To freebitco.in and their representative, TheQuin

[SATWAT]

Maybe TheQuin left his position and they are having a hard time to find somebody as dedicated as him. When theQuin was active, he was quick to respond to every accusation. Most of the time the accusers were cheaters and he was posting proof to show everyone the scammers’ real intentions. Maybe he had enough money and decided that it is not worth to deal with the scammers for the rest of his life. I can’t blame him. What good is it to have lots of money but you don’t have time to enjoy it? Wetsuit has been probably doing the same thing for the last 7-8 years. Now they need to find somebody else who will carry the burden.

It still does not excuse the fact that he's literally still browsing the forum so has to make at least one post explaining what is going on with all this stuff. Then he can bow out if he wants.

(No, I am not affected by the freebitcoin shenanigans)

Few times I already send messages to @TheQuin, but I never have any reply just because of this now I am also having feeling he is not part of this team and already part away with now after 23rd May he is no coming online because this he was checking things even not giving any reply or update, but he was 2 or 3 times in weeks coming online.

Admin of the site is also having never visit but hopefully now we will have some updates as they are working on few PRO which will give updates and also give replies to users about their concerns because now this is huge business, and they need to care about this.

[Poker Player]

The bad signs were there for years, but massively ignored. Read Freebitco.in provably cheating:

You should probably move (bottom-left) this to Scam Accusations.

I've often wondered if they're legit, based on the average cost per faucet claim:
1 number pays $200
2 numbers pay $20
4 numbers pay $2
8 numbers pay $0.20
100 numbers pay $0.02
9886 numbers pay $0.002

I've always wanted to know if they really pay $271.37 on average for 10000 rolls. And if so, why don't they just pay $0.027 for each roll? They'd have the highest paying faucet, while it would cost them the same amount in total.

Really? One can tell you have no idea about gambling. Tell the same to the Euromillions lottery to see if they pay attention to you. Anyone who knows a little about gambling knows that Euromillions collects so much precisely because it does the opposite of what you suggest.

Based on the odds, I would expect one $200 winner for every 2 $20 winners.
I did a (manual) count on pages 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 on Big wins at FreeBitco.in:
I just won $20 at FreeBitco.in! 116 times
I just won $200 at FreeBitco.in! 2 times
I probably miscounted a bit, but let's round it down: winning $200 is 50 times less likely than winning $20, and that makes the difference 25 12.5 times larger than it should be.

You know that such a small sample doesn't prove anything, don't you? Every day I see plays that have a 5% or less chance of happening.

[LoyceV]

Tbh I don’t give a rat’s ass if they have been cheating the free rolls because the players also do cheat.

Not all players cheat. Casinos are supposed to be fair.

Really? One can tell you have no idea about gambling.

Nobody in their right mind would gamble at a casino with 5% house edge, when competitors offer a 1% house edge. This is a faucet, and people spent years clicking them.
By using this "random" number, they can easily manipulate it. All they have to do is reset the server seed once in a while. It's quite obvious they did it for the $200-winners, but unclear if they also did it for the $20 winners. Just a few resets every 10,000 rolls would be enough to reduce the total cost of their faucet (which is after all meant to get people hooked to gambling) by up to 90%. They couldn't do that with a fixed faucet amount.

Based on the odds, I would expect one $200 winner for every 2 $20 winners.
I did a (manual) count on pages 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 on Big wins at FreeBitco.in:
I just won $20 at FreeBitco.in! 116 times
I just won $200 at FreeBitco.in! 2 times
I probably miscounted a bit, but let's round it down: winning $200 is 50 times less likely than winning $20, and that makes the difference 25 12.5 times larger than it should be.

You know that such a small sample doesn't prove anything, don't you? Every day I see plays that have a 5% or less chance of happening.

I manually counted 10 pages. If you think my sample size is too small, feel free to count all 152 pages for a much larger sample size.

Math time!
118 rolls (and correcting my mistake from 2018):
1 number pays $200 for every 4 numbers that pay $20 (I'm ignoring all rolls other than the 2 highest winners).
Expected outcome: around 23.6 times $200, and 94.4 times $20.
Reality: 2 times $200, and 116 times $20.
What are the odds of this happening?
My statistical math is rusty so I'm taking shortcuts: let's say it took 59 rolls to hit $200.
Odds of hitting $20 at the first roll: 0.8
Odds of hitting $20 in the first 2 rolls: 0.8²=0.64
....
Odds of hitting $20 in the first 58 rolls: 0.8⁵⁸=0.00000239452. That's 0.000239% chance. Note that I ignored the other half of the counted rolls.
So, and correct me if my math is wrong: this doesn't have a 5% chance of happening, it's 20,000 times less! And this is exactly what I meant when I said the bad signs were there, but were massively ignored. The odds of this happening twice in a row are several orders of magnitude lower. Count the rest of the topic, and you'll see this pattern continues.

[nutildah]

I probably miscounted a bit, but let's round it down: winning $200 is 50 times less likely than winning $20, and that makes the difference 25 12.5 times larger than it should be.

You know that such a small sample doesn't prove anything, don't you? Every day I see plays that have a 5% or less chance of happening.

The difference is due to the way that FBC rounds the number. I believe it was TheQuin who actually explained how it works once, but basically he said the chance of spinning a 10000 is only half of how it appears... I can't find the exact post that explains it but this is why the $200 win happens disproportionately less often than the $20 win.

Regardless, it seems to me the prudent thing to do is to continue supporting the flag on wetsuit until management explains what happened with user funds in these incidents.

[LoyceV]

The difference is due to the way that FBC rounds the number. I believe it was TheQuin who actually explained how it works once, but basically he said the chance of spinning a 10000 is only half of how it appears... I can't find the exact post that explains it but this is why the $200 win happens disproportionately less often than the $20 win.

That means anything under 9999.5 is rounded down. I accounted for that in my post above. There's still a factor 12.5 unaccounted for.

[examplens]

I manually counted 10 pages. If you think my sample size is too small, feel free to count all 152 pages for a much larger sample size.

Math time!
118 rolls (and correcting my mistake from 2018):

Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.

[Poker Player]

Really? One can tell you have no idea about gambling.

Nobody in their right mind would gamble at a casino with 5% house edge, when competitors offer a 1% house edge. This is a faucet, and people spent years clicking them.
By using this "random" number, they can easily manipulate it. All they have to do is reset the server seed once in a while. It's quite obvious they did it for the $200-winners, but unclear if they also did it for the $20 winners. Just a few resets every 10,000 rolls would be enough to reduce the total cost of their faucet (which is after all meant to get people hooked to gambling) by up to 90%. They couldn't do that with a fixed faucet amount.

See, that's why I'm telling you that you have no idea how gambling works. And, on the contrary, wetsuit did. The business casinos don't do with people who think about the House Edge, because gambling already doesn't make much sense to begin with when there is a House Edge. You are inevitably going to lose money in the long run. The difference between 1 and 3 or 5% to those players who are profitable for the casino does not matter, many of them do not even know what it is, and many others have some idea but do not care, they prefer to play on a site with 5% than in another 1% if certain things they like more of the site.

You probably understand House Edge and mathematics better than 99% of those who write in the gambling section, that's why you don't bet, but what you don't understand is how the business works. The audience that wetsuit and other casino owners are looking for is not you or me.

You know that such a small sample doesn't prove anything, don't you?

I manually counted 10 pages. If you think my sample size is too small, feel free to count all 152 pages for a much larger sample size.

There's no way I'm going to waste my time. You know that sample size doesn't prove anything, because if it did, no matter how conservative you are with your feedbacks you would have red tagged them long ago. Not even counting everyone in that thread one by one would do it. I'm used to in poker that to get an idea the minimum sample size is 50K hands. And as brutal as variance can be, to prove things, better half a million hands.

... this doesn't have a 5% chance of happening, it's 20,000 times less! And this is exactly what I meant when I said the bad signs were there, but were massively ignored. The odds of this happening twice in a row are several orders of magnitude lower. Count the rest of the topic, and you'll see this pattern continues.

In any case, with such a small sample, it seems quite a high deviation from what the mean should be, I agree.

Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.

That is another point. It is a sample of those who reported the winnings. Not a record of casino rolls.

[codergeek]

TheQuin's silence is nothing short of incriminating.

[mindrust]

Tbh I don’t give a rat’s ass if they have been cheating the free rolls because the players also do cheat.

Not all players cheat. Casinos are supposed to be fair.

We are not talking about the casino function though. Nobody has a complaint about their casinos fairness as far as I am aware.

We are talking about its faucet. Something they give away for clicking a button, for free practically.

When hundreds of players cheat with the faucet clicks, the casino has to protect itself. In the end the fair clickers will pay for the damages the cheaters caused and receive less awards.

That’s of course, if freebitco.in is doing what you are claiming they are doing which I haven’t made my mind on yet

[FatFork]

In any case, with such a small sample, it seems quite a high deviation from what the mean should be, I agree.

Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.

That is another point. It is a sample of those who reported the winnings. Not a record of casino rolls.

But that's the thing. Even if we had an exact record of all casino rolls, statistical improbabilities are still possible.  Randomness is a key part of gambling, after all.

The point examplens raises about unreported wins is very valid.  A small sample size, especially with missing data, can definitely skew the overall picture.  But, while a complete record of every roll would be fantastic for analysis, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of outliers entirely. Actually, that's why martingales and similar strategies don't work well in gambling. Even with a perfect 50/50 chance, there's still a very real possibility of hitting a losing streak of twenty, or even more, rolls.

[LoyceV]

Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.

That possibility was brought up before (probably back in 2018). But I don't think that's likely: they get paid $5 to post on Bitcointalk, and we're talking about people who clicked captchas to earn $0.002 per hour. They literally earn 2500 times more by posting on Bitcointalk, so I don't think the larger prize winners are less likely to post. And they'd have to be 12.5 times less likely to post than $20 prize winners to make the prize distribution plausible.
The website's need for publicity turns out to be the smoking gun.

You know that sample size doesn't prove anything, because if it did, no matter how conservative you are with your feedbacks you would have red tagged them long ago.

It's hard to convince people a tag is justified, when it comes to statistical evidence.

Not even counting everyone in that thread one by one would do it. I'm used to in poker that to get an idea the minimum sample size is 50K hands. And as brutal as variance can be, to prove things, better half a million hands.

That's peanuts compared to the sample I mentioned. With half the data from 10 out of 152 pages, I got a 0.00000239452 chance of it happening. Assuming (I'm not going to count 152 pages) that continues on the other pages, the chance of so little $200 prizes is (give or take) 0.00000239452³⁰. That's around 2.4*10^-169. Your one in a million poker hands are going to happen eventually. The E-169 thing confirms foul play.

In any case, with such a small sample, it seems quite a high deviation from what the mean should be, I agree.

That's all I wanted to hear

Quick math:
I checked the "BITCOINS WON BY USERS" counter on their website. It increases by about 1 Bitcoin every 40 seconds. That's about 15 Bitcoin per hour. 360 per day. At 5% house edge, the house earns about 18 Bitcoin per day. That's $1.25 million. Could that be anywhere near the truth?

[Poker Player]

Actually, that's why martingales and similar strategies don't work well in gambling. Even with a perfect 50/50 chance, there's still a very real possibility of hitting a losing streak of twenty, or even more, rolls.

In casinos it is even worse, because you never have 50 to win. It is 48.64% in European roulette and 47.37% in American roulette.

... so I don't think the larger prize winners are less likely to post.

That's what I was thinking.

That's peanuts compared to the sample I mentioned. With half the data from 10 out of 152 pages, I got a 0.00000239452 chance of it happening. Assuming (I'm not going to count 152 pages) that continues on the other pages, the chance of so little $200 prizes is (give or take) 0.00000239452³⁰. That's around 2.4*10^-169. Your one in a million poker hands are going to happen eventually. The E-169 thing confirms foul play.

I have to agree with you, I had the numbers in my head and it already seemed to me a deviation too far from the mean but I started to look at the other pages and they look the same, so everything indicates that with the larger sample we would still have similar numbers.

I think I flopped one Royal Straight Flush in my entire life (and only won the blinds because my opponents folded), which has a probability of 0.000154%. And I've played millions of hands. It's two orders of magnitude more likely than this.

Quick math:
I checked the "BITCOINS WON BY USERS" counter on their website. It increases by about 1 Bitcoin every 40 seconds. That's about 15 Bitcoin per hour. 360 per day. At 5% house edge, the house earns about 18 Bitcoin per day. That's $1.25 million. Could that be anywhere near the truth?

This should be kept in mind in case they come back claiming to have solved all the problems. The numbers don't add up.

It's hard to convince people a tag is justified, when it comes to statistical evidence.

Well, you have just convinced me. Although I had already red tagged them for other reasons. You didn't consider a neutral tag then?

[LoyceV]

You didn't consider a neutral tag then?

Nope, the topics about it were mostly ignored so I didn't bother. I guess TheQuin's "bullying" of people who complained worked well back then. I remember him posting he's just not going to respond anymore.

[shield132]

they get paid $5 to post on Bitcointalk

Any reason why you say that the Freebitco players get paid $5 to post on Bitcointalk? This is the first time I hear it.

Quick math:
I checked the "BITCOINS WON BY USERS" counter on their website. It increases by about 1 Bitcoin every 40 seconds. That's about 15 Bitcoin per hour. 360 per day. At 5% house edge, the house earns about 18 Bitcoin per day. That's $1.25 million. Could that be anywhere near the truth?

Their counter must be fake. If it was 2014, I would believe that users win 1 Bitcoin every hour because the price was very low but there is no way users win 1 Bitcoin every hour. Look at their registered users counter. It goes up with a regular speed, doesn't matter when you visit the website, the speed of users registering on Freebitco is the same, I haven't seen a little delay in a number of registered users. To be fair, I never trust any live statistics that shows the number of registering users in live with some other live statistics.

Btw is Freebitco really as popular as this article claims? [urk=https://decrypt.co/11005/bitcoin-casino-third-largest-internet-gambling-site-in-the-world]Bitcoin casino Freebitco.in is the third-largest Internet gambling platform in the world[/url]

[hosseinimr93]

they get paid $5 to post on Bitcointalk

Any reason why you say that the Freebitco players get paid $5 to post on Bitcointalk? This is the first time I hear it.

It's not that they pay anyone posting on the forum.
They give $5 to anyone posting screensheet of winning the two biggest prizes of their faucet.

Visit this thread for more information: Big wins at FreeBitco.in

Look at their registered users counter. It goes up with a regular speed, doesn't matter when you visit the website, the speed of users registering on Freebitco is the same, I haven't seen a little delay in a number of registered users. To be fair, I never trust any live statistics that shows the number of registering users in live with some other live statistics.

Read the old post made by TheQuin about the live stats.

The stats page is cached on Cloudflare and it updates hourly. The counter just runs at the current rate of increase so when you refresh the page you go back to when the page was last updated.

[Lucius]

Another post by @freebitco.in PR in which all the blame for what happened with the hacking of a certain number of users is shifted to the users themselves. There is no explanation about the deposits that have been stuck for even 8 months. As for @TheQuin, we now at least know that he will no longer be active on BTT, so no explanations should be expected from him.

Dear BTC Talk Community,

We have conducted a thorough review and found no issues on the website. It is possible that specific users may have encountered problems due to viruses or plugins they installed, which are beyond our control.

TheQuin is currently focusing on fraud prevention across our multiple properties and is no longer active on the forum. Customer support will now be handled by a professional team.

Best regards,
The FreeBitco.in Team

[JollyGood]

Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.

One would have to make a presumption that with it being a website they have their own customer base and not all of them are associated with this forum therefore would have no reason to post here about their winnings (or alleged winnings).

TheQuin's silence is nothing short of incriminating.

I cannot concur about his silence being incriminating but according to the post freebitco.in made today in another thread, it seems TheQuin will longer be posting in the forum. It does somehow look very suspicious as far as timing is concerned but the way he framed it was to appear as a business decision to allow him to focus on fraud prevention.

Dear BTC Talk Community,

We have conducted a thorough review and found no issues on the website. It is possible that specific users may have encountered problems due to viruses or plugins they installed, which are beyond our control.

TheQuin is currently focusing on fraud prevention across our multiple properties and is no longer active on the forum. Customer support will now be handled by a professional team.

Best regards,
The FreeBitco.in Team

[Get-Paid.com]

Quick math:
I checked the "BITCOINS WON BY USERS" counter on their website. It increases by about 1 Bitcoin every 40 seconds. That's about 15 Bitcoin per hour. 360 per day. At 5% house edge, the house earns about 18 Bitcoin per day. That's $1.25 million. Could that be anywhere near the truth?

No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This is our newest video about the saga with freebitco, video #2 in these "series":

https://youtu.be/Rui3BNMFc2o

[Poker Player]

No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This is our newest video about the saga with freebitco, video #2 in these "series":

https://youtu.be/Rui3BNMFc2o

I've seen that I appear on the video, lol. But I'm just a nickname here. Congratulations for having warned of the problems three months ago as well.

But you put too long ads before the video. For a channel that barely has any followers it doesn't seem like a good strategy. Better to put few and short ads at the beginning.

[Get-Paid.com]

But you put too long ads before the video. For a channel that barely has any followers it doesn't seem like a good strategy. Better to put few and short ads at the beginning.

Sincere apologies.
We don't control the ads, looks like youtube is doing whatever they want. Truly sorry about that.

We tried to use a different platform previously (e.g. Odysee) but youtube is simply the best from what we've seen.