BetPanda Provably Fair Original Games are not Provably Fair [Resolved]

[Zwei]

...

I have come across 2 players who were complaining of this for more than 1+ year.

They eventually gave up and went elsewhere - There is no player chat to discuss in the casino, support dismisses it, and places like this forum don't take these accusations seriously because the player will appear like a loser who is complaining

i hate to admit it, but i'm guilty of doing that sometimes. but it's kinda hard not to when they don't provide any proof of what they claim or it's hard to confirm, otherwise i would not dismiss those accusations without at least taking a look.

Betpanda can just ignore it, and even if it starts affecting their business, they can just claim it was an accident.

hard to ignore this one now.

But Betpanda is completely doing something wrong here. I hope you have heard the name of LuckyGames, it was one of the most popular casinos in the crypto gambling industry. But there was question about their provably fair system as they weren't using nonce for their games: Luckygames.io – The monarch of manipulation?.

this makes me think the crypto gambling foundation should make a comeback, i thought before there is no point having a foundation, since people can just verify things for themselves, but clearly i was wrong.

The situation is pretty same here for Betpanda. I wanted to check how the system was working in the past. Unfortunately, Betpanda doesn't allow the user to check old bets.

another thing that makes this look to have been done intentionally rather than just a "mistake".

[T1HGO]

You are absolutely correct about betby's flagging. But as long as the flagging stays at limiting winners and not confiscating fairly won funds, that's what i meant by saying it's fair. Every single sportsbook will limit winners. It's not a betby exclusive "feature".

Even if betby flags a player, at the end of the day, when you press withdrawal button, it's the casino's decision wether they pay or not. Having played at every casino you listed, except for betfury, i haven't experienced anything like with betpanda. Maybe i was lucky. Limited in all of them? Yes. Paid in all of them? Yes. Especially 500 where i played for the longest time.

Betpanda is the #1 offender, we agree on that. But Betby is guilty too for aggressive flagging.

If I lost lot of money I legitimately won, I would approach Betby too, accusing Betpanda and them for enabling it, to put pressure on Betpanda from the other end. If Betpanda is using their product to seize winnings and sometimes deposits from players of different countries, shouldn't that business relationship be a liability for Betby?

https://betby.com/en/ai-labs/
Not the real time activity alerts to restrict players, the profiling and suspicious activity detection:

99% increase in suspicious activity detection

Betby has a practice of voiding bets after matches have concluded and results are known saying "wrong odds". This is not industry practice. Place some additional blame on them.

We agree on pretty much everything. Yes betpanda is the #1 offender, and yes betby has an agressive flagging. But what is the immediate consequence of a player being flagged? He gets limited. If i get limited, but i am getting my winnings paid, i'm not opening a scam accusation thread. No one does. If you take a look at any case in this forum(or even outsite) against betpanda sportsbook related, 100% of the time, happen right after an withdrawal request. It never happens when the player is flagged.

I did lose money i legitimately won, and i did try to contact betby, on 3 different emails back in july of last year. 0 response.

As for voiding bets after matches conclusion, i can't speak much about that because it has never happened to me.

Since we are on this topic, here is the post of mister betpanda's representative himself, on my accusation thread against them, where he states, that since i was limited in other betby casinos(information given by me otherwise he would have no clue), they had the right to confiscate my winnings. Ignoring the fact i got paid in all of those.

Hello,

We are of course not in a position to comment on what the procedures of other casinos are, what their terms look like or what their policy is when a user breaches their Terms and Conditions.

However, the actions taken by Betby would strongly suggest to us that the suspicious betting behaviour the player was investigated for initially was/is calculated and systematic.

If this behaviour would indeed be coincidental and by chance as they claim, they wouldn't have been limited across all the operators, only at Betpanda.

Therefore we would like to reiterate that we are not a "scam" as is falsely claimed, but simply acting upon suspicious behaviour suspected and investigated (and now confirmed) by our sportsbook provider as per our Terms and Conditions.

We have brought this up several times internally with senior management and with all the information which has been made available to us through various mediums, we are not in a position to offer a refund due to the aforementioned reasons.

We do understand that this is not the outcome you were looking for, but the substantial action taken by Betby validated our suspicions and cemented their decision.

Hence, Betpanda considers the matter closed.

I love the part where he says "and now confirmed". Initially they had nothing, but since i made the "big revelation" i have been limited at other casinos using betby, it is now "confirmed". lol

[Rating Place]

Another thing to mention is that a good book limits you as soon as they figure out that you are sharp. Betpanda will wait in case you go on a losing streak before asking for a withdrawal. Betpanda free rolls players.

[doggywin]

Believe me, I'm not wrong. Betby isn't scamming anyone. They could put their lines 20 points off and give that to the book. They are giving information to a sportsbook. They aren't gambling. If books get mad at the Betby product, they switch to a new provider. If the book has crazy ToS, that's between the player and book. Betby doesn't make the rules.

The book could use Betradar, Don Best or anyone else to grade the bets. The odds can be at one place and the grading at another.

If you put it like that, you might as well say Betpanda is just following their Terms of service which you accepted. If the book has crazy ToS, that's between the player and book. - Are you kidding me? Illegal ToS is not just between player and book.

How the accounts are flagged and how flags are presented to the casino changes with the service. Betpanda is doing something illegal, and Betby facilitates it. You could use Betby against Betpanda. If you were motivated enough.

We agree on pretty much everything. Yes betpanda is the #1 offender, and yes betby has an agressive flagging. But what is the immediate consequence of a player being flagged? He gets limited. If i get limited, but i am getting my winnings paid, i'm not opening a scam accusation thread. No one does. If you take a look at any case in this forum(or even outsite) against betpanda sportsbook related, 100% of the time, happen right after an withdrawal request. It never happens when the player is flagged.

I did lose money i legitimately won, and i did try to contact betby, on 3 different emails back in july of last year. 0 response.

As for voiding bets after matches conclusion, i can't speak much about that because it has never happened to me.

Is there a way to know how their flagging is presented? If the senior management of Betpanda uses Betby flagging as a justification, then the UI of Betby is presenting these risk categorization bluntly at player level.

If it was me, I would get a lawyer to contact Betby.

Betpanda can just ignore it, and even if it starts affecting their business, they can just claim it was an accident.

hard to ignore this one now.

I hope so. Much appreciated

[Rating Place]

Believe me, I'm not wrong. Betby isn't scamming anyone. They could put their lines 20 points off and give that to the book. They are giving information to a sportsbook. They aren't gambling. If books get mad at the Betby product, they switch to a new provider. If the book has crazy ToS, that's between the player and book. Betby doesn't make the rules.

The book could use Betradar, Don Best or anyone else to grade the bets. The odds can be at one place and the grading at another.

If you put it like that, you might as well say Betpanda is just following their Terms of service which you accepted. If the book has crazy ToS, that's between the player and book. - Illegal ToS is not just between player and book.

How the accounts are flagged and how flags are presented to the casino changes with the service. Betpanda is doing something illegal, and Betby facilitates it. You could use Betby against Betpanda.

We agree on pretty much everything. Yes betpanda is the #1 offender, and yes betby has an agressive flagging. But what is the immediate consequence of a player being flagged? He gets limited. If i get limited, but i am getting my winnings paid, i'm not opening a scam accusation thread. No one does. If you take a look at any case in this forum(or even outsite) against betpanda sportsbook related, 100% of the time, happen right after an withdrawal request. It never happens when the player is flagged.

I did lose money i legitimately won, and i did try to contact betby, on 3 different emails back in july of last year. 0 response.

As for voiding bets after matches conclusion, i can't speak much about that because it has never happened to me.

Is there a way to know how their flagging is presented? If the senior management of Betpanda uses Betby flagging as a justification, then the UI of Betby is presenting these risk categorization bluntly at player level.

If it was me, I would get a lawyer to contact Betby.

Betpanda can just ignore it, and even if it starts affecting their business, they can just claim it was an accident.

hard to ignore this one now.

I hope so. Much appreciated

It's nothing more than profiling. Many odds providers profile. They use device ID, IP address, currency trails, betting patterns and behavior. AI has gotten very good. In the past it was easy to mulit-account by changing device and IP. It's not that easy today. Years ago it was all manual in house. Almost everything is AI today whether in house or outsourced.

 Odds providers make recommendations. Saying a line is off is a recommendation. Once again these odds providers have no liability. The book isn't forced to listen to any odds provider.

Many offshore fiat books use Don Best for grading purposes for the last 20 years. If Don Best says it's a bad line, the book makes it's own decision. This isn't something new. The flags say suspected arbitrage, or value, or sharp or multi-account. You get tagged. A tag may say recreational or any of the others. The book has control on how to use the profiles. It's cost-effective to use the AI recommendation.

[doggywin]

It's nothing more than profiling. Many odds providers profile. They use device ID, IP address, currency trails, betting patterns and behavior. AI has gotten very good. In the past it was easy to mulit-account by changing device and IP. It's not that easy today. Years ago it was all manual in house. Almost everything is AI today whether in house or outsourced.

 Odds providers make recommendations. Saying a line is off is a recommendation. Once again these odds providers have no liability. The book isn't forced to listen to any odds provider.

Many offshore fiat books use Don Best for grading purposes for the last 20 years. If Don Best says it's a bad line, the book makes it's own decision. This isn't something new. The flags say suspected arbitrage, or value, or sharp or multi-account. You get tagged. A tag may say recreational or any of the others. The book has control on how to use the profiles.

You are making very broad statements and refusing to look at the specifics. Betby's system is not identical to Don Best.

That is besides the point, this is an actionable angle. Betpanda is anonymous, but Betby isn't.

If there is a thief that stole your savings from you and you are very sure that is what happened, and you find that the thief has a job, you contact the employer with evidence. If they don't budge, find good reason to accuse them too, so they will take some action against the thief. Or you can do nothing and justify that employer did not do anything wrong, they just give jobs, and the theft is just between you and the thief.

[Rating Place]

It's nothing more than profiling. Many odds providers profile. They use device ID, IP address, currency trails, betting patterns and behavior. AI has gotten very good. In the past it was easy to mulit-account by changing device and IP. It's not that easy today. Years ago it was all manual in house. Almost everything is AI today whether in house or outsourced.

 Odds providers make recommendations. Saying a line is off is a recommendation. Once again these odds providers have no liability. The book isn't forced to listen to any odds provider.

Many offshore fiat books use Don Best for grading purposes for the last 20 years. If Don Best says it's a bad line, the book makes it's own decision. This isn't something new. The flags say suspected arbitrage, or value, or sharp or multi-account. You get tagged. A tag may say recreational or any of the others. The book has control on how to use the profiles.

You are making very broad statements and refusing to look at the specifics. Betby's system is not identical to Don Best.

That is besides the point, this is an actionable angle. Betpanda is anonymous, but Betby isn't.

If there is a thief that stole your savings from you and you are very sure that is what happened, and you find that the thief has a job, you contact the employer with evidence. If they don't budge, find good reason to accuse them too, so they will take some action against the thief. Or you can do nothing and justify that employer did not do anything wrong, they just give jobs, and the theft is just between you and the thief.

 Their grading is used in the exact same way but I agree they are very different. Why in the world would you think Betby holds any liability when the only thing they do is profile and make suggestions? There are no damages. You are profiled wrong is not a justification to sue. Since the first sportsbook opened, people have been profiled. It's risk management.  

[holydarkness]

...

I have come across 2 players who were complaining of this for more than 1+ year.

They eventually gave up and went elsewhere - There is no player chat to discuss in the casino, support dismisses it, and places like this forum don't take these accusations seriously because the player will appear like a loser who is complaining

i hate to admit it, but i'm guilty of doing that sometimes. but it's kinda hard not to when they don't provide any proof of what they claim or it's hard to confirm, otherwise i would not dismiss those accusations without at least taking a look.

Betpanda can just ignore it, and even if it starts affecting their business, they can just claim it was an accident.

hard to ignore this one now.

But Betpanda is completely doing something wrong here. I hope you have heard the name of LuckyGames, it was one of the most popular casinos in the crypto gambling industry. But there was question about their provably fair system as they weren't using nonce for their games: Luckygames.io – The monarch of manipulation?.

this makes me think the crypto gambling foundation should make a comeback, i thought before there is no point having a foundation, since people can just verify things for themselves, but clearly i was wrong.

The situation is pretty same here for Betpanda. I wanted to check how the system was working in the past. Unfortunately, Betpanda doesn't allow the user to check old bets.

another thing that makes this look to have been done intentionally rather than just a "mistake".

I've reached and notified BetPanda about this. But this is Friday afternoon in most part of the world, off of office hour already, so we'll probably have to get until early next week to get them to be aware of my nudge, get it escalated and addressed properly. But yeah, rest assured that BetPanda has been notified about this.

[doggywin]

In my account, the nonce has started incrementing. I will test the full provably fair later.

Can anybody else check too to know if all accounts have functional provably fair?

[Mahdirakib]

~ this makes me think the crypto gambling foundation should make a comeback, i thought before there is no point having a foundation, since people can just verify things for themselves, but clearly i was wrong.

Yeah, it is really necessary now to see some activity again of the crypto gambling foundation. Almost every casino has in-house games nowadays. It won't be possible for all the users to make an investigation deeply like them to verify the probability and firmness of the games.

~snip~

Betpanda team has already updated their system, now the nonce is increasing on each bet. OP has also confirmed it above.

[doggywin]

Even months ago, I had observed both nonce increment provably fair and sever seed changing provably fair in the same game (originals dice) and within the same session.

I am not ruling out the possibility that the correct provably fair has not become the global default across all users.

I will wait for more independent confirmation before considering this a win.

[Betpanda]

Hello all,

Firstly, we want to thank you for the detective work you did to uncover this, this is exactly what these communities are great for.

And just to clarify, what you found was absolutely correct on the surface level.

As soon as we were informed about this post, we launched an investigation with the game provider and realised that seed-pairs were accidentally re-generating a new random seed-pair on the second bet (resetting on Nonce 1). As a result, this made verifying the server-hash impossible on your end, something which we wholly understand is a cause for suspicion.

Just to clear up exactly what happened and what we've fixed:

- We want to make it very clear that throughout the time when verifying the server-hash was not possible through the verification-tool, the RNG remained 100% random and nothing was changed in how it operated. Essentially every other bet (or when Nonce hit 1) the seeds would automatically rotate, creating a new random seed-pair.
- The seed-pairs now stays infinitely until you manually choose to rotate the seed-pair
- In the “Verify” tab after you’ve verified a round, the game provider has now added a JavaScript code-snippet of how we derive the RNG from the seeds to add further layer of transparency by allowing you to run the code and verify yourself.

As we truly appreciate this community and the value it brings through its voice and continuous feedback, and sometimes practically in situations like this, we would love to provide OP with a “finder’s fee” for helping us to locate and fix this as quickly as it was.

Please send us a DM with the email associated with your Betpanda account and we will add something nice to your account.

If you have any questions regarding this incident, please let us know and we will do our best to answer them.

- Team Betpanda

[Zwei]

Firstly, we want to thank you for the detective work you did to uncover this, this is exactly what these communities are great for.

do you not have a dev team? do you not test your product? an issue as serious as having a broken provably fair system while advertising your originals as provably fair should not have been going on for who knows how long, and needing the community and OP detective work to point it out.

And just to clarify, what you found was absolutely correct on the surface level.

so it was all working fine under the surface level?

As soon as we were informed about this post, we launched an investigation with the game provider and realised that seed-pairs were accidentally re-generating a new random seed-pair on the second bet (resetting on Nonce 1). As a result, this made verifying the server-hash impossible on your end, something which we wholly understand is a cause for suspicion.

accidentally, lol. you don't have something like that added to a provably fair system "accidentally", it was by design, and i don't think anyone else here believes this weak of an excuse.

Just to clear up exactly what happened and what we've fixed:

- We want to make it very clear that throughout the time when verifying the server-hash was not possible through the verification-tool, the RNG remained 100% random and nothing was changed in how it operated. Essentially every other bet (or when Nonce hit 1) the seeds would automatically rotate, creating a new random seed-pair.

can you prove the RNG remained 100% random and nothing was changed in how it operated? no.

- The seed-pairs now stays infinitely until you manually choose to rotate the seed-pair

i did a quick test and it seems everything is working as it should be now.

- In the “Verify” tab after you’ve verified a round, the game provider has now added a JavaScript code-snippet of how we derive the RNG from the seeds to add further layer of transparency by allowing you to run the code and verify yourself.

i don't see the js code snippet?

[doggywin]

I am updating the thread to resolved, at least the original games are provably fair.

It is hard to take your word for it that RNG remained 100% random:

1. Why did this go unaddressed for at least almost 1 year?
2. Why did players report that when they raised this issue with live support they dismissed it? You were aware of it, weren't you?
3. There are also accusations against Betpanda's sportsbook where the explanation Betpanda gives before closing their accounts and taking their winnings admits they did no investigation nor have any proof that the player played maliciously. The AI flag you get is meant for reducing betting limits, to do more than that, you need to investigate.

As soon as we were informed about this post, we launched an investigation with the game provider and realised that seed-pairs were accidentally re-generating a new random seed-pair on the second bet (resetting on Nonce 1). As a result, this made verifying the server-hash impossible on your end, something which we wholly understand is a cause for suspicion.

Who is the game provider?