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

[vincentzjx]

Now I'm gonna disclose a unbelievable fact with proof.  Fortunejack dice game is not provably fair at all. It’s just the trick is hard to notice.

I played there for months, and had 181 thousand rolls. At first, I found the game fishy, because when I bet very low, I win like 9 out of 10. But once I tried to increase or double my bet amount, the win chance seemed getting lower and lower notably. At last, I realized that keeping increasing the bet amount tends to trigger the lose streak more likely. The lose streak didn't happen 100% randomly.

Then I posted some articles online about this issue, the FJ support team reached to me and send me my lastest 2000 rolls, I ananysised the data, and get this chart:
http://zhengyijun.cn/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1.-Fortunejack-Dice-SCAM-Bet-Amount-Influces-the-Chance.png

The chart shows clearly that the higher you bet, the higher the chance you lose, instead a consistent chance for different bet amounts.
To put it another way, your bet amount will influence the roll outcome.

This is my bet history if you wanna check it yourself: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AnO-if4gpLl5jAaOZTQGWvXz2nr1
I’ll list some data here:
I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance is from 66% to 61.87% for the 2000 rolls. The actual average win chance for all 2000 rolls is 65.3%, which is fine and fair. But the win chance for each bet amount decreased while the bet amount was doubled:
Bet amount 0.001, win chance 65.5% (>65.3%)
Bet amount 0.002, win chance 66.8% (>65.3%),
—here is where the trick comes in—
Bet amount 0.004, win chance 65.0% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.008, win chance 63.4% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.032, win chance 64.3% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.064, win chance 55.6% (<65.3%).

See? The higher the bet, the lower the win chance!

Even one lose on a high bet may cost all you won on low bets. So a slightly decrease in win chance with increased bet amount can be a disaster for each player on the long run.

We can see clearly the trend from 2000 rolls. And the trend will be more clearer if Fortunejack team could provide all my history. Every player can ananysis your history like this, or send your data to me. I can defenitly prove Fortunejack dice game is fraud!

Being popular doesn’t mean being safe. The provably fair system can't explain this unfair fact. The outcome shows the truth!

Please, everyone, forward this to your friend and don’t waste your time and money on FortuneJack anymore. You’ll lose everything on FortuneJack dice SCAM.

[1714644604]

1714644604

[1714644604]

1714644604

[felicita]

its very hard to proofe this ....but on luckgame i had same experience when i bet there at low amounts < 0.0001 its mostly fair.
But when i bet with higher amounts i got ripped fast XD


regards

[pinoycash]

~snip~
I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance is from 66% to 61.87% for the 2000 rolls. The actual average win chance for all 2000 rolls is 65.3%, which is fine and fair. But the win chance for each bet amount decreased while the bet amount was doubled:
Bet amount 0.001, win chance 65.5% (>65.3%)
Bet amount 0.002, win chance 66.8% (>65.3%),
—here is where the trick comes in—
Bet amount 0.004, win chance 65.0% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.008, win chance 63.4% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.032, win chance 64.3% (<65.3%),
Bet amount 0.064, win chance 55.6% (<65.3%).

See? The higher the bet, the lower the win chance!

Even one lose on a high bet may cost all you won on low bets. So a slightly decrease in win chance with increased bet amount can be a disaster for each player on the long run.
~snip~

Then you found something that can be use against the house, Don't bet more than 0.002 and have the higher chance of winning.

Using martingale is proven ineffective in any dice games. in the end you will just lose everything its not worth it to bet 0.064 just to recoup your 0.001 initial bet. Set your stop loss after 3 losing streak and accept defeat against the house

[Hhampuz]

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

[vincentzjx]

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

The problem is, Fortunejack refused to send me more history, even ASKGAMBLERS asked them to do so. I guess they worried that this trick is more clear once they provided my complete history. But the trend is already there even for 2000 rolls.

[titteringtacos]

FortuneJack is one of my favorite gambling site when I started playing and learning about crypto currency and I can say that I have lost many times in their. But to this date I dont play in their anymore maybe because of that Provably fair. I will try my luck at stake.com and see if I can win some. 

[bakasabo]

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.

[Bitinity]

It is the same report as what Lucky7btc did on the ANN thread of Fortunejack here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774929.msg49896015#msg49896015
So basically who did the evaluate the 2000 rolls? You or Lucky7btc?
I'm not trying to defend fortunejack, but is it a valid proof that their provably fair system is a fraud?

It seems to me that Lucky7btc does not say that its his 2k rolls history.. The post is confusing but there's a mention at the beginning and in the end, hinting that it was a story of another user.

Oh my bad, I did not notice it.

[theskillzdatklls]

Yeah, that just isn't sufficient. You'll need to have a sample size with at least 4 standard deviations of significance probably to even start to "prove" that shenanigans are going on. My guess is that you aren't anywhere close to that.

[kryptqnick]

It's important to talk these issues through and doubt the trust we usually take for granted when it comes to established companies like FortuneJack. You are saying that you could not get more bet history, did you receive any official explanation why so?
Also, I probably don't understand something but isn't a provably fair casino unable to cheat, because one can check any transaction and make sure it's fair?
Since respected people say that 2k rolls is not enough, maybe you could get more betting history now?

It is the same report as what Lucky7btc did on the ANN thread of Fortunejack here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774929.msg49896015#msg49896015
So basically who did the evaluate the 2000 rolls? You or Lucky7btc?
I'm not trying to defend fortunejack, but is it a valid proof that their provably fair system is a fraud?

It seems to me that Lucky7btc does not say that its his 2k rolls history.. The post is confusing but there's a mention at the beginning and in the end, hinting that it was a story of another user.

[coinlocket$]

As said by Hampuz this is not enough big sample size.

Bigger the sample it will be, smaller the variance it will be and it should be equal to the house's edge, so in the end the variance decrease more you play.

If they don't give access to older games you can play new games and download the new history but since games are -Ev for players will lose more money doing so.

[ralle14]

Since respected people say that 2k rolls is not enough, maybe you could get more betting history now?

The problem is you can't get more, even if you ask their support they won't allow you to see more than 2000 bets.

I asked the support why and they said "All the limitation are for proper usage of the page."

I was going to suggest the dicebot but it's not working for fortunejack.

[Bagaji]

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

Well, it then be good for op to increase the sample size and probably reach a definite conclusion on whether your aligation is true or not. O P can equally send the me the data so that I can help him run a regression analysis and see what will be the out come of the result.

[LoyceMobile]

This has nothing to do with probably fairness.

[AmoreJaz]

Yeah, that just isn't sufficient. You'll need to have a sample size with at least 4 standard deviations of significance probably to even start to "prove" that shenanigans are going on. My guess is that you aren't anywhere close to that.

since he couldnt get more than 2k rolls, then i would say he should have not deduced that FortuneJack is a scam
a premature conclusion on his own without getting more info
if he has friends playing on this site, ask them to pull out their data as well
and assess if theres really unusual things going on this site. this allegation will just be ignored by most because nothing substantial is shown.

[coinlocket$]

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.

[Carollzinha]

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.

[tippytoes]

2000 rolls is not enough of a sample size.

Well, it then be good for op to increase the sample size and probably reach a definite conclusion on whether your aligation is true or not. O P can equally send the me the data so that I can help him run a regression analysis and see what will be the out come of the result.

We need more people to willingly lend their data for further evaluation of what has been presented by the OP. But for now, the reputation of FortuneJack is still the same for me. They wouldn't risk their name with such "manipulation" in their system.

[Bitinity]

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.

[DarkStar_]

Grab your client seed, server seed hash and server seed and you can figure out an infinite number of rolls because of the nonce based provably fair system. Here is a pair that I just generated:

Code:

Server Seed Hash: ac954d970822d91cf35b6c06ebac043cd778b60b0395a0cc10d46a4dae7525ee
Server Seed: efd7484340d7b05c9cb9852c88141ec6008c05a2153b15a301ba157ad63e0f45
Client Seed: 7a5c9caf8b4ef85a028f8b39b67f91e322c3d4b57505477d59fa4a04561da3d3

You can put the info into DiceSites' PrimeDice verifier and generate an infinite number of rolls. What you claim is literally impossible because every result depends on the same server seed + client seed combo, which doesn't care whether you bet 1 million Bitcoin or 1 satoshi. You're very likely just having confirmation bias or believe in gambler's fallacy.