midnight

No, for the reasons you listed, it does not make sense for them to reduce the rewards total. It would make sense for them to increase them proportionally. So, for some reason, when there were less users, there were a total of 5000 claims possible, but now with more users, there are only 2000 claims. It's not as if the higher wager requirement actually makes it less competitive. But these drops are for marketing purposes not as replacements for any compensation imo.

Weird chatgpt output, also doesn't consider house edge, and the max multiplier is not . Be careful taking AI advice without scrutiny. Slide also does not have a uniform distribution, it has a right skewed distribution since the multis go very high (instead of a uniform distribution like dice has.) The max/min multipliers % doesn't make a lot of sense either. You would actually want to do that formula Actual probability of winning, let house edge = 0.98 as it is on slide; P(n) = (1/target)*0.98 P(n) = (1/2)*.98 P(n) = 0.49 Formula: EV = (P(win) × Payout) - (P(lose) × Bet) P(lose) = 1 - P(win) EV = (P(0.49) * 1.98) - (P(.51) * 1) EV = (0.49 * 1.98) - .51 EV = 0.9702 - 0.51 EV = 0.4602

Some threads require you to have made 10 other posts first.

username: rubytuesday

here ya go

stake.com: rubytuesday

auto is slow. either he's using qbot or should macro it with spacebar or a script. even with instant bet it is slower than using some tool. But yes obviously I was just giving an example of average rolls per minute, how he does it is not important. There's no way for him to know if a seed will be good so imo over-focusing on that is a mistake. The statistics are more important and the expected value of grinding it. In the test seeds I have generated thru a python verifier, the highest value I saw was 35 million, and it was a very early nonce. In all the rolls I had on that excel sheet (about 1 million rolls, to check the ratios and stuff and see how tilted it might be, which it really isn't tbh it is spot on every expected average), there were 2 1m+ hits, which is above average. All of the higher multis were slightly above average while lower ones were slightly under average. But we're talking the 4th place of the decimal difference. If he's rolling as I mentioned there's no need to change server seed if you don't want to. I would do it around 300k though. I wrote a python script to search seed pairs (I tried to authentically reproduce the ones stake would use, just a sha256 hash, and the client seeds by default are A-Z 0-9 _ -, which approximate to the same complexity as a hexadecimal hash (which is only 0-9 abcdef. So if it's the whole alphabet, it can be only 10 characters but technically be as encrypted as a 64 bit hash in hex (64^16 vs. 10 ^ 36)

77000x? I present to you: The 100,000,000x!!! And all you have to do is beat astronomical odds. (1 base bet -> $9900, then going all in on a repeat 9900x -> $98m)

Zero evidence for it having anything to do with the bookmaker's ledger, other than what should be common sense that high multipliers are rare and low multipliers are not.

Seems like that is indeed literally all he does all week, lines up pretty well if you assume he takes a break to sleep lololol

If he's rolling nonstop every day at instant play, if you go at spacebar speed (holding down spacebar about 200 rolls per minute, without any extra scripting), you will make about 288,000 rolls per day. On average, you'll hit a 1mx every 4 days. And personally I have observed 1mx happen more often than expected (2-3 per million sometimes, closer to 2) so it could be faster than that. Specbey has 10.7m bets overall, and $1.47m played- so about .07 cents average per roll. So if he's rolling nonstop limbo, and he's doing it on usdt, (6.1m of his bets and 342k playthrough), which is about a .05 cent average per roll and checks out, he should have seen at least about 6. If he's seen less than that, he's unlucky, actually. Assuming every single roll is going for that ofc...

For all 6 million rounds of .com, the record was 24. For all 2.1 million rounds on the .us site, it was 20.

It's a sort of martingale mean reversion strategy, but yeah, he's doing it backwards imo, I don't like increasing bet too much because you just sort of accelerate faster to your doom, you could probably do better by starting at 1%, and then lowering it until it's at .1% as you miss. But, nothing is a 99.99% chance to win. These strategies always lose over time to the house edge even if you technically are going 1:1 in odds. if (lossCount > 50) then chance = 0.89 end if (lossCount > 150) then chance = 0.81 end if (lossCount > 200) then chance = 0.75 end if (lossCount > 300) then chance = 0.55 end if (lossCount > 350) then chance = 0.4 then maybe 500 to .2, and its sort of up to you, I feel like sometimes my success rate lowers too much if I try to keep lowering it all the way. I also tended to play at a higher base bet lol. If I'm going to divide it up that much, I'm gonna just do 00.01 rolls for 12,000 instead of doing a system that doesn't earn its own electricity cost on my pc The point with this is to go for the 1% hits which happen more often than it seems, and then when you do hit a dry streak, basically just hope the insurance of lowering bet helps enough. This also works on boom/limbo but I find it way more volatile. This system is not super fast though, and you also need a bot lol