Provably Fair Can Cheat Players. Proof and code provided.

[andyez]

Anyone who has spent an amount of time on any of the house games knows it is anything but fair.

Best example is plinko or dice, you will have statistical anomalies that are almost mathematically impossible. The will claim variance but they have obviously shuffled the seed results in a way to eventually rip anyone with any betting strategy given enough play.

 

 

      

4 hours ago, xrflive said:

And yet they still play every day 

that’s what addiction does to you. plenty of people dying from drug addiction and still using them every day too.

[dupeddonk]

36 minutes ago, andyez said:

Anyone who has spent an amount of time on any of the house games knows it is anything but fair.

Best example is plinko or dice, you will have statistical anomalies that are almost mathematically impossible. The will claim variance but they have obviously shuffled the seed results in a way to eventually rip anyone with any betting strategy given enough play.

What do you mean by shuffle the seed results?

Each nonce has it's own result that's determined when the seed is set.

The nonces go in order.  

If you keep track of your nonces ( and the hashed server seed displayed before you set your seed) and they do anything but give the result of each nonce in order, you will be able to prove it.

[girliegirl]

the most idiotic thing imo is the saying you can verify rtp only with about 1 mil. bets. Why, and why not 10 mil. bets or 100k bets. 

 

[dupeddonk]

3 minutes ago, girliegirl said:

the most idiotic thing imo is the saying you can verify rtp only with about 1 mil. bets. Why, and why not 10 mil. bets or 100k bets. 

 

For simple games like dice or plinko you don't need to make any bets to verify RTP if you know how the outcome is determined.  

 

[jungl3]

13 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

I've never said there's no way for stake manipulate results, there is.  Even while using the PF system in place.  And I've listed them many times.  The truth seems far less important than insulting me or pushing your agenda that you're being cheated by Stake.  You argue in bad faith (you call it arguing "for sport")  and this thread is a perfect example (there are others as well).  

Thank you. That's my point of interest and one that I'd like to discuss. I appreciate that you say there is an element of doubt and that provably fair alone might not explain our experiences here.

The scope of this thread has evolved from j-dawg's opening post and replies aren't a binary in favour of/against that post. It was derailed long ago, but I see it as a conversation. I'm not arguing about j-dawg being right or supporting him by debating with you - I was railing against your arguing with a one-size-fits-all response (provably fair) and ignoring any other points or questions.

13 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

Your response to @J-Dawglying  is to defend him by attacking me for calling him out on it.

Not quite. I don't think his post was as cold and calculated as you do, and the title is true. Provably fair systems can cheat players. While stake's provably fair inplementation seems legit in itself and I disagree with the OP, those two words alone aren't enough to prove things are fair when there are more moving parts, as you say yourself.

I have taken some pleasure in winding you up from time to time, but that's because I'm frustrated by a lot of your (non) answers and house-flavoured dick swinging, and like I said before - I didn't want you to have an easy time or the last word. Many people don't feel like the games here play as they should if results are random/variance is at play, but to be called idiots and rigtards, and that provably fair adds up so we're just sore losers - it's unnecessary and does start to grind. It feels as though you've been pushing an us VS them situation, to make anybody who questions the site or has doubts an 'other', and somebody that should be treated as an idiot. That's a common psychological tactic used by entities who want to gain or retain power, isn't it? It's no wonder that people think you might get paid to be here, when you're on the Goliath's side and appear to try to marginalise anything more than a "fuck, I ripped" comment. If it's the lack of hard data that frustrates you, then that's understandable, but there are many voices with many years of gambling under their belts who feel like something doesn't sit right here and these threads will only multiply as time goes on.

I accept and admit that nobody has come up with any solid patterns that prove anything. I'm not sure how to approach the research or where to begin. I believe that if there is fuckery at play, it would strike at crucial moments rather than affect every outcome. Humanising a test set of bets to run doesn't seem too difficult, but then bet size is an issue. A common complaint is "I raised my bet size then got destroyed", so the experiment would need to have a mixture of play and a decent bankroll before it might show anything, imo. If bets are automated, low $ value or otherwise easily recognisable as a pattern, I think it could affect the result. And then we get into "but you gotta do 37 trillion bets before it counts". There are no smoking guns or stake wouldn't still be here.

If the truth is really what you care about, then let's consider the possibilities and do some experiments that test our hypotheses. I think there are enough people interested and that crowdfunding to perform some analysis might even be possible (this is hypothetical and it would be against stake's TOS, so it's just discussion for the sake of discussion).

Using machine learning, more organic test sets could be trained from bet archives.

And then stake couldn't know which account(s) were going to be used or which set would be run, for a controlled experiment.

Complicated shit.

Again, this topic has been badly derailed. And any fresh topics are normally fucked up by people with trash English trying to get their post count up before a Saturday and adding nothing to the conversation. They often pop up at questionable times, along with popular threads about absolute nonsense to drown any interesting discussion. Anyway, I digress..

 

 

[dupeddonk]

32 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

I don't think his post was as cold and calculated as you do, and the title is true.

 

I know you know all this already; I'm just pointing it out so that others just now finding this thread don't fall for your bullshit...

@J-Dawg went and found someone elses post from another forum 6 years ago about a casino that doesn't exist anymore using a method that stake has never used.

Before posting it in this thread, he deleted:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation"

And then replaced it with:

"All provably fair casino games"

 

 

Here's the original post, that was copied and edited by @J-Dawg with the intention of manipulating people:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1494470.msg15038912#msg15038912

Bitzino only offered card games.  Their method of determine the outcome (or "shuffling the deck") is similar to how Stake does it in that a server and client seed are used.  The difference is that before taking the seeds into consideration, they do a "pre shuffle" behind the scenes.  Meaning they can set the order of the cards to whatever they want.  This is the part that the post from 6 years ago describes possible exploits. 

Stake does not have a pre shuffle.  They've never had a pre shuffle for any of their games.  So, obviously, the entire argument is irrelevant.  

And now, the rigtards seem to have run out of only mildly ridiculous arguments and have turned to shamelessly defending blatant lies.

Besides @jungl3, here's another example:

On 12/11/2022 at 8:32 AM, Losingdough said:

j dawg didnt dupe anyone.  the relevant thing in his post is that stake most definitely can employ "provably fair in a dishonest card stacking way. and stake uses this card shuffling system on their original games so the argument in j dawgs post holds true and relevant.

^^100% lie.

[jungl3]

9 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

 

I know you know all this already; I'm just pointing it out so that others just now finding this thread don't fall for your bullshit...

@J-Dawg went and found someone elses post from another forum 6 years ago about a casino that doesn't exist anymore using a method that stake has never used.

Before posting it in this thread, he deleted:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation"

And then replaced it with:

"All provably fair casino games"

 

 

Here's the original post, that was copied and edited by @J-Dawg with the intention of manipulating people:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1494470.msg15038912#msg15038912

Bitzino only offered card games.  Their method of determine the outcome (or "shuffling the deck") is similar to how Stake does it in that a server and client seed are used.  The difference is that before taking the seeds into consideration, they do a "pre shuffle" behind the scenes.  Meaning they can set the order of the cards to whatever they want.  This is the part that the post from 6 years ago describes possible exploits. 

Stake does not have a pre shuffle.  They've never had a pre shuffle for any of their games.  So, obviously, the entire argument is irrelevant.  

Alright, best of luck with your future endeavours, duped.

Lock or delete the thread if it's that important to squash the opening post.

 

 

 

 

[andyez]

21 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

What do you mean by shuffle the seed results?

Each nonce has it's own result that's determined when the seed is set.

The nonces go in order. 

There is only so many outcomes on any of the games and the results are “shuffled” by the algorithm that spits out the results. the algorithm is set up to generate results in a way to rip us. the games seem to play too streaky with these systems, and when i play at different sites i see different patterns between them. if it wasn’t shuffling it based on the seed phrase then every seed would have same consistency.

I think remember a while back they updated the seeds, so they changed the way they generated results, for good or bad idk.

[dupeddonk]

5 hours ago, andyez said:

There is only so many outcomes on any of the games and the results are “shuffled” by the algorithm that spits out the results. the algorithm is set up to generate results in a way to rip us. the games seem to play too streaky with these systems, and when i play at different sites i see different patterns between them. if it wasn’t shuffling it based on the seed phrase then every seed would have same consistency.

I think remember a while back they updated the seeds, so they changed the way they generated results, for good or bad idk.

Each outcome is determined by the hash of the client seed + server seed + nonce.  If this is manipulated by changing the order of the outcomes like you say, then either the result will not verify or the nonces will be out of order.  If your claims are accurate, you'll be able to prove them if you carefully keep track of your nonces and verify your bets.  

[GawShlogen]

This is utter nonesense, the RNG code for all original games, is available on github, no shuffling or manipulation is done. Otherwise you could prove it once you fail to generate the same results as the ones stake produced offline. If you do, then kudos, you just proved stake is rigged.

I have verified millions of limbo bets and all results i generated offline for all seed pairs i had matched exactly with stake's.

Stake RNG Code: https://github.com/provably-fair/provably-fair-app/blob/master/src/services/Stake/generic.js

As you can tell from the code below, Stake uses one deck of card for bj, card positions stays the same and no shuffling or manipulation is done.

https://github.com/provably-fair/provably-fair-app/blob/4c440bf961afad4471fd84f00612b8d72d165275/src/services/Stake/betElements.js#L135 

[jungl3]

On 12/24/2022 at 9:11 PM, GawShlogen said:

As you can tell from the code below, Stake uses one deck of card for bj, card positions stays the same and no shuffling or manipulation is done.

 

On 12/24/2022 at 9:11 PM, GawShlogen said:

As you can tell from the code below, Stake uses one deck of card for bj, card positions stays the same and no shuffling or manipulation is done.

Does it remove drawn cards from the pool in blackjack or is it an infinite deck, like Hilo? I don't see that in the code, but then I'm not much of a programmer. It will make less difference for blackjack than hilo, but it would subtly affect the odds.

This thread had a nice rest over Christmas and New Year.

[juliusprince]

after all the program is with them

[sklerenkima]

It was a very enlightening topic. thanks.

[EddieJeanShorts]

Can someone explain to me the point of probably fair when it comes to jacks or better video poker or blackjack?

 

I routinely lose 20 hands in a row in both games playing optimal strategy. The probability of this occurring is insanely small yet it happens every single session.

Whats the point of verifying hands when every hand dealt is a loser? 

[fredzapper]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:52 PM, EddieJeanShorts said:

Can someone explain to me the point of probably fair when it comes to jacks or better video poker or blackjack?

 

I routinely lose 20 hands in a row in both games playing optimal strategy. The probability of this occurring is insanely small yet it happens every single session.

Whats the point of verifying hands when every hand dealt is a loser? 

It's rigged, doesn't matter what anyone tells you that has a vested interest to say otherwise. 

The problem with online gamblers, is they have a very low IQ, so they will continue gambling even if you show them it's rigged. 

[Cryptohop]

GLAD U POSTED THIS. Ive actually figured out a lot to my benefit. and i also realized how the seeds are smart and wil play against you if you play certain strategies. We need a discord for ppl really interested in talking about this. I HAVE TONS OF PROOF

[fredzapper]

Discord is a good idea, spam it in Eddie's live stream chat if you can't post it here