I was watching that 4747 playing, he started to play after 1Dice1 won a lot from the site should've deposited a lot(20 or 30 BTC maybe).
I doubt at least 4747 knew how to win or why he would deposited that much when even 1Dice1 couldn't withdraw?
Topic: EveryDice.com | 0.99% Edge - Instant Cashout - Invest - Referral - Mobile - Fair - page 21. (Read 72081 times)
May 27, 2014, 03:14:41 AM
May 27, 2014, 03:00:41 AM
I haven't done the calculations myself, but based on what Ruru said, plus knowing what a few people had invested, I'd be surprised if the site owner's investment loss was greater than his commission profits.
May 26, 2014, 04:39:34 PM
My own greed? That's a bit strong. I'm just saying that this isn't a traditional player vs casino case - the site admin has to be 100% sure that the bitcoins haven't been exploited in some way.
FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.
He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.
FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.
He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.
The owner has bitcoins invested in the site bankroll so it is partly his bitcoins and having a small bankroll reduce his potential earnings anyway
It is very disappointing not to be able to access his funds for those who have money invested
May 26, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
My own greed? That's a bit strong. I'm just saying that this isn't a traditional player vs casino case - the site admin has to be 100% sure that the bitcoins haven't been exploited in some way.
FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.
He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.
FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.
He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.
May 26, 2014, 02:46:24 PM
A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
You're saying this cause you lost a boatload of money. Your own greed makes you extremely bias here. I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
May 26, 2014, 02:41:53 PM
can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?
Yes.
All provably fair sites are pretty much the same.
There's a secret (sometimes a site-wide secret that changes each day, sometimes a per-user secret, sometimes per-bet - it depends on the site) which is used to generate the rolls in a deterministic way.
The secret isn't published until some time after the bet has happened (at the end of the day, when the user changes their seed, after each bet, again depending on the site), but a hash of the secret is published before the bet.
In this way the site can prove that they didn't change the secret when the bet happened, because if they did the hash wouldn't match, which everyone can check once the secret is published.
Does that make sense now? All the sites have secret seeds, they all publish the hash of the secret before, and the secret itself after.
(There's also a 'client seed' which the player himself picks after seeing the server seed hash, and before playing - this also contributes to the roll generation and prevents the site from picking a "bad" server seed to make the player lose, but is irrelevant to this discussion).
Yes, thank you. So if you knew the secret seed, because you knew what the hash is before the roll, you could mathematically figure out what the result of the roll would be and bet accordingly. Is that the gist of it?
May 26, 2014, 02:38:19 PM
can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?
Yes.
All provably fair sites are pretty much the same.
There's a secret (sometimes a site-wide secret that changes each day, sometimes a per-user secret, sometimes per-bet - it depends on the site) which is used to generate the rolls in a deterministic way.
The secret isn't published until some time after the bet has happened (at the end of the day, when the user changes their seed, after each bet, again depending on the site), but a hash of the secret is published before the bet.
In this way the site can prove that they didn't change the secret when the bet happened, because if they did the hash wouldn't match, which everyone can check once the secret is published.
Does that make sense now? All the sites have secret seeds, they all publish the hash of the secret before, and the secret itself after.
(There's also a 'client seed' which the player himself picks after seeing the server seed hash, and before playing - this also contributes to the roll generation and prevents the site from picking a "bad" server seed to make the player lose, but is irrelevant to this discussion).
May 26, 2014, 02:29:54 PM
Quote
22 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?
I wonder if this list of events is missing something. People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.
It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.
That seems like a significant omission. "OMG this guy won so much he must be cheating (please ignore his losses)"
May 26, 2014, 01:36:39 PM
A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
This doesn't stop the case from smelling real bad.
If any seeds were leaked - which sounds more like a lame excuse - that's a problem from the house. House can't pay their mistakes because bankroll is from investors? You should have protected investors' balance much better.
Now it's the winning gambler paying from the house mistakes? Where on earth this makes sense? Maybe with Bitcoin, given all the past examples similar to this, but it does not make it acceptable in any way.
And where are site admins? Sudden disappearance?! No email support, not even to 1DiCe1???
Website being DDoSed under heavy betting??? Where was the protection at the moment?
And now investors trying to make deals? And other opportunists trying extortion? Man, it's fishy as hell.
It's a shame this keeps happening.
How I see it, any other outcome different than the winner getting his coins - without undeniable proof of unfair gambling - is plain theft.
May 26, 2014, 01:12:20 PM
A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
?I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
Can you show the math you used to arrive at 3SD/4SD? I can't speak to P-4747, but I was gambling along side 1Dice at ED and he sure did a lot of losing in between his winning. 3SD/4SD sounds dubious to me on first glance.
May 26, 2014, 12:15:34 PM
A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.
I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.
May 26, 2014, 10:47:38 AM
Looks surprisingly like Mt.Gox 's announcements.
I suggest players move to JD. Or maybe you can try my site with free BTC from my faucet. It's small and relatively new. I'm confident with my site, but maybe you can wait till it's more established before deposit your btc
I suggest players move to JD. Or maybe you can try my site with free BTC from my faucet. It's small and relatively new. I'm confident with my site, but maybe you can wait till it's more established before deposit your btc
May 26, 2014, 10:38:43 AM
On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?
I am not 100% sure about ED, but for PD the bet result is determined by sha512(secret, server seed, client seed).
The "secret" are different for each day, and will only be revealed after the day.
Only sha(server seed) will be published before your bet, but not the server seed directly.
Client seed can be set by the player himself.
So, with only server seed and client seed, the player still shouldn't be able to know the bet result beforehand...
May 26, 2014, 09:39:57 AM
1Dice's full bet history was published, but it's hosted on ED site, and of course since Admin took site down, cannot see the bet history now: https://everydice.com/log_1dice1.txt
For as much as he won, he lost a lot too. A lot of his losing was followed by bigger bets that he won (martingale strategy) except for runs where he would bet 2 btc at 50% and get really streaky. Hardly "impossible" or statistically "improbable." Winning 7 or 8 times in a row at 50% is hardly a rare occurrence. His streak just stands out because the amounts are so large. He also had martingale streaks where he'd lose in streaks, starting at .1 until he'd run into max bet cap at 1.6, then he'd just do a bunch 1.6 bets and win more than he lost to make up his losses. Eventually, his luck started running out, and when he wasn't as streaky, he started to slow down the betting and get more persistent about his withdrawal delays because he was afraid of losing what he won.
On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?
For as much as he won, he lost a lot too. A lot of his losing was followed by bigger bets that he won (martingale strategy) except for runs where he would bet 2 btc at 50% and get really streaky. Hardly "impossible" or statistically "improbable." Winning 7 or 8 times in a row at 50% is hardly a rare occurrence. His streak just stands out because the amounts are so large. He also had martingale streaks where he'd lose in streaks, starting at .1 until he'd run into max bet cap at 1.6, then he'd just do a bunch 1.6 bets and win more than he lost to make up his losses. Eventually, his luck started running out, and when he wasn't as streaky, he started to slow down the betting and get more persistent about his withdrawal delays because he was afraid of losing what he won.
On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?
May 26, 2014, 08:32:20 AM
Quote
22 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?
I wonder if this list of events is missing something. People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.
It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.
If he won 141 and then lost 92, he should have only won 49 or 50 after rounding, then why did the site profit went down from +95 to -46?
he won back even more affterwards, wait for Edward for full list of best or stats
May 26, 2014, 08:15:11 AM
Quote
22 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?
I wonder if this list of events is missing something. People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.
It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.
If he won 141 and then lost 92, he should have only won 49 or 50 after rounding, then why did the site profit went down from +95 to -46?
May 26, 2014, 07:20:04 AM
You should provide the coins to a trusted escrow, the amount of 1dice1's balance and deduct it from his balance. After a reasonable time has passed the escrow releases the funds (I'd say a couple days) to 1dice1 UNLESS you provide proof that he cheated. You delaying his funds is truly unreasonable 100%. If your excuse was true then you should be working 24/7 into his case. Not getting offline and coming back every 12 hours. Should be around the clock if you are really going to delay payment.
I personally played at everydice twice but after this definitely will not play ever again here. It is bullshit what you are doing. It has been 3 days. If you worked 24 hours straight I guarantee you would have your decision by now.
I personally played at everydice twice but after this definitely will not play ever again here. It is bullshit what you are doing. It has been 3 days. If you worked 24 hours straight I guarantee you would have your decision by now.
Checking that provably fair system is works might not take a long time, but other than that we did many things. One of the example is the leak of site seed, this not only involve technical checking and ensure our server has not been compromised, but also questioning all team member involved in the project. We cannot assume this is the case (and lets not), but it is better to be safe than sorry.
As you might noticed, few hours ago the site profit goes down ~50 BTC again, this happened after some manual withdrawal. We know that the previous bet event is mathematically unrelated to the future event, so thinking that site will win after losing is fallacy, however, this is quite much for a coincidence. We are really sorry for the inconvenience, but for a moment we will have to ensure everything is legit. The roll function of P-4747 and 1DiCe1 also has been disabled.
EveryDice, it has been more than 24 hours, you must pay 1Dice1. Period.
I run a scratchticket gambling site. When I started my site, I was fully aware of the risks that variances mean to the house bankroll. On my site, I have a background process that runs that tells me when a betters results (wins/losses) are exceptionally lucky. If you are outside 4 standard deviations from the norm, that's pretty damn lucky. These results are flagged for manual review. However, unless I can PROVE fraud within 12 hours of so, I must pay out. This is the risk the house takes when it develops (or licenses) its software and puts in place its security procedures. If someone rips you off, than it is still your fault and if you can't prove fraud within 12 hours, pay him. This is the cost of business. When you find out how they did it, fix it. But for now, you are completely killing your own site by undermining every ounce of trust everyone has in you.
My guess is that if I ran a statistical analysis on the betting history you released for 1Dice1, it would show the guy (gal) is damn lucky but statistically within the reasonable realm of possibilities. Pay him unless you can 100% prove fraud.
Well said!!!
May 26, 2014, 07:02:20 AM
Yup, he bet something like 90BTC on one bet and lost, hence the re-deposit, and it was after that that his (and 4747's) crazy win streak happened
May 26, 2014, 04:05:03 AM
Quote
22 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?
I wonder if this list of events is missing something. People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.
It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.
May 26, 2014, 04:04:34 AM
Quote
22 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).
23 May 2014
Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.
If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?
I wonder if this list of events is missing something. People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.
it would be nice if 1dice1 received his coins
Jump to: