How is it that someone can take a liking to someone they have never met and only after a few brief exchanges. Dabs you are a good guy. You seem to be coming from an academic/statistical perspective, and there is no fault with anything you have said based on that perspective.
It seems there is an implication that I have a "liking" to anyone or anything. If you must know, I don't particularly like any site. But like you just said, there is no fault in anything I have said, regardless of perspective.
You can make accusations without proof, but that doesn't look right to me. I don't send innocent men to jail.
My point of contention is - quote "Quote 1 “Bet Discrimination Under the assumption that an investigator will not place high stakes to investigate cheating, the house can safely offer a fair game to those using play money or very low stakes. As the bet size increases, so does the probability of an exploit."
Probability is not certainty. You can certainly say for example, that if any single bitcoin casino now gets 500,000 BTC in total deposits, the operators will probably disappear.
I can assure you, from gut feel, without proof, that if this all happened to the top 4 dice sites, including PD, CR, JD and SD, none of them will disappear. (SD can't accept deposits yet, so we will just see record gambles in the blockchain.)
Dabs, if you do manage to calculate the house edge % for PD for >0.5btc bets, I'd be most interested in your explaining same should that % come back at 2% or better.
I don't have the data, it was never made publicly available all in one place. We'll have to request for it. I feel though, that no matter how accurate and legitimate this data will be, you will consider the source suspect.
I can't help you there then.
Your belief, without proof, is the same as my so called Gambler's Fallacy, which many people consider the same as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Also, another problem with that is you will be selectively using a limited set of data. Remember, the systems as implemented DO NOT CARE or DO NOT KNOW how much you bet. The bet amount is IRRELEVANT. If you take away 99.5% of the data, you are only using 0.5% as your sample, and the variance there will only be 0.5% of the whole.
You have to use everything. Scrap out the bet amounts. Analyze that. If those are all within standard statistical deviations and norms, I hope that provides enough proof.
I do agree, I am a good guy (self-serving), and I am in communication with the operators and owners of those top 4 dice sites.
If you have any particular suggestion, you can post here or PM me, I will forward it to them, and hopefully they will improve their current implementations. There are some obvious ones need right now, I can see that. While it's not yet happening, do yourself a favor and change the client seeds yourself at every roll. You can't get any more fair than just doing that one thing. Regardless of how much you bet.
I don't see TrevorXavier posting any drafts of his Provably Fair 2 system yet. And I honestly can't see how anything can get fairer, than for example, my own weekly lotto drawing. Although this is a really slow way to try to implement on a dice site.
One last thing, in poker sites, they use simulations of their RNG to show you that 1 million hands are not being manipulated. The site does not know who the players are, does not know how much is the pot, and does not know who will fold or who will win. And there is nothing provably fair about what they do. Think about that.
Here's a suggestion: Would people be willing to put up a fund where I can collect large amounts of BTC, then I will gamble it and gather statistics? The sites will not know it is me since I will be using an anonymous account. As the lead investigator, I will place the high stakes to investigate any possible cheating. Any assumptions the site makes based on bet discrimination to attempt to cheat our coins away from us will result in detection of any such exploits.
I've tried the "Group Bet" thing before, and didn't get much (I gathered about 20 BTC total.) Plus some people are violently opposed to me doing this (not the site operators.)