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

[akamit]

It is not a scam and this thread does not belong in "scam accusation" board, it is more likely an investigation case and it should belong to "investigation" board. I thought this way because its a doubt you have against FJ's dice system and presented your own logical evidence, so it is something to investigate. If FJ had scammed your money, I mean they haven't processed your withdrawal request then it would have perfectly fitted herein scam accusation board. This is completely two different things.

In regards to your accusation, I only want to say that verify your rolls. If your rolls are verified then FJ is solid, if not then you are solid. Just verify those 2000 rolls samples and post the result here. Hopefully, the case will be solved otherwise argument, counter-argument will be infinite. If you can't post the verified results then lock this thread and move on.

Dice = Provably fair  = only way to check the casino's fair system = all the sites are same afaik.

[1713521907]

1713521907

[1713521907]

1713521907

[1713521907]

1713521907

[1713521907]

1713521907

[HCP]

Wait... so the OP is claiming that an effective sample size of 9 rolls is statistical "proof" that FJ is a scam?

If you had made all 2000 rolls wagering 0.064 ... and the result was still at 55.6%, then that might be worth further investigation... however, I would suspect that you would find that it would still be in the ~65% range

You shouldn't "cherrypick" results that match your hypothesis... that's called "confirmation bias"

You have conveniently ignored that 0.0015 bets (total of 10 bets, similar sample size) are at 50% winrate and that the 0.003 btc bets are at 55.6% winrate and are actually double the number of 0.064 wagers... why have you ignored them from your pretty graph? oh... because they're actually "lower" bets... and work against your hypothesis

In addition, your graphed doubled up on 0.008... which excludes the 0.016 result at 67.8% which makes your chart look a little different. And your chosen vertical range really exaggerates the drop off at the end...

Ignoring for the moment the inclusion of the "9 roll outlier", this is your data, but including the 0.016 results, with your chosen vertical scale of 53% to 70%:


That 0.016 result that you omitted changes this a little... that upspike in the higher wagers kind of goes against your hypothesis doesn't it? Still, the last datapoint looks a bit shocking... such a drop! ZOMGWTFHAX!


Until you then view it in the whole 0% to 100% range


And we see results fairly evenly spread around the "average"... except for a 9 roll "outlier" datapoint


If we then exclude that outlier we see this:



If we go the other way and include ALL the outliers (I included every data line where there were more than 2 wagers), we get this:



Note the light blue "trend" line, that actually indicates an upwards trend in results... interesting.

[vincentzjx]

Wait... so the OP is claiming that an effective sample size of 9 rolls is statistical "proof" that FJ is a scam?

If you had made all 2000 rolls wagering 0.064 ... and the result was still at 55.6%, then that might be worth further investigation... however, I would suspect that you would find that it would still be in the ~65% range

You shouldn't "cherrypick" results that match your hypothesis... that's called "confirmation bias"

You have conveniently ignored that 0.0015 bets (total of 10 bets, similar sample size) are at 50% winrate and that the 0.003 btc bets are at 55.6% winrate and are actually double the number of 0.064 wagers... why have you ignored them from your pretty graph? oh... because they're actually "lower" bets... and work against your hypothesis

In addition, your graphed doubled up on 0.008... which excludes the 0.016 result at 67.8% which makes your chart look a little different. And your chosen vertical range really exaggerates the drop off at the end...

Ignoring for the moment the inclusion of the "9 roll outlier", this is your data, but including the 0.016 results, with your chosen vertical scale of 53% to 70%:
https://i.imgur.com/nrSkRZk.png

That 0.016 result that you omitted changes this a little... that upspike in the higher wagers kind of goes against your hypothesis doesn't it? Still, the last datapoint looks a bit shocking... such a drop! ZOMGWTFHAX!


Until you then view it in the whole 0% to 100% range
https://i.imgur.com/VsSSD74.png

And we see results fairly evenly spread around the "average"... except for a 9 roll "outlier" datapoint


If we then exclude that outlier we see this:
https://i.imgur.com/vECJdBt.png


If we go the other way and include ALL the outliers (I included every data line where there were more than 2 wagers), we get this:
https://i.imgur.com/xjyIqV5.png


Note the light blue "trend" line, that actually indicates an upwards trend in results... interesting.

You took all wagers into account while you question the wager with 9 rolls is not enough as evidence. That's why I bold some wagers in the chart, which are the major wagers I bet when I played the game.
I guess you all agree that the accusation would not be well-grounded if the sample is too small, so if we delete the minor wagers that only bet several time, and only see the major wagers , you'll get a graph more close the fact :
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAXsTXMXYnGZ0FJK6xQmBYUgBt0MF_p6WuxSM4rAiun7nSy9gRTcKm0wMv65BMFAAF7TqfwGw5wlLzJobY0BY2OebLwlM9GCcWMjPrtE0mPSoTydBchKugasxAf5Wr_6olZ_veGekyJRRQQnCM5slVYLZ-NUG7SumoZTpX6lY_MW7whIrrmb9__I_HGhQNpv_1DJzmy-DuHNLyFnNEmf8DfNYaTfyVZ4dwexXlZYr3He1KMDMoZNzBOXCAsQtJo8N5oLhuCiWZs0h8PEP_CJTRw7I3l7EgybiFbqw75pEagDkw/p.png
That's the provability for major wagers: 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.16 0.32.
0.016 is above the fair win chance, but the trick is a higher wager is always at a lower win chance than the lower wager.
Win chance of 0.04 & 0.08 is lower than of 0.001 & 0.002.
Win chance of 0.32 is lower than of 0.16.

Tell me, if you bet 1000 or whatever times on each wager with the chance shown in this graph, will you win or lose?

It's may not be a straight line downward if hte sampe is enough, but the final statistical outcome is always minus according to the graph.

To be more accurate, I need the complete bet log from FJ team. Of course the sample is not 100% accurate, but at least the general trend can be seen.

[HCP]

You dropbox link is broken... so I can't see your graph... but I already made that graph (outlier dropped, only 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.016 and 0.032) and showed it above... it was this one:


As you can see... all of these results are more or less on your "average" result and certainly within what you're expect as a margin of error with the limited dataset.

0.016 is above the fair win chance, but the trick is a higher wager is always at a lower win chance than the lower wager.
Win chance of 0.04 & 0.08 is lower than of 0.001 & 0.002.
Win chance of 0.32 is lower than of 0.16.

And one could just as easily claim that there is a higher wager at a higher chance than a lower wager... for instance, win chance of 0.016 is higher than chance of 0.08... and who is to say that 0.128 isn't higher than 0.064?

By your logic, and based on the data you have, you should just only ever bet 0.002 and 0.016 and you'll always come out ahead. If you simply never bet anything else you'll never lose!...By jove, I think you've cracked it! You can now take FJ down!

That logic is so fundamentally flawed.


I'd also like to point out that you said you were gambling at chances from 61% to 66%?

I played with payout 1.5-1.6, win chance is from 66% to 61.87% for the 2000 rolls.

Every single one of the win rates for you "main wagers" falls into that range (or is higher):
0.001 - 65.52%
0.002 - 66.78%
0.004 - 65.02%
0.008 - 63.45%
0.016 - 67.81%
0.032 - 64.29%

Tell me, if you bet 1000 or whatever times on each wager with the chance shown in this graph, will you win or lose?

Most likely, you won't win. But that is more to do with the fact that this is a -EV game (like all dice games) and the House Edge will see that you end up losing... and has nothing to do with the game being "rigged" or not.


Besides, as already mentioned, the game is "provably fair". FJ can't manipulate the rolls any more than you can... the results of each roll are predetermined, they have no way to change this based on the size of your wagers.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

[jsteFF]

Any update? Did you receive any response from FortuneJack?

[vincentzjx]

Any update? Did you receive any response from FortuneJack?

Not yet, you can check the lastest update here https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof

[vincentzjx]

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

Could you tell us why your site don't provide access to players' bet history while other sites can? What are you hiding?

[marlboroza]

Any update? Did you receive any response from FortuneJack?

Not yet, you can check the lastest update here https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof

They actually did:

Hi,
We kindly ask @askgamblers to show this case to someone who is well aware in the provably fair games and knows the theory of probability.
We have already explained why the player is wrong and ask @askgamblers for the fair judgment.

And OP replied this:

“Provably fair” is just a term casino invented. If you do wanna prove to the public it's fair technologically, the most convincing way is to disclosure the dice game code, and let people who is well aware in programming judge. After all, player seeds are what players can see, but what about the game codes in the server we can not see?

First of all, casino can't know where you are going to place your bet. As result is predetermined, you could have wagered on different side and hit all 9 rolls.

Have you checked bets or you are simple refusing to accept provably fair system as fair system where casino can't cheat unless they change seed "behind" and/or show you wrong result?

Do that, check last 9 bets and post results here.

[jsteFF]

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

Could you tell us why your site don't provide access to players' bet history while other sites can? What are you hiding?

A strange question to the shill... He gets paid for having this signature (or probably he is a part of FJ project with his alts as their work is coordinated - check my trust section) and that's why he doesn't like that there are lots of negative vibes around FJ.

[dolores13]

you still didn't get it , Don't you !!! All Gambling games are scam , What makes you gamble your hard earned money , ofcourse GREED to make easy money from few buttons clicks (when you Win means there is a person in other side lose , its like a circle of nonstop scam and ofc the House is always the final winner ), STOP giving your money to scammers.

[Thule]

@marlborza

Based on majority of average player (myself included) who are not adjusting their clientseed isn't it possible the site knows the clientseed in advance ?

Your browser will generate a random clientseed. However, you could and should adjust this clientseed before you start. This way you can make sure the site does not know your clientseed in advance.

https://dicesites.com/provably-fair


Is the clientseed even changing automaticly during a game when you don't adjust it yourself ?Or will the casino know the clientseed in advance from players who don't adjust them after the first game ?



Just googled about possible scams when clientseed is not adjusting automaticly after each game.
Found this:

I checked out that provably fair bit once before. It really is provably fair... BUT what they don’t make obvious is how easily they can take advantage of someone who just trusts its fair by running the code and getting the “Fair” message.
The whole thing is predicated on having a random seed that “cuts” the deck, so to speak. It’s generated client side and then mixed with a server side seed. But, with nitrogen, the client seed does not regenerate each hand. In fact, it only regenerates once you click their button to regenerate a new one. If you don’t click regenerate every time, they can start generating server side seeds that will be favorable to them once mixed with the seed that they can assume you will not change.
In other words, if you don’t generate a new seed each hand, they can start assuming you will cut the deck in the exact same spot each time and start pre-arranging the deck in their favor.
I haven’t looked at their blackjack in over two years now, so maybe that’s changed, but last I checked you had to open the “provably fair” menu and generate a new seed yourself.

 

[vincentzjx]

you still didn't get it , Don't you !!! All Gambling games are scam , What makes you gamble your hard earned money , ofcourse GREED to make easy money from few buttons clicks (when you Win means there is a person in other side lose , its like a circle of nonstop scam and ofc the House is always the final winner ), STOP giving your money to scammers.

you are right. Greed always exists with scams.

[vincentzjx]

Can we please stop replying to this thread. It's filled with baseless accusations and shows absolutely no proof whatsoever of FJ even remotely being a scam. Just a bunch of bashing alt accounts.

https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof
Below is my lastest reply to the complaint on ASKGAMBLERS:
You provided 2000 rolls hisotry on 11th Feb, and provided the same 2000 rolls on 17th Feb. again when I asked for my complete gaming log in the email. You've been delaying and refused to provide my complete gaming log because you are afraid of your scam being exposed!
And now you said logs "might" have been deleted. Might? Are the logs deleted or not? If they are deleted, why you say "might"? 
Do you think people will believe that a reputed big company like FJ only keep players' latest 2000 rolls on the servers? Maybe you are just hiding the crime you've been commited!

If your team want convince to all your players that Fortunejack Dice is provably fair, just provide all my gaming log.

[Koolson567]

I reckon you are absolutely right.
It scammed me of 0.004 bitcoin too in dice game. I was simply told that I had multiple accounts. So I proved to them my phone number and IP number. And how I was a lone user.
I asked them to fulfill their obligation and approve my rightfully won bitcoin but they stopped responding. So here I am.
My username in fortunejack is koolson567

[TheNewAnon135246]

I reckon you are absolutely right.
It scammed me of 0.004 bitcoin too in dice game. I was simply told that I had multiple accounts. So I proved to them my phone number and IP number. And how I was a lone user.
I asked them to fulfill their obligation and approve my rightfully won bitcoin but they stopped responding. So here I am.
My username in fortunejack is koolson567

Do you have screenshots or any other form of evidence to back up your accusations?

[vincentzjx]

Complaint unresolved. https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof
Anyway,  think twice before you decide to paly FortuneJack Dice, guys!

[TheNewAnon135246]

Complaint unresolved. https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof
Anyway,  think twice before you decide to paly FortuneJack Dice, guys!

Stop trying. FJ has been very responsive and explained several times why your accusation makes no sense.

[vincentzjx]

Complaint unresolved. https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/fortunejack-casino-dice-scam-with-proof
Anyway,  think twice before you decide to paly FortuneJack Dice, guys!

Stop trying. FJ has been very responsive and explained several times why your accusation makes no sense.

Is refusing to provide more than 2000 rolls history being responsive? That's funny.
Btw, here a thread about Is there any way for casinos to cheat the provably fair? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1070228
Casinos can cheat on provably fair system too, if they want. So guys, you can't be too careful.

[hillsta89]

Sorry to re-post in this thread, but would some more science being something like this to back up all this help? Well could someone help me understand if it's not the case -

This is from a interesting pdf https://anonymousfiles.io/UeRFSjpa/

3.4    Reversed Commitment Order
 
Suppose Alice manages to convince Bob to provide 𝑠𝐵 before she provides 𝐶(𝑠𝐴). We will show in this case how Alice can gain a slight advantage over Bob (in excess of the advertised house edge) using very little computational power. One example of a site employing this flawed scheme is FortuneJack [11].
 
One additional aspect of the scheme used by FortuneJack is that the client can define what constitutes the winning outcome. After providing 𝑠𝐵 and receiving 𝐶(𝑠𝐴), the client can freely choose the corresponding winning range and thereby the payout. The server fixes a house edge, so that defining one of the winning range or the payout automatically fixes the other value such that in expectation, the house edge is achieved.  
 
 
 
The client will generally pick between two game variants. The first is a high risk, high reward game. In this game type, the client wins in less than 50% of the output space. The other option is a low risk, low reward game where the client wins in more than 50% of the output space. An example of this can be seen in the image above. By observing the public log for some time, we noticed that a vast majority of players choose the high risk, high reward game, which is perhaps more in the spirit of gambling.
 
Undoubtedly, the server has more clear data regarding client preferences. If the server can target clients who play the high risk, high reward game, it is able to skew results in its favor by selecting an advantageous 𝑠𝐴 given its observation of 𝑠𝐵. The reason is that if the client wins in less than 50% of the output space, there is a range in the middle for which regardless of which side the client chooses, the server will always win. For the example in the image, the client wins if 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) ∈ [0,20) or 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) ∈ [80,100).
 
The client does not always switch its seed after every roll. Instead, the game function is computed with an incrementing nonce over many rolls. This complicates the attack slightly, but still allows for noticeable deviations assuming a reasonably bounded maximum nonce
value. The server can simply compute the average maximum nonce value for a given client and use that as is target nonce.
 
Given both the client’s preference for the high risk, high reward game and a bounded nonce 𝑛∗, the server simply tries a few different hash values and computes the function below. Note that 𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) will output a list of rolls of length 𝑛∗.
 
𝑣(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) = ∑(𝐺(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵)[𝑖] − 50)2 𝑛∗−1 𝑖=0
 
 
arg max 𝑎
𝑓(𝑥) = {𝑣(𝑎,𝑠𝐵) ∣ ∣ 𝑎 ∈ 𝜎𝐴 }
 
In effect, the server is looking for a seed value 𝑎 = 𝑠𝐴 such that for a given 𝑛∗ and 𝑠𝐵, there are more numbers close to 50 than would be in expectation. The value function 𝑣(𝑠𝐴,𝑠𝐵) is just one example of what the server might be optimizing for. A more sophisticated attacker would use the behavior of the client to adjust the value function.
 
It is not feasible to get the most optimal value 𝑎 ∈ 𝜎𝐴, since the space of all seeds is too large. However, it is enough for the server to select a small subset of 𝜎𝐴 and look for the best 𝑎 within that subset. To reduce suspicion, the server could simply generate random 𝑎 values and compute the value functions for these seeds up to a certain time threshold, so that it is harder to detect foul play.
 
There is not much the client can do to defend against this attack aside from choosing to play the low risk, low reward variant of the game. Proving that the server is employing such a scheme would be equally difficult without access to the entire history of rolls, which is not available to the public. Testing the random number generator would require a large amount of cryptocurrency, which might be out of reach for most clients.
 
https://pasteboard.co/IB99iCp.jpg