Topic: ★★★ Bitcoin Video Casino ★★★ - ||| Over 500 BTC in Progressive Jackpots! ||| - page 20. (Read 143416 times)

Let's be clear.  It wasn't "slower" support.   I voiced the concern of a user who I referred to bcvc, and also my own concern about vagueness of the bonus rules in that game.    There was no "slower" - there was no reply period.

Is anyone else having issues with withdrawing coins?  I deposited over 48 hours ago, so there's plenty of confirmations, yet I get this error when I attempt to cash out:

Deposited Bitcoins have not been confirmed yet. Two (2) confirmations are required before you can withdraw. Please try again later.

Is there a bug with the site?  I've contacted support, and was told that my account definitely has more than 2 confirmations.

You're very welcome, cwil!

Thank you for the response. That's about what I was expecting.

Nobody is claiming they are being cheated due to the house changing their seed (this is actually impossible due to our provably fair system which allows you to verify that the client seed is the same as that which was shown before you played - and the client can also actually change this to any number they like before playing), the statement is being made around the possibility of the house winning its own jackpot by using the fact that it knows the server seed to do so.

As cwil has previously stated this is, of course, a possibility with any casino. Unfortunately there's no way for any casino to prove that it hasn't done it, and no way for the user to prove that it has. Speaking for ourselves as the oldest operating Bitcoin casino we would never engage in cheating our players like that. It's underhanded, it's sly and in our minds it's entirely unforgivable. Our players keep a roof over our heads and food on our tables; the very least they deserve is our respect. There are thousands of happy players that win our jackpots that can attest to the fact that they have indeed won, if they feel like doing so of course. We'd be very happy to hear from them in this thread if they do.


Again, thanks for focusing our response on the actual issue that the user was complaining about, cwil! You have also raised a very valid point in that a casino could indeed use its own knowledge of the server seed for a casino-owned account to win the jackpot if they chose to do so. I think the term 'false flag jackpots' would be quite a fitting term for that. This is something that the industry definitely should come together to discuss finding a solution to, and if you might have any ideas for making that area of online gambling more transparent we'd certainly love to hear them!

It's an unfortunate situation that there seems to be no way for a casino to prove that they do not engage in that kind of behavior. You can never prove that you have never done X, or that you don't have Y. The onus is always on those accusing someone of something to prove that those they are accusing did do X, or do have Y - if evidence exists that shows this then it is possible to find (perhaps not easily, but it is possible to find if it exists), whereas it is not possible to prove something that doesn't exist. That sounds a little convoluted (and I could definitely do with some more coffee to wake my brain up!) but basically it is impossible for us to prove that we do not engage in that behavior.

All we can really do at this current point in time is ask that our players put their trust in the reputation we have built up over the years. We feel that we've earned our trustworthy reputation, and we stake absolutely everything on it.


The jackpot function just checks all cards that don't belong to the dealer, so as mentioned by cwil "both splitting and hitting will win the jackpot if the next dealt card is a 7d after being dealt 7d7d." Sincerest apologies if I was unclear on this previously!


Apologies for the slower support of late, we always try to provide a response by email within 8 - 12 hours max. but occasionally this timeframe does slip which isn't ideal; that being said quick support will return very soon as we're implementing some team changes.


13 BTC isn't at all a record for our Lucky 7's Blackjack, the jackpot has frequently been much larger than 13 BTC but as you can imagine the jackpot size tends to be relative to the value of BTC; people usually spend more in BTC terms when its fiat value is lower, and less when it's higher. I can't recall jackpot figures on Blackjack but no, 13 BTC isn't a record for the Blackjack jackpot.

If any of you have any more questions about anything please do let me know and I'll try clear it up as best I can. And as always if there are any issues that you need to contact us directly for please do feel free to email us at [email protected].

If you know that they have something is not right? You should really post it here so everyone can know that they are being cheated through some knowledge or may be what I called this their skill(if it is true). But somehow no one really know that how they can work this out. Their site is pretty old site but why today this matter occur?

If you are trying to help the original poster to make their accusation then you should reveal everything here to make sure they read and trying to fix this

Well, shit... looks like somebody hit the 777 last night: I just logged in this morning, to try and play it a bit more, but it's back to 2.0 BTC now.

Congratulations, whoever you are... nice one

Hi guys, just wanted to let you know that I'll be taking some time over the next few hours to answer all of the above. Will check back in with you all shortly!

Here's the client-side code that determines if the jackpot is won:


This states that only the 1st, 3rd, and 5th card dealt are considered for the jackpot, and the 5th card is only considered if the first action taken is a hit, double or stand, unless the first action is buying insurance, in which case it's ignored and we look at the second action.

We can test this with the following:


This would be game in which the player is dealt 7d7d, dealer shows jc with 5c hidden. Player splits to get another 7d, player stands, player is dealt js, player stands, dealer is dealt jh. This ends with the player having 7d7d, 7djs and dealer having 5cjcjs, so player wins both hands plus the 50 unit progressive, but not the jackpot.

Edit:

The above is wrong. S = Split, T = Stand, H = Hit. The test should have read:

Both splitting and hitting will win the jackpot if the next dealt card is a 7d after being dealt 7d7d.

Well that's what I'd have assumed, before this discussion started.  And notice in the description of this side-game on Wizard of Odds site he says basically the same, i.e. no matter HOW the next-card is played IF there's a 7-7-7 Diamond series coming out of the shoe, the player wins.  Period.  (Even if the dealer is using the third 7-Diamond as his hit card...!)

But BVC Admin seems to be saying "not quite" here... so, I just want to be sure what the REAL rules are before playing this wrong and blowing a $100K jackpot LOL

And, yes, these rule *specifics* ought to be spelled out somewhere CLEARLY on the site.

P.S. BTW I am still not sure what's the +EV point for the jackpot on this game.  My reading of what Wizard of Odds has said about it (link above) seems to indicate that the progressive flips over to +EV somewhere around either 2.3 BTC or maybe it's 9.8 BTC.  But that's with 6 Decks I think, whereas BVC is simulating 8 Decks... so maybe it's still MORE than 9.8 BTC before it's actually positive Expected Value...?

But 13 BTC is still pretty good... anyone know what this 777 Diamond jackpot has ever reached as it's MAXIMUM in the past, on this site?

Admin, can you tell us that much, at least... if this 13 BTC is a "record" for your game yet or whatever it's gotten to in the past?

That's common with side games, it's not unique to these games.

I'll preface this by saying normally these guys are great.  Support is definitely slower than before, but they have been good to me. 

I emailed a couple times with similar 777 questions but no reply.

Whether you participate or not, you contribute to the bonus (which blows). The minimum they could do would be to take a few hours and properly spell out the rules for the bonus games.

Keyjockey, if you had split the 77, and the next card dealt was a 7, you would have won (I'm pretty sure anyway). 

Well of course after I wrote that, the EXACT HAND I was speculating on, happened... LOL 



...BUT case in point, just to clarify... you said "You must have 7-7-7" so does that mean ONLY in one-single hand of play's grouping?

So IF I had SPLIT here (as is correct, for basic strategy play) and had gotten another 7-Diamond on the first hand's split, are you saying it would not have qualified for the progressive win??

OR in another instance -- suppose the player STANDS on his "14" instead (two sevens = 14) against the dealer 4 ("bust card") but then the dealer's hit card drawn out of the shoe, happens to be another Seven of Diamonds...?? In THAT case would it *also* have disqualified the 777 jackpot trigger?

SO... again... JUST TO BE CLEAR... are you saying that for your casino, in some instances for this jackpot to qualify, that the player MUST ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO PLAY THEIR HAND INCORRECTLY???

(Notice that in my screenshot above, actually, since I had not yet heard a reply back from you on this question, I decided to play it safe and actually I did just "HIT" my sevens, so I'd have the 777 all together... in case it was coming.  But YES technically that was an approx $14 bet, that I played WRONG, and so LOST it... just in particular because of your casino's rules.)

This just seems a little bit "off" to me, IF this situation is indeed the case.

A casino that's requiring a player to "play wrong" in order to win...?  Hmm.... seriously?

I am not saying BVC is cheating. I am saying that any casino that has implemented any commonly known variation of what we call a provably fair system can make winning bets at any time.

Another person previously made the claim that BVC is winning it's own jackpot, but has offered no proof that this is true. While BVC responded to this allegation, they talked about how their provably fair implementation would prevent them from making their users lose bets. However, this other party does not seem to be accusing BVC of making the other party's bets lose, but rather the accusation is that BVC is using knowledge of the server seed for a BVC-owned account to win the jackpot, depriving others that have contributed to that jackpot a fair chance to win themselves. BVC has not responded to this yet and I believe this is because they did not understand the accusation.

That said, I have no proof to offer because I'm not making any accusations. I am simply clarifying the original accusation so that BVC can respond to it if they wish.

So you are saying that they site is cheating? Because of their seed can be manipulated? So hiw about their provably fair system? Is this really a bad idea to have one of them or even it is useless thing to have that? I know this site is pretty old enough and they never have this provably fair system questioned until this day that someone claimed that they are being cheayed because admin can manually change their seed. Please give us some proof here

Hi cwil,

Just wanted to check in and let you know that I'll respond to this in full once I have a few minutes free. Obligation to respond or not, we're more than happy to engage in the discussion!

First I want to reiterate that I'm not personally making any accusations nor do I think there is any evidence to support this particular allegation. That said, I'm pretty confident that you're not actually understanding what you're being accused of. You have access to the server seed and can set the client seed to anything you want, so you can hit the jackpot at any time you want. There's no randomness involved and if anything, a provably fair design makes this easier to accomplish.

This isn't a BVC problem, it's a problem with any casino that uses a provably fair design and offers any incentive at all for the people with the access necessary to see the server seeds to place bets against the casino. This includes any casino at all really. In your case, it would allow your casino to keep your substantial jackpots. In the case of a site like just-dice, it'd allow the owner to siphon money from the investors. Even with a privately funded venture like primedice, it'd allow the owner to make claims of large wins to attract people to his casino, something that actually happened very soon after that casino opened (not saying those wins were fake, just that they happened and they did generate hype for primedice).

You're not obligated to respond to this as there is no evidence that you've done anything wrong, to my knowledge. The potential does exist, however, and at some point it should probably be addressed by the community.

Hi KeyJockey,

When the jackpot will be hit is, of course, impossible for us to predict due to randomness. Regarding EV, as is the case with most casinos Expected Value is something that is left up to the player to determine when playing - we can't really help you on that one, I'm afraid!


You must have 7-7-7 for the jackpot, and of course you must be playing "Lucky 7's" in the first place by clicking the "PLAY LUCKY 7's - 1 CREDIT" button.


Hi cwil,

That may indeed be the accusation being made, however it is an accusation that could thrown at any casino in existence both online or offline. An online casino operator could be trying to win its own jackpots, and an offline casino operator could have players on the floor trying to win their own jackpots. Paradoxically it is an accusation that is impossible to prove on the user's end and impossible to disprove on the casino's end.

I believe it also an accusation that is largely without merit, particularly when it comes from this user; yes, a casino operator could do that, but there is still no guarantee that they will hit the jackpot (due to randomness and the usage of a 100% provably fair system of play). Certainly due to probability the odds may tip in the operator's favour if the operator were playing a number of accounts off against a user, however the win would still be random and thus not guaranteed for the casino. When I mention that is without merit "particularly when it comes from this user", I say this because this particular user has previously won jackpots himself. It is only when other players win the jackpots that he begins to complain about there being some sort of conspiracy at play.

If another player hits a jackpot that this particular user is chasing we often receive incredibly abusive emails which he generally later apologizes for, and acknowledges he is in the wrong for; this suggests that he simply takes umbrage at another player being luckier than himself and that would seem to be what sparked his accusations in this instance.

We have been running since 2012 and we have paid out 1000's of BTC in jackpots and prizes, and we now also provide the opportunity for users to win prizes in DSH and ZEC. We take a huge amount of pride in the fact that our users trust our sites, that they can rest easy in the knowledge that we are 100% provably fair and that they will always receive their winnings - big or small.

I believe we have very much earned this trust over the years and it is a rather offensive suggestion by a user who didn't win a jackpot because another player won it instead to accuse of being somehow untrustworthy despite all of our solid efforts to earn our players' trust . Such is the nature of the casino business though, I suppose!!

Thanks for focusing our answer, cwil, and I hope the above sufficiently addresses those concerns.

I don't think the guy you're responding to is saying that you're rigging his games at all. I believe his accusation is that you are using a BVC-controlled account to win the jackpot when it gets to a high value which you do not wish to pay out. I don't think there's enough or really any evidence to support that claim, but still, I don't think you actually addressed his concern at all.

OK cool...    Thanks for quick reply

Any info on the actual ODDS of hitting this, however... i.e. if 13 BTC is over +ExpectedValue yet?

I've looked around on the 'net a bit this morning (Wizard of Odds, etc) but didn't find any stats on this particular side-game anywhere.

IF it's really +EV now I'll come back and play it for sure, at least a little

And hopefully this post won't draw all the Asian Bot Farms over to the game now, to attack it IF it's really +EV now... LOL  

P.S. You guys have coded this as 8-Decks "continuous shuffle", correct? Maybe if I have time later today I'll try to manually crunch-out the numbers myself and figure out what the odds and EV point of this jackpot is...

P.P.S. I found this...

https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/side-bets/blazing-7s/

...but I don't think it's quite exactly the same, or correct for YOUR version of the game?  Or, "close enough"...?  How does this indicate the jackpot EV point?

P.P.P.S. Also further to be clear IF the player gets 7-7 diamonds on the first deal but it's against, say, a dealer 4 so that correct play is to *split*... is the player necessarily required to instead simply HIT for the 7-7-7 to count for the jackpot OR if you split and still get another 7-Diamond card, that's a jackpot win too?  Just want to be sure how to handle that to be ready for when it inevitably happens to me, LOL