Is Provably fair, truly provable fair??

[t308017]

I ask you this one question.

If someone you know, and you think you trust, asks you to gamble $10K on a bet where the odds of you losing are 402M to 1 in your favour, would you take it?

How would you feel if you lost?

Well that is what just happened to me so I speak to support and I get the usual scripted response but I wanted to try and level with them but they just closed the conversation so thought I would open up the discussion here.

There bet in question was a delayed martingale that would fail at a 29 Loss streak on a 49.5% win chance and here is a breakdown of the odds, you can check yourself:

The casino says they are pure and innocent and I was just unlucky.

UNLUCKY, man I must be the most unluckiest person in world and the casino is without blame!

The odd of winning the EuroMillions Jackpot is only  1 in 139,838,160. So by my calculations I had a much better chance of winning that 2 times then hitting a 29 loss streak by normal mathematical calculations.

Something smell rotten and I blame the seed.

The casino cannot claim to 100% provably fair unless they outsource they outsource the server seed generation to a third party.

I would love to hear other peoples view!

 

[SweetL0u]

We don't have enough information. How many bets were placed before you hit the 29 losses streak?

 

[t308017]

Just now, SweetL0u said:

We don't have enough information. How many bets were placed before you hit the 29 losses streak?

 

I couldn't be precise but maybe around 100K bets but the seed has 6M bets on it.

[SweetL0u]

2 minutes ago, t308017 said:

I couldn't be precise but maybe around 100K bets but the seed has 6M bets on it.

Ok, for this specific martingale strategy you did 100,000 bets and what amount is the starting bet?

[dejanbg]

Better name "probably fair"

[Fanta13]

if I have the money ,yes 

[t308017]

8 minutes ago, SweetL0u said:

Ok, for this specific martingale strategy you did 100,000 bets and what amount is the starting bet?

Here is a full breakdown:

This all stinks. Something is badly wrong!

[SweetL0u]

Anyway, 

If you placed 100,000 bets. You go from 1 on 402,000,000 to 1 on 4,023.

To put in perspective, you are more likely to hit this then a max win.

I understand it's hard to believe when we hit a huge losing streak. But a casino doesn't even needs to change the odds to win, why would a big casino like Stake would risk to lose it all. It would just be a bad business move and add complexity for no reason. They just have to get people to play and let mathematics do it's magic.

[t308017]

Can I get a witness here?

Is my logic flawed?

I had a 2X better chance of winning the Euro Millions than hitting a 29 loss streak on 49.5% win chance on dice..

Please tell me I am wrong. because it makes me question the true nature of provably fair!

[SweetL0u]

1 minute ago, t308017 said:

Can I get a witness here?

Is my logic flawed?

I had a 2X better chance of winning the Euro Millions than hitting a 29 loss streak on 49.5% win chance on dice..

Please tell me I am wrong. because it makes me question the true nature of provably fair!

Yes it's flawed, because you've placed 100,000 bets on dice before it happened, it's like buying 100,000 tickets for the Euro Million, it would increase your chance of winning by a lot.

[t308017]

4 minutes ago, SweetL0u said:

Anyway, 

If you placed 100,000 bets. You go from 1 on 402,000,000 to 1 on 4,023.

To put in perspective, you are more likely to hit this then a max win.

I understand it's hard to believe when we hit a huge losing streak. But a casino doesn't even needs to change the odds to win, why would a big casino like Stake would risk to lose it all. It would just be a bad business move and add complexity for no reason. They just have to get people to play and let mathematics do it's magic.

My understanding is that the seed is an infinite loop of random numbers, with the 1st 1M+ being prepopulated by Stake as they cannot prepopulated an infinite number. They average out over the period, but some are more lumpy than others and Stake will know these seeds far more then we do. There is no way this fair unless they use a third party..

3 minutes ago, SweetL0u said:

Yes it's flawed, because you've placed 100,000 bets on dice before it happened, it's like buying 100,000 tickets for the Euro Million, it would increase your chance of winning by a lot.

Yeh I get that. but the point I was trying to make, not very well lol, is that Stake cannot provably be fair

These extreme events should come in like once a year or at least 1 in 402M bets

4 minutes ago, t308017 said:

My understanding is that the seed is an infinite loop of random numbers, with the 1st 1M+ being prepopulated by Stake as they cannot prepopulated an infinite number. They average out over the period, but some are more lumpy than others and Stake will know these seeds far more then we do. There is no way this fair unless they use a third party..

Yeh I get that. but the point I was trying to make, not very well lol, is that Stake cannot provably be fair

These extreme events should come in like once a year or at least 1 in 402M bets

Each bet has no knowledge of it's previous bet, it is just a random number, supposedly, and the odds of it hitting 29 losses in a row remain the no matter how many bets you have placed.

This seed was manipulated to fail 

7 minutes ago, t308017 said:

My understanding is that the seed is an infinite loop of random numbers, with the 1st 1M+ being prepopulated by Stake as they cannot prepopulated an infinite number. They average out over the period, but some are more lumpy than others and Stake will know these seeds far more then we do. There is no way this fair unless they use a third party..

Yeh I get that. but the point I was trying to make, not very well lol, is that Stake cannot provably be fair

These extreme events should come in like once a year or at least 1 in 402M bets

Each bet has no knowledge of it's previous bet, it is just a random number, supposedly, and the odds of it hitting 29 losses in a row remain the no matter how many bets you have placed.

This seed was manipulated to fail 

Or better described as predestined to fail 

[DonRa]

im not very good at math, but im 100% logic, and by i saw here my conlcusion is the "probably fair" is a myth and a bait to catch new players.

[Uspech33]

You are not the first, you are not the last...

[t308017]

3 minutes ago, Uspech33 said:

You are not the first, you are not the last...

We need to start a campaign #Freetheseed get the Casino to outsource Seed generation!!

[Massif]

No. It's just an overused marketing trick for blinding the peasants.

[benhuan]

The provable fair formula is to ensure gamblers will lose money in long term.

[kayttobr]

9 hours ago, SweetL0u said:

Yes it's flawed, because you've placed 100,000 bets on dice before it happened, it's like buying 100,000 tickets for the Euro Million, it would increase your chance of winning by a lot.

What the fuck are you talking about? That's not how probability works, if the numbers were actually dependent on one another, the odds that was 1 in 400 million would not decrease to 1 to 4024 after he bets 100K times. You don't divide 100k by the total of odds, it's a fkn incremental value or decreasing one.

Losing 29 times in a row on a 49.5% winchance is <0.000001%, "<" means less btw so you can get it in your head.

Whereas winning the lottery with 6 correct numbers out of 49 output, is 0.0000074%, so losing 29 times in a row is 7.4 times more difficult than winning a lottery with those odds, whereas you can get hit by lightning twice which has bigger odds than winning that lottery, you're telling me that it's normal after he bets 100k times?

You delusional filth. If he bet 200 million times then I'd say yes, he has a high chance of losing 29 times in a row cause eventually it should come, but 100k? Are you delusional? That's not even 1/100th of the total odds.

[SweetL0u]

1 hour ago, kayttobr said:

What the fuck are you talking about? That's not how probability works, if the numbers were actually dependent on one another, the odds that was 1 in 400 million would not decrease to 1 to 4024 after he bets 100K times. You don't divide 100k by the total of odds, it's a fkn incremental value or decreasing one.

Losing 29 times in a row on a 49.5% winchance is <0.000001%, "<" means less btw so you can get it in your head.

Whereas winning the lottery with 6 correct numbers out of 49 output, is 0.0000074%, so losing 29 times in a row is 7.4 times more difficult than winning a lottery with those odds, whereas you can get hit by lightning twice which has bigger odds than winning that lottery, you're telling me that it's normal after he bets 100k times?

You delusional filth. If he bet 200 million times then I'd say yes, he has a high chance of losing 29 times in a row cause eventually it should come, but 100k? Are you delusional? That's not even 1/100th of the total odds.

 

Calm your tits

 

Let's make it simple

Odds of winning the Lottery: 1 in 140,000,000

Losing 29 times in a row: 1 in 400,000,000

If you buy 140 millions lottery tickets with random numbers, you are expected to win 1 time. But you could buy 1000 tickets and win or buy 280 millions tickets and not win. That's assuming you buy a ticket with random numbers.

If play dice (49,5%) you are expected to lose 29 times in a row every 400 millions play. The more you play the more you are likely hit 29 losses in a row but again you could play 1 billion times and not hit 29 losses in a row.

 

For the dice situation, there is 2 possible situations you either lose 29 times in a row or you don't.

If you lose 28 times in a row and win the 29th one, that counts as one occurrence therefore one play. I should of said plays instead of bets, and yes you are right 100,000 bets is not taking into account the losses streak.

We need a bigger sample before claiming something like OP is claiming.

[dupeddonk]

14 hours ago, t308017 said:

I ask you this one question.

If someone you know, and you think you trust, asks you to gamble $10K on a bet where the odds of you losing are 402M to 1 in your favour, would you take it?

How would you feel if you lost?

Well that is what just happened to me so I speak to support and I get the usual scripted response but I wanted to try and level with them but they just closed the conversation so thought I would open up the discussion here.

There bet in question was a delayed martingale that would fail at a 29 Loss streak on a 49.5% win chance and here is a breakdown of the odds, you can check yourself:

The casino says they are pure and innocent and I was just unlucky.

UNLUCKY, man I must be the most unluckiest person in world and the casino is without blame!

The odd of winning the EuroMillions Jackpot is only  1 in 139,838,160. So by my calculations I had a much better chance of winning that 2 times then hitting a 29 loss streak by normal mathematical calculations.

Something smell rotten and I blame the seed.

The casino cannot claim to 100% provably fair unless they outsource they outsource the server seed generation to a third party.

I would love to hear other peoples view!

 

If someone asked me to risk my entire balance over and over again for the chance to profit a fraction of 1% of my wager until the gale becomes a fail, I would say "no - that doesn't sound fun at all."

 

[twitchsteveo13]

bottom line is never touch stake originals.

[t308017]

My view is that is this was rigged and no one is going to convince me otherwise. The casino predestined this seed to fail and all provably fair does is, show that bets where mot manipulated with. It can't prove it was rigged to fail to begin with!!

The casino should not be allowed to be in charge of seed generation #FreeTheSeed

22 hours ago, SweetL0u said:

Ok, for this specific martingale strategy you did 100,000 bets and what amount is the starting bet?

 

22 hours ago, SweetL0u said:

Anyway, 

If you placed 100,000 bets. You go from 1 on 402,000,000 to 1 on 4,023.

To put in perspective, you are more likely to hit this then a max win.

I understand it's hard to believe when we hit a huge losing streak. But a casino doesn't even needs to change the odds to win, why would a big casino like Stake would risk to lose it all. It would just be a bad business move and add complexity for no reason. They just have to get people to play and let mathematics do it's magic.

 

21 hours ago, t308017 said:

My understanding is that the seed is an infinite loop of random numbers, with the 1st 1M+ being prepopulated by Stake as they cannot prepopulated an infinite number. They average out over the period, but some are more lumpy than others and Stake will know these seeds far more then we do. There is no way this fair unless they use a third party..

Yeh I get that. but the point I was trying to make, not very well lol, is that Stake cannot provably be fair

These extreme events should come in like once a year or at least 1 in 402M bets

 

[SweetL0u]

9 minutes ago, t308017 said:

My view is that is this was rigged and no one is going to convince me otherwise. The casino predestined this seed to fail and all provably fair does is, show that bets where mot manipulated with. It can't prove it was rigged to fail to begin with!!

The casino should not be allowed to be in charge of seed generation #FreeTheSeed

 

 

 

How much did you made in profit before the 29 losses in a row happened.

[t308017]

What is the relevance of that question? 

[dollartree1]

Does everyone forget that we as the player can and should manipulate the seed that is generated?  It's called the client seed, which gets amended to the server seed.   So if you think the casino will give you a bad seed, change it and insert a client seed you like. Then you only have yourself to blame for picking a bad seed.  Anyone who thinks originals are "rigged"  I urge you to do this.  And to get educated on how the system works before labeling it a scam. 

[badaohjhj]

I find it very fair