Topic: COINROYALE.COM • Provably Fair • 1 BTC Video Poker Tourney • 10% Casino Rebate - page 125. (Read 203945 times)
August 24, 2015, 04:06:09 PM
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.
August 24, 2015, 04:05:03 PM
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.
August 24, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
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).
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).
August 24, 2015, 03:47:44 PM
Interesting is that the Player Seed typically does not change unless the player changes it - therefore the Mersenne Twister would get the same input- I have outlined the CoinRoyale Shuffle below
1- Initial Deck and Dealer Seed are hashed to the SHA
2- Then Shuffled with the Player Seed to get the final deck
A - Hash the Player Seed
B - Truncate results to 32 bits
C - 32 bits are fed into the Mersenne Twister PRNG
D - Result is fed into the Fisher-Yates shuffle
1- Initial Deck and Dealer Seed are hashed to the SHA
2- Then Shuffled with the Player Seed to get the final deck
A - Hash the Player Seed
B - Truncate results to 32 bits
C - 32 bits are fed into the Mersenne Twister PRNG
D - Result is fed into the Fisher-Yates shuffle
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.
Quote
Also, CoinRoyale has become increasingly difficult to get in touch with and are not replying to questions either here or in emails.
1- They have not replied to request for the remainder of the hands.
2- They offered to assist with the playing out of the hands, yet have not.
3- They are unable to answer questions put forth elsewhere in this thread about the shuffle.
1- They have not replied to request for the remainder of the hands.
2- They offered to assist with the playing out of the hands, yet have not.
3- They are unable to answer questions put forth elsewhere in this thread about the shuffle.
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.Quote
To give out info on the bug, it is based on the timing of the cards release, it is reproducible on Safari using a Mac but not on Chrome and it has not been attempted on windows machines. It does not work on iPads or phones. We also measured the actual time to release using Chrome and the Dev Tools but it is not reproducible using Chrome so we suspect that the times would be affected as well.
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).Quote
We have asked if they would be willing to return lost BTC to us (and I would suspect any other player) that has been affected, we haven't heard back.
I replied to your email
Quote
A little background about the system they use and PROMOTE - the promotion or "PROVABLY FAIR" is what makes them very suspicious.
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).
Quote
This system of "Provably Fair" was actually introduced by BitZino shortly before CoinRoyale began using it. It wasn't long before BitZino was closed for business for stealing BTC
I think we all know Bitzino invented Provably Fair but I'm not sure about them closing down for business for stealing BTC.
August 24, 2015, 03:32:45 PM
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
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
August 24, 2015, 03:13:47 PM
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.
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.
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. August 24, 2015, 03:11:45 PM
OK, I think we are about ready to start our effort of showing how CoinRoyale is nothing but another run of the mill casino with a bunch of tricks to keep people playing, while giving the players no chance to win. We will show how they have used tactics to essentially steal peoples BTC.
We've been around for a while and our players win from us regularly (some with huge payouts).
Quote
We just gave our last BTC to CoinRoyale - if yo want to see CoinRoyal's tricks in action, bet a few hands at like .02-.08 BTC until you are past the initial phase of the shuffle - usually about 12-15 hands. Then kick it up to .2-.8 BTC per hand and see how many hands you win.
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.
Quote
Make sure you are monitoring for partials sent from the server - otherwise you will miss the cheat.
I have no idea what this means. Could you elaborate this further? Quote
We knew something was going on, not only with the shuffle, but the way the house seems to routinely get 4-6 pat 20 hands in a row and the player will almost never see them. It is very common for the house to get several in the first 6-10 hands - which may come from the Mersenne Twister -
"It can take a long time to start generating output that passes randomness tests, if the initial state is highly non-random" and then it says "will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging"
"It can take a long time to start generating output that passes randomness tests, if the initial state is highly non-random" and then it says "will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging"
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).
August 24, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
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.
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.
August 24, 2015, 02:52:39 PM
One example, the "Stalling" technique that is discussed on the reddit link happened to us tonight - not only once but twice. I think the second time it happened it was on a .7 BTC bet, of which we lost. It not only stalled, when it was reloaded the cards were in a different circle then the original. We have seen this happen many times over the weeks but nothing like we have witnessed the last few days.
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).
August 24, 2015, 02:44:40 PM
We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.
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
That statement is incorrect, they can cheat you and you would never know it, even with the Provably Fair mechanism in place.
In fact, we have screen pictures of it occurring, on that occasion we did notify CoinRoyale and they refunded the 0.5 BTC but we have no idea of how many times it happened previously. That is why we have been monitoring closely and last night when it happened again and we reloaded the page the cards were in a different location and who knows if they were the original cards or not. We did monitor some activity from their server and it appears we were cheated on those bets as well.
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
August 24, 2015, 02:40:10 PM
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.
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.
August 24, 2015, 02:26:35 PM
We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.
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
That statement is incorrect, they can cheat you and you would never know it, even with the Provably Fair mechanism in place.
In fact, we have screen pictures of it occurring, on that occasion we did notify CoinRoyale and they refunded the 0.5 BTC but we have no idea of how many times it happened previously. That is why we have been monitoring closely and last night when it happened again and we reloaded the page the cards were in a different location and who knows if they were the original cards or not. We did monitor some activity from their server and it appears we were cheated on those bets as well.
Holy shit. This is serious! No response from victorhing yet, either? Hmmmmm.
August 24, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.
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
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 ...
August 24, 2015, 08:18:06 AM
We actually found a great write up about how this "Provably Fair" system is easily bypassed by the Casino.
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
August 22, 2015, 07:08:24 PM
after long play cards repeat
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 )
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
August 22, 2015, 04:01:36 PM
after long play cards repeat
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 )
August 22, 2015, 02:49:48 PM
August 22, 2015, 02:15:51 PM
Obviously nope, why would I be shilling here? If you are a regular here then you would obviously know which site that I support
now you are misrepresenting what we have stated.
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 )
Only a schill would make such ignorant comments.
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 :
Im eager to see how this turns out
If we have a statistical edge and consistency lose after playing a statistically significant number of games then it could be a problem with the game.
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 :
If you will enlighten the conversation here, how many percentage of edge are we discussing about?
Obviously disclosing this will not give you any disadvantages as Im not asking on how you get it but merely the number for it
We have asked fair questions about the shuffle that is suppose to be easy to follow and have not received any answers.
Obviously it is a fault from CoinRoyale and out of my league, so this has nothing to do with me
I have not put the numbers out because the raw data provided makes or very difficult to analyze what occurred in each hand.
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"
August 22, 2015, 01:44:17 PM
1- Obviously you are not understanding correctly
Obviously it is you that is not
Last point, we do not care about the bug.
It seems you do , based on the references below that you keep on insisting that there is a bug that give an edge to the player but you are getting more losses then wins. If you simply dont care about this then there is no point in discussing this further isnt it? but the fact is that you keep insisting that there is a "problem" .
If you will enlighten the conversation here, how many percentage of edge are we discussing about? Either way there will be two scenarios later , the former will be that there is an issue with CoinRoyale shuffling method and the later is that there is no bug that you give you an edge . I am merely more into the later option though Im eager to see how this turns out
References :
We are simply saying that we know of a bug that gives us an edge and even after playing 15,000 hands we are not winning even close to half of the time.
August 22, 2015, 10:44:25 AM
Arallmuus
1- Obviously you are not understanding correctly, we know if the dealer is Pat or will take a card BEFORE the down card is exposed.
2- I am glad you know that a dealer needs to hit until he has a 17 that is invaluable info to have
3 - As for the comment about variance, we have played in excess of 15,000 hands at this casino and have the data from 12,000 of them that was given to us by CoinRoyale.
Last point, we do not care about the bug, refer to the post above. We have not accused anyone of cheating at CoinRoyale. We are simply saying that we know of a bug that gives us an edge and even after playing 15,000 hands we are not winning even close to half of the time. Therefore we are saying that there is a potential problem with the game, most likely in the shuffling.
We are trying to work with CoinRoyale to figure it out, and have asked appropriate questions that have not been answered yet.
If you want to think that the software is PERFECT and that there is NO WAY possible the shuffling could have an issue then I'm happy for you. Maybe we need to get these guys jobs at Microsoft or writing a True Random Number generator since no one else writes perfect software or has figured out a true random number generator.
1- Obviously you are not understanding correctly, we know if the dealer is Pat or will take a card BEFORE the down card is exposed.
2- I am glad you know that a dealer needs to hit until he has a 17 that is invaluable info to have
3 - As for the comment about variance, we have played in excess of 15,000 hands at this casino and have the data from 12,000 of them that was given to us by CoinRoyale.
Last point, we do not care about the bug, refer to the post above. We have not accused anyone of cheating at CoinRoyale. We are simply saying that we know of a bug that gives us an edge and even after playing 15,000 hands we are not winning even close to half of the time. Therefore we are saying that there is a potential problem with the game, most likely in the shuffling.
We are trying to work with CoinRoyale to figure it out, and have asked appropriate questions that have not been answered yet.
If you want to think that the software is PERFECT and that there is NO WAY possible the shuffling could have an issue then I'm happy for you. Maybe we need to get these guys jobs at Microsoft or writing a True Random Number generator since no one else writes perfect software or has figured out a true random number generator.
You forgot the part where you post facts to back up your argument. You've been given all the tools you need, theyre being completely transparent (Unlike so many others...)
Jump to: