No, I did nothing to test server, it is today what it was yesterday. No updates made, nothing changed there. If the results come different it may only mean your luck has changed on drawing it.
Also I could draw within less than 10 tries, didn't took 200K tries to get it, simulations where the player was down to -15 or less by 50 hands played.
That bug was from a CVS version of PHP back in 2002, PHP5.2 is far younger than that, the other bug was from 2000 and PHP 4.0.1.
Under your logic, folks winning lotto should be returning the money, as the odds against winning such thing is over 50,000,000:1... and still sometimes happens.
And you're applying gambler's fallacy there, you're stating the odds after 500 hands assuming you'll play 500 hands when you can well be down at 50 or 100, each time gamblers' gamble it also counts how much or how longer his chip stack will hold. Otherwise that "lose and double" Blackjack "scheme" would work, as sooner or later you'll win a hand, question is if you have a limitless stack to hold that long.
I'm not saying any such things.
I'm saying use Bayes Theorem.
If only one guy plays the lotto, and he wins right away, yes, it probably is rigged. If 10 million people play, and someone hits, it's far less likely that it's rigged.
If I run a simulation, if I don't apply every possibility (well, if you get below 15 bets, you quit), you dismiss it. I'll run that test if you want. But say it's 150,000:1 against that happening in a legit deck. You'll just say "oh well you had bad luck, so sorry!" It is impossible to provide enough proof to you. I wish you would have let me know that no proof would be good enough before I wasted my time.
How could you ever prove something is rigged? In your case, run a million samples, and if it shows a pattern the wrong way "oh, I guess you were just unlucky!" There is no way you would ever accept any evidence no matter what. You are taking out the fact that you got exploited by someone else out on me.
Yes, over the short term, being down 4-5 bets is not unreasonable. You only will hit a few ties, and the player edge exists on the tie scenario. Getting down 15 bets is MUCH harder. Getting down 30 bets is EXTREMELY hard. So yes, what you are showing is not hard at all to have happen. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. A much bigger downswing happened. The distribution of the cards was EXACTLY the result of the PHP bug that I found where shuffling was flawed (cards tend to be much closer to their original shuffling positions, which make the dealer, who gets the 2nd card, much more likely to get a higher card). Everything makes sense.
I have no idea why you run 50 sample size, it's noise at that point. And even then, you never run so badly that you get down 15 bets or 30 bets.
I'll give you the exact odds, but being down after 50 samples is probably about 40-45%. I'll have to run the math to simulate it, and I don't have that computer with me now. So the odds of your scenario happening (lose 3/4) is 20% based on that number. 20% vs. 0.000036% is a huge difference.
So tell me this, what, if anything, could convince you of a problem that you could not blame on "bad luck"? Is there anything other than an obvious payout problem (you win but never get paid any chips, or only half the proper amount)?
