Topic: COINROYALE.COM • Provably Fair • 1 BTC Video Poker Tourney • 10% Casino Rebate - page 121. (Read 202238 times)

Of course provably fair isn't PERFECT, but does it have to be? All it has to do is show within a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the casino is being fair and I think it does that. Isn't that all that matters?

I understand how the "Provably Fair" system works.  It is not full proof by any means.  Please refer to the link I posted earlier, it is easier to understand from Trevor.  I have quoted a portion of the Trevor/Libertaad conversation below'

"This is why we claim that the browser-based Provably Fair implementation is compromised. In fact, I believe you have alluded to that in your closing argument. If Provably Fair allows a "handful" (or more) of savvy users to ensure the house isn't cheating, and I can show that the remaining majority of users are still vulnerable to exploitation, then the system cannot be reasonably claimed as "fair" and, at the very least, cannot be "provable"."

StatsMan seems to be a SERIOUS conspiracy theorist and is getting on my fucking nerves at this point. It looks like he's grasping at straws and failing to make any real relevant proof of Coinroyale cheating. Victorhing has been professional and courteous throughout this whole ordeal. Kudos to victorhing and the Coinroyale team for dealing with crazy people like this guy! I'll be playing at your casino as long as it stays open.

Anyway, StatsMan and your friend (whosthat), I would like to thank you for your business. I hope I've provided you with more than enough evidence and if you're still not satisfy, I recommend you that you play somewhere else.

It seemed like your entire premise of the bug is, like you said (quoted directly): based on the timing of the cards release, and you mentioned you can correctly predict when the dealer gets pat 20 hands. Let me try to get this correct: you're saying that you can correctly predict the when dealers will get pat 20 hands based on the timing of the cards release, right?

I suspect you might have confused card release timing with "loading times". Have you ever thought of the loading times is slower (by few milliseconds) because if the dealer is getting 2 face cards (pat 20 hands), it takes longer to load? (face cards have bigger image thus slightly longer loading times).

The player seed is actually randomly populated by your browser (not backend/API). We decided to make it the same so that player doesn't have to repeatedly change it in every game they play. It's more of a user experience choice.


For 1 and 2, our technical team actually wrote a script to process the outcome from raw data. But when we ran it, it crashes the process due to sheer amount of game played by you. We're working on a better version I've intended to pass you the remainder of the hands ONCE we have the finished script since you indicated that you are not able to process the raw data. If you still wants the raw data for the remainder hand, let me know in the email and I'll send it to you right away.

That's all you have on the so-called bug? This is incredibly vague. We hope you can elaborate further so other can prove it? Please note the the timing of the cards release is different each time simply because of the server load. We sometimes have a lot of players playing (some at high speed) which causes high load to the server and thus processing time might be slower (by few milliseconds).


I replied to your email


Wait, what? Using "provably fair" makes us suspicious? I don't know what's your logic in that. We're Provably Fair and we proudly let our players know that and all hands can provable by others (not just based on our words).


I think we all know Bitzino invented Provably Fair but I'm not sure about them closing down for business for stealing BTC.

I have frozen the game successfully 3 times in a row - it is very easy to freeze it.  Also, I will try and recreate the freezing and the cards relocating but it may take a day or two because I do not remember how it happened, I know I lose BTC everytime it happens.  If you want to review the hand I think it was the last 2 hands I played last night that were .2-.7 BTC each. 

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.12.43%20PM_zpsr6iuastb.png


http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.22.27%20PM_zps4j0vfi8w.png

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah118/minerscoininerscoin/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-24%20at%203.13.32%20PM_zps5oyu8ce4.png

We know who libertaad is We understand the limitation of MT as well that's why our dealer shuffle doesn't just use MT and Fisher-Yates, it also uses the Java RNG and therefore the process as a whole has enough randomness.

We've been around for a while and our players win from us regularly (some with huge payouts).


We appreciate you playing with us and happy to give you a lost comp. And as I repeatedly said to you, we do not manipulate the outcome based on your wager size or even how many hands have you played. This is easily proven with our Provably Fair system. The initial data was generated before the game started. It seems to be you don't fully understand how our Provably Fair system works. My offer to walk you through the system personally still stands.

I have no idea what this means. Could you elaborate this further?


I answered your question about Mersenne Twister in the previous post.  

I'll answer your remaining question in a separate post below (before making this one too long).

In regards to the .5 BTC - I did state you refunded that amount, I was eluding to it happening 2 more times last night and the second time it happened it was on a .7 BTC wager.  

About the MT comment - instead of writing it all out for you I will quote TrevorXavier from reddit.

"When the second round of shuffling comes into play with Mersenne Twister ("MT"), I am genuinely concerned about the poor distribution quality due to frequent reseeding. MT is known to suffer when poorly initiated (see the original paper), and randomizing a deck first with a stronger random number generator before MT does not imply it will be immune to a poor reshuffle, as MT may not exhibit uniform distribution across multiple reseeding operations. Many statistical tests will be needed to confirm this from a fair-game standpoint, so at this point I only consider it a "concern" and not a proof.
So, you make a wonderful point. It may actually be better to use a primitive for the "cutting" of the deck before dealing, rather than an algorithm. As libertaad stated in another comment, it looks like he intends to push bitZino away from MT and onto something different.
Thank you again for your excellent comment. Very good points made."

FYI - libertaad was the guy that came up with the system used by CoinRoyale and was the owner of BitZino.  Liberated also stated that the MT was going to be changed because of the limitations t has.

The points above are exactly what we stated prior to finding the write up.

If you reload the cards and the hands are in different circle, perhaps it's a front-end bug. I did try to reproduce it just now but couldn't. (Feel free to send me a video/screenshot if you successfully reproduce it). However even if the "reloading" bug exists, the hands should be still the same (as the hands data sent from our backend API remains).

Oh, you're talking about the 0.5 BTC? Yup, I remembered that. You sent us screenshot of the cards not loading correctly (which we assumed probably some cache/client connection error), and I refunded you the wager + comp immediately as a gesture of customer service. Despite your "mission of exposing us" (as you mentioned in the email), we still think you are a loyal customer and still intend to treat you like one

Sorry for the late response guys. I just saw this Like I said earlier, our team are sprinting for a new project and didn't spend as much as time on the forum as we'd like to. Anyways...

Statsman, regarding your earlier question of shuffling, you are right about our Mersenne Twister (MT) truncates to 32-bits. However, our dealer shuffle doesn't just use MT and Fisher-Yates, it also uses the Java RNG and therefore the process as a whole has enough randomness.

Holy shit. This is serious! No response from victorhing yet, either? Hmmmmm.

Did you read reddit article posted by StatsMan there are many ways to manipulate outcome when result is still provably fair and player can not notice... i see players complain there that they lost bets after they had to refresh page ...

Just for some clarification regarding the bolded part. Having provably fair mechanism doesnt mean that the gambling site wont be able to cheat you , in fact the thing with this provably fair is more like an insurance for the player which incase the gambling site tries to cheat then the player will know it . Also regarding them advertising provably fair is pretty much not weird or suspicious as it is a pretty much industry standard around here

P.S : To clarify some off topic things, Im neutral in this case and just providing some blurry things around . Im not part of CoinRoyale nor a shill of them 

cards are not properly shuffled according to Fisher Yates wiki they should not truncate to 32bit and it cant ever produce all possible permutations... i use one seed it is hashed and truncated and it is not real hash of seed

It would be nice if you would read the few older post before posting this again. Just because the cards repeat doesnt mean something fishy is going on , simply just note down the hashes before you play and verify it after you play ( which obviously takes less than 10 seconds to do so ). However it is quite unlike for the exact same cards for both dealer and player to be dealt again ( the 4 first card could be the same however the next one after that would obviously be different )

Obviously nope, why would I be shilling here? If you are a regular here then you would obviously know which site that I support 


Which? Obviously I put in references based on your post. If you think I am misrepresenting it then simply make your post clearer ( which I think Im not )


Very funny, just because someone is not in the same boat with your opinion doesnt mean that the person is a shill  . Not ignorant comments but simply against everything of yours

Also I have made my stance clear here as I will see how things turns out

References :


Yes and correct but you have repeated this few times already and I am aware of this. Now you leave the important part of my previous post

References :

Obviously disclosing this will not give you any disadvantages as Im not asking on how you get it but merely the number for it 


Obviously it is a fault from CoinRoyale and out of my league, so this has nothing to do with me


Numbers? are you merely pointing this "numbers" to the edge that you are claiming or that I missed something else? If this "numbers" actually refers to the edge that we are discussing about then it is safe to assume that

"you had no idea about how many edge that you have due to this bug but keep insisting that you got the edge? "

P.S : Again, not a shill comment whatsoever just merely interested with this "numbers"