion.
That might also be some random probabilistic downgrade between your bets.
Try to get more then 10k at least even if you had to somehow create some software to store them.

That way i believe you would be able to get enough proof.

No matter how many rolls he can provide, even if he has 1 million rolls data but it wont prove anything. Something related to provably fairness is not about the winning chance by bet amount. Provably fairness is about algorithm where players are able to verify the outcome. 1 bet is enough to prove if there is really something fishy on the provably fair system of any sites. Just like what Loycemobile said, what is posted by OP has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism.

You think provably fair system is the ONLY way to verify if it's fair, and ignored the game data, that's funny. Did you see FJ dice game code and verified it? But yes what I posted has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism, what I posted is the data that clearly shows FJ dice is not fair except house edge. The higher the bet amount, the higher the chance to lose.

[vincentzjx]

This is BS. All your results are close to the expected result except for 0.064 where you only have 9 total rolls. 9 rolls is an insignificant sample size.

I dont think you get the point for 2 reasons:
1. You said this because you didn't see all my 181 thousand rolls. I had a lot more than 9 rolls on 0.064 and the win chance is also less than the expected chance.
2. When we talk about the win chance for different bet amounts, it's not a "close" thing, it's the trend that matters! Now, think about trend A: if the win chance increase with increased bet amount but still in a close range, then the player always win. And the fact is trend B: the win chance decreased with increased bet amount, that trend shows the game is against the player. So win chances in both 2 trends can be close to expected chance, but isn't there a huge difference? Which trend will you choose as a player?
Like I said, a slightly decreasing in win chance with increased bet amount can cost all you win on the long run!

[DarkStar_]

You think provably fair system is the ONLY way to verify if it's fair, and ignored the game data, that's funny. Did you see FJ dice game code and verified it? But yes what I posted has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism, what I posted is the data that clearly shows FJ dice is not fair except house edge. The higher the bet amount, the higher the chance to lose.

It's the exact same system as Primedice/Nitrogen/other dice sites except with rolls offset by 0.01 for whatever reason. Dice is actually provably fair unlike some other games they have. You can verify this by using Primedice/Nitrogen's provably fair verifier.

With a nonce based dice system, all rolls are predetermined. Learn about how provably fair works before complaining: https://dicesites.com/provably-fair

(or, stop trolling)

[Haunebu]

You should at least provide some more evidence to become more clear.

2000 Rolls are not ENOUGH to reach some specific "100%" conclusion.
That might also be some random probabilistic downgrade between your bets.
Try to get more then 10k at least even if you had to somehow create some software to store them.

That way i believe you would be able to get enough proof.

No matter how many rolls he can provide, even if he has 1 million rolls data but it wont prove anything. Something related to provably fairness is not about the winning chance by bet amount. Provably fairness is about algorithm where players are able to verify the outcome. 1 bet is enough to prove if there is really something fishy on the provably fair system of any sites. Just like what Loycemobile said, what is posted by OP has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism.

You think provably fair system is the ONLY way to verify if it's fair, and ignored the game data, that's funny. Did you see FJ dice game code and verified it? But yes what I posted has nothing to do with provably fair mechanism, what I posted is the data that clearly shows FJ dice is not fair except house edge. The higher the bet amount, the higher the chance to lose.

Are you serious buddy? The provably fair system is something that makes gambling on online crypto casinos more worthwhile when compared to regular FIAT based online casinos since it basically offers an extra layer of legitimacy thanks to the blockchain.

Fortunejack has proven itself as a reputable casino over time which is why I don't agree with you and the provably fair system helps in this aspect, but I don't like their sneaky changes to their affiliate commissions though.

[kryptqnick]

since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls

Am I missing something?

I do not play on fortunejack but on other websites you can ask for the history end they will send you an illimited or limited history.

Now if the history is limited to the latest games played, you can play more and ask for a new history, and you can add results from 2 histories.

Since OP seems to be a player with thousands and thousands of played game, he can play more download new history and add data on a spreadsheet to get a more realistic statistic.

Yeah, I also thought about it. But you see I kind of understand that the op does not want to make another 2k rolls just for the sake of increasing the sample, especially since he/she is convinced that FortuneJack is a scam. And besides, nobody said how many rolls is enough, so even if he goes through another 2k I bet there'll be people saying 'nah, still not enough to prove anything'. And I don't understand why FortuneJack won't provide more bet history.. I read the reply, I just did not understand whether it sounds like a real reason.

[jsteFF]

since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls

Am I missing something?

I do not play on fortunejack but on other websites you can ask for the history end they will send you an illimited or limited history.

Now if the history is limited to the latest games played, you can play more and ask for a new history, and you can add results from 2 histories.

Since OP seems to be a player with thousands and thousands of played game, he can play more download new history and add data on a spreadsheet to get a more realistic statistic.

Yeah, I also thought about it. But you see I kind of understand that the op does not want to make another 2k rolls just for the sake of increasing the sample, especially since he/she is convinced that FortuneJack is a scam. And besides, nobody said how many rolls is enough, so even if he goes through another 2k I bet there'll be people saying 'nah, still not enough to prove anything'. And I don't understand why FortuneJack won't provide more bet history.. I read the reply, I just did not understand whether it sounds like a real reason.

Fair point. That's the shadiest thing - no official response here. FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll. That happens when there are no valid arguments.

[carlfebz2]

With a nonce based dice system, all rolls are predetemined.

It is a unintentionally typo inside your thread, Sir.
You should correct it, predetermined, instead of predetemined.

No need to point out since its understandable that it is "predetermined" but well Darkstar already edit it.

Open accusation on fortunejack on the scam section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116404.0, this is not good and will harm the repuation of Fortunejack you all know people who are not into gambling are reading the scam section and if they will not recommend Fortunejack to their friends, they've been here for long time hope they can resolve this.

If you do try to read up above few comments you would realize that OP is just possibly trolling.

[titteringtacos]

Better then stop playing on gambling sites so you wont loss. The fact that you cant prove anything the accusation still be an accusation.

[marlboroza]

you are right, but I dont' dare play more, coz I know I will lose more on FJ dice.

The same rule applies to all gambling sites.

To prove this scam you'll have to lose many money, which I have done, it's just that FJ team dont provide the evidence, becuase they are afraid.

You have 2000 rolls and known seeds so go, verify results and post proofs here.

Fair point. That's the shadiest thing - no official response here. FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll. That happens when there are no valid arguments.

You probably missed few posts. But go with good old "payed shills", that usually works 

[jsteFF]

you are right, but I dont' dare play more, coz I know I will lose more on FJ dice.

The same rule applies to all gambling sites.

To prove this scam you'll have to lose many money, which I have done, it's just that FJ team dont provide the evidence, becuase they are afraid.

You have 2000 rolls and known seeds so go, verify results and post proofs here.

Fair point. That's the shadiest thing - no official response here. FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll. That happens when there are no valid arguments.

You probably missed few posts. But go with good old "payed shills", that usually works 

Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.

[StackGambler]

As many other people have mentioned, your sample size is quite small, so the conclusions you drew cannot be universally applied.

But, to be very frank, the sample size doesn't matter. Even if you take a sample of 200,000 rolls, or even 2,000,000 rolls, and you get a similar result, it doesn't mean the game is deliberately giving you bad rolls on higher bets. The very purpose of the provably fair system is to prove to you that rolls are entirely predetermined and can't be affected by the bet amount.

I made a video on the topic a while ago (specific to bustabit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7IaewYmqM4

Even if you take an extremely large sample size and you get similar results, it just means you got very very unlucky. It is a mathematical certainty that over infinite rolls, there will be 2,000,000 rolls consecutively that demonstrate the statistics you showed in your 2,000 rolls. All of that is completely irrelevant - anecdotal gambling results mean literally nothing. You just have to verify that the games are provably fair, and you have to verify that the odds are demonstrably what they are advertised to be. You can only do that by learning about the system, and by using the aspects available such as the client seed and the client seed hash. Doing sample rolls and recording statistics from that proves nothing, and never will.

[marlboroza]

Which posts did I miss?

Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System.

Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.

Why should they respond to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence?

The same as your post:

FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll.

Only thing I can see here is that someone has created "bad luck" graph. I don't think anyone here has crystal ball.

[McGrupp]

Which posts did I miss?

Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System.

Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.

Why should they response to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence?

The same as your post:

FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll.

Only thing I can see here is that someone has created "bad luck" graph. I don't think anyone here has crystal ball.

I can agree with this. I have not seen enough evidence to 100% call this a scam.

Seems like this could have just been a streak of bad luck

[vincentzjx]

Which posts did I miss?

Posts where someone mentioned Provably Fair System.

Which posts did I miss? Was there any response from FJ official account? I can't see any.

Why should they response to scam accusation which has presented zero evidence?

The same as your post:

FJ is just sending its paid shills here to troll.

Only thing I can see here is that someone has created "bad luck" graph. I don't think anyone here has crystal ball.

Maybe you should go to your doctor to check your eyes. Everyone can see the evidence which is the data from no one else but FJ themselves.
So, the graph is not something I "created", it's just a fact alway there in the game, but hard to notice without enough data.

[marlboroza]

Maybe you should go to your doctor to check your eyes.

I just went to see my doctor and doctor said everything is perfectly fine with my eyes, he added, whoever sent me there should visit "head doctor".

Everyone can see the evidence which is the data from no one else but FJ themselves.

You should include #27 to your graph too:



We don't want only 55.6% based on 9 bets. We also want to see 0% based on 1 bet.