Why is originals is an scripts (PoC inside)

[perlnecrohac]

Below will be a lot of command line actions, perl code and a bit of high school math to demonstrate that the original stake does not meet the stated "provably fair games" and the developers are manipulating the values. 

For the example, I took an archive of limbo bets in which I caught odds of 1 million or 300000 at a minimum bet amount of about 0.00000240 LTC

No strategies were used, no martingale was used! 

1. To start with, I downloaded the betting archive in json format and using the command line (using a regular expression) exported the betting numbers and the result of the game to a new file (example below)

perl -ne 'while(/"result":(\d+).(\d+)/g){print "$&\n";}' /home/fd/BetArchive/*.json | cat -n > /home/fd/limbo.txt

I received following a file in a .txt format

 

Quote

     1  "result":1.424164869109207
     2  "result":8.444894501381174
     3  "result":2.2467190972783486
     4  "result":1.8228985276610792
     5  "result":1.421209384437433
     6  "result":2.963692717047799
     7  "result":2.7582159042958367
     8  "result":4.611656592501934
     9  "result":4.69958937059328
    10  "result":2.812000523479636
    11  "result":21.795139612975692
    12  "result":1.8009824780548738
    13  "result":1.402010913935763
    14  "result":3.225732896100151
    15  "result":10.65376530527812
    16  "result":2.4107599024806983
 

Where the first column shows the bet number and the second column shows the odds

2. Next, I deleted the "result": from the file with command sed 's/"result"://g' limbo.txt > limbo2.txt and got the following file ready for analysis

 

Quote

     1  1.424164869109207
     2  8.444894501381174
     3  2.2467190972783486
     4  1.8228985276610792
     5  1.421209384437433
     6  2.963692717047799
     7  2.7582159042958367
     8  4.611656592501934
     9  4.69958937059328
    10  2.812000523479636
    11  21.795139612975692
    12  1.8009824780548738
    13  1.402010913935763
    14  3.225732896100151
    15  10.65376530527812
    16  2.4107599024806983
 

Now it's time to run this file through a perl script that looks for the maximum series with odds less than 2.00x in a file containing 115793 bets

perl fls.pl --infile limbo2.txt --limit 2.0

I received following outut:

 

Quote

1.651813653666627
1.198468639152821
1.3827146753063282
1.659597620530939
1.13645783993663
1.3934792751819407
1.1990276246156992
1.05213479279852
1.8189189499372063
1.463368685310837
1.5935051735007237
1.61242991519752
1.603039394974723
1.0744731082268064
 

Next, I open the file, and look for 1.651813653666627 in it.

You can see that the maximum series of odds of less than 2x was 14 times, from 111160 to 111173 bets. 

Based on this research, I concluded that Stake is not responsible for what the website says Provably Fair. It can't be provably fair, because imagine what kind of wager I could make by doubling my bet 2x every time less than 2x comes up, starting with an amount of 1 cent. 

I'm not encouraging you to give up playing games, I'm just encouraging you to take care of your mental health, don't get nervous and depressed when you lose. Rest assured, the script will give you your loss, only the casino will take a small commission for endorphins and adrenaline. Thank you all for your attention, and take care of yourself! Do not try to make money on the casino, buying or using dubious strategies.

[javierfg]

What you write doesn't really prove anything...


I think you don't understand what PF is

[sportfanaatje]

looks impressive, for me it's rocket science, 

[perlnecrohac]

1 minute ago, javierfg said:

What you write doesn't really prove anything...


I think you don't understand what PF is

Do you really think if I start catching 2x in limbo now with two cents, doubling my bet 2x every time I catch less than 2x, my last bet of $320, will win? I don't think so. I'm more than sure a series of less than 2x will come much sooner than I'd like. I think after 1000 rolls I'll have 0 left already. 

[Macrogarden]

Poc ?

[perlnecrohac]

3 minutes ago, Macrogarden said:

Poc ?

No?

[Valeron]

Good job

[javierfg]

3 hours ago, perlnecrohac said:

¿De verdad crees que si empiezo a atrapar 2x en el limbo ahora con dos centavos, duplicando mi apuesta 2x cada vez que atrapo menos de 2x, mi última apuesta de $320 ganará? No me parece. Estoy más que seguro de que una serie de menos de 2x llegará mucho antes de lo que me gustaría. Creo que después de 1000 tiradas ya me quedarán 0. 

The casino does not take into account previous events, it has no memory

Each event is independent

[perlnecrohac]

3 minutes ago, javierfg said:

The casino does not take into account previous events, it has no memory

Each event is independent

lol, ok, i faith 

[Mystro91]

Yea I agree with naive 

[Aswasw17]

as i know, read some provable fair script etc, the game basically just create between 2 or less than 2.

in this case, combination of both seed (server and user with nonce) only calculate for result 2 or less.

by this, it will has (theoritically, imo) 49,5% chance. thats why most original game has 98.8xx% edge (or writen 99% RTP).

so, no matter what you do, you'll end in lose cause A>B, where A is less than 2.

overall, it just my opinion. and my friend ever told me about this in simple word.

[EddieJeanShorts]

Someone needs to explain provably fair in a way that convinces me it’s more than a marketing gimmick for BJ and video poker. losing 18 consecutive hands of BJ or 56 hands of video poker playing optimal strategy is basically impossible yet it happens fairly often at take.con. 

[memolan]

Have no idea

[Aswasw17]

7 hours ago, EddieJeanShorts said:

Someone needs to explain provably fair in a way that convinces me it’s more than a marketing gimmick for BJ and video poker. losing 18 consecutive hands of BJ or 56 hands of video poker playing optimal strategy is basically impossible yet it happens fairly often at take.con. 

you can try card counter strategy. we know, in blackjack game dealer has 3 or more deck cards, and you can count it.

rember to not change your seed while counting.

hope its helpfull

[javierfg]

21 hours ago, perlnecrohac said:

jajaja, ok, tengo fe 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

[Downloaded]

Just some input based on what you provided:

In a dataset of 111,173 bets, given the win probability of 49.5% per bet, we can expect approximately 5.89 sequences of 14 consecutive wins (with odds less than 2.00x) to occur by chance.

The math:

Probability of a Single Sequence: P(14-Win Sequence)=p14P(14-Win Sequence)=p14 Where p=0.495p=0.495 (Probability of winning a single bet)

So, P(14-Win Sequence)=0.49514≈5.30×10−5P(14-Win Sequence)=0.49514≈5.30×10−5

Expected Number of Sequences in the Dataset: Expected Sequences=(Total Bets−13)×P(14-Win Sequence)Expected Sequences=(Total Bets−13)×P(14-Win Sequence) Here, Total Bets = 111,173

So, Expected Sequences≈(111,173−13)×5.30×10−5Expected Sequences≈(111,173−13)×5.30×10−5

 

The chart illustrates the cumulative probability of observing at least one sequence of 14 consecutive wins (with odds less than 2.00x) as we progress through a dataset of 111,173 bets, given a win chance of 49.5% per bet.

As the number of bets increases, so does the cumulative probability of encountering at least one such sequence. This visualization demonstrates that while the probability of such a sequence occurring in a small number of bets is very low, it accumulates and becomes more likely as the number of bets increases.

This accumulation effect explains why, in a large dataset like the one in question, it is not implausible to observe at least one sequence of 14 consecutive wins. The graph shows that towards the end of the dataset (111,160 bets), the likelihood of having encountered at least one such sequence has increased significantly, aligning with the statistical expectation that such sequences can occur in a dataset of this size.

This analysis, both mathematical and visual, supports the idea that the occurrence of the sequence in question, while rare, is within the expected range for a large dataset of bets with a 49.5% win probability per bet.

python code used to figure this out:
 

Quote

# Python code to reproduce the analysis and chart

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Given win probability per bet
win_probability = 0.495

# Length of the winning sequence
sequence_length = 14

# Total number of bets in the dataset
total_bets = 111173

# Calculating the probability of a 14-consecutive win sequence
probability_sequence = win_probability ** sequence_length

# Calculating the expected number of such sequences in the dataset
# Subtracting 13 from total bets as each sequence includes 14 bets
total_opportunities = total_bets - 13
expected_sequences = total_opportunities * probability_sequence

# Generating data for the cumulative probability chart
cumulative_probabilities = [1 - (1 - probability_sequence) ** i for i in range(total_opportunities)]

# Plotting the chart
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 6))
plt.plot(cumulative_probabilities, color='blue')
plt.title('Cumulative Probability of Observing At Least One 14-Consecutive Win Sequence')
plt.xlabel('Number of Bets')
plt.ylabel('Cumulative Probability')
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

# Output the expected number of sequences and the probability of a single sequence
(expected_sequences, probability_sequence)

 

[perlnecrohac]

1 hour ago, Downloaded said:

Just some input based on what you provided:

In a dataset of 111,173 bets, given the win probability of 49.5% per bet, we can expect approximately 5.89 sequences of 14 consecutive wins (with odds less than 2.00x) to occur by chance.

The math:

Probability of a Single Sequence: P(14-Win Sequence)=p14P(14-Win Sequence)=p14 Where p=0.495p=0.495 (Probability of winning a single bet)

So, P(14-Win Sequence)=0.49514≈5.30×10−5P(14-Win Sequence)=0.49514≈5.30×10−5

Expected Number of Sequences in the Dataset: Expected Sequences=(Total Bets−13)×P(14-Win Sequence)Expected Sequences=(Total Bets−13)×P(14-Win Sequence) Here, Total Bets = 111,173

So, Expected Sequences≈(111,173−13)×5.30×10−5Expected Sequences≈(111,173−13)×5.30×10−5

 

The chart illustrates the cumulative probability of observing at least one sequence of 14 consecutive wins (with odds less than 2.00x) as we progress through a dataset of 111,173 bets, given a win chance of 49.5% per bet.

As the number of bets increases, so does the cumulative probability of encountering at least one such sequence. This visualization demonstrates that while the probability of such a sequence occurring in a small number of bets is very low, it accumulates and becomes more likely as the number of bets increases.

This accumulation effect explains why, in a large dataset like the one in question, it is not implausible to observe at least one sequence of 14 consecutive wins. The graph shows that towards the end of the dataset (111,160 bets), the likelihood of having encountered at least one such sequence has increased significantly, aligning with the statistical expectation that such sequences can occur in a dataset of this size.

This analysis, both mathematical and visual, supports the idea that the occurrence of the sequence in question, while rare, is within the expected range for a large dataset of bets with a 49.5% win probability per bet.

python code used to figure this out:
 

 

Yes, I'm not denying that such a sequence must be present, and it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway. My point is precisely that if I had doubled my bet every time less than x2 came up, starting with 2 cents, this sequence would have happened much sooner. And perhaps later I will demonstrate that. 

[Goodvibeswin]

On 1/4/2024 at 11:25 PM, javierfg said:

What you write doesn't really prove anything...


I think you don't understand what PF is

Javier is a poon don’t listen to him he’s a lowly paid staffer probably from some hole some where that just goes and hates on all posts with some tacky 1 liner. Call these guys out. Honestly this is nuts and completely on to something. Theres a company that verifies all this. Let it come to light that this is truly happening and they done in most 1st world places. 

On 1/6/2024 at 3:24 AM, perlnecrohac said:

Yes, I'm not denying that such a sequence must be present, and it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway. My point is precisely that if I had doubled my bet every time less than x2 came up, starting with 2 cents, this sequence would have happened much sooner. And perhaps later I will demonstrate that. 

Good 

 

On 1/4/2024 at 10:49 PM, perlnecrohac said:

Below will be a lot of command line actions, perl code and a bit of high school math to demonstrate that the original stake does not meet the stated "provably fair games" and the developers are manipulating the values. 

For the example, I took an archive of limbo bets in which I caught odds of 1 million or 300000 at a minimum bet amount of about 0.00000240 LTC

No strategies were used, no martingale was used! 

1. To start with, I downloaded the betting archive in json format and using the command line (using a regular expression) exported the betting numbers and the result of the game to a new file (example below)

perl -ne 'while(/"result":(\d+).(\d+)/g){print "$&\n";}' /home/fd/BetArchive/*.json | cat -n > /home/fd/limbo.txt

I received following a file in a .txt format

 

Where the first column shows the bet number and the second column shows the odds

2. Next, I deleted the "result": from the file with command sed 's/"result"://g' limbo.txt > limbo2.txt and got the following file ready for analysis

 

Now it's time to run this file through a perl script that looks for the maximum series with odds less than 2.00x in a file containing 115793 bets

perl fls.pl --infile limbo2.txt --limit 2.0

I received following outut:

 

Next, I open the file, and look for 1.651813653666627 in it.

You can see that the maximum series of odds of less than 2x was 14 times, from 111160 to 111173 bets. 

Based on this research, I concluded that Stake is not responsible for what the website says Provably Fair. It can't be provably fair, because imagine what kind of wager I could make by doubling my bet 2x every time less than 2x comes up, starting with an amount of 1 cent. 

I'm not encouraging you to give up playing games, I'm just encouraging you to take care of your mental health, don't get nervous and depressed when you lose. Rest assured, the script will give you your loss, only the casino will take a small commission for endorphins and adrenaline. Thank you all for your attention, and take care of yourself! Do not try to make money on the casino, buying or using dubious strategies.

Wow extremely informative. I’ll have some of my tech buddies see what they make of this. Good job man. We need a full investigation 

On 1/5/2024 at 7:24 PM, Aswasw17 said:

you can try card counter strategy. we know, in blackjack game dealer has 3 or more deck cards, and you can count it.

rember to not change your seed while counting.

hope its helpfull

Jesus your stupid there’s not physical cards in the came it’s completely random every time you click bet. Go try that strategy at the casino or with live dealers you genius of human LOL

[Rexrem]

Explain this as provably fair - out of last 20 rounds of originals blackjack I have played over the last week (separate days/ separate sessions), the last dealer hand in over 75% of them that takes my final balance is blackjack. That is more than coincidence to me. One round of seven hands had three dealers blackjacks to start then one win two more losses then went all in last hand -guess what - dealer blackjack. Done with this shit hole. Two years ago it wasn’t like this. Things changed drastically over the last year and a half - and not for the better. 

[ntryhan]

I don't understand your explanation