Topic: Freebitco.in provably cheating - page 2. (Read 25072 times)

No, is for a range of 7 numbers and the math is:

(1-((1-7/10000)^20000))x100=99,9999173%

For 1 number is

(1-((1-1/10000)^20000))x100=86,4678251%

This is still only for 1 number.  It's not for a RANGE of numbers missing.  Imagine this and add a power of 100 to it.  Thats your probability for all the missing numbers I believe.  I'm certainly no math major but even a 0.0000827% chance of it happening.... to me and multiple people?  Within the same century?  Really?  heh  Start adding in other user's roll sample size and that number gets REALLY small.  I dont have Matlab nor know how to use it,  but I assume thats what you're using here.

EDIT:  Oh nevermind,  you're just using a spreadsheet.  Thats probably not the most accurate way to calculate the range variance,  even so it does still illustrate just how improbable the situation is yet it's obviously showing up more than it should in real world practice.

Just looked at it, and yes is strange but not impossible, HOWEVER read below.


The maths show is possible but very improbable


50% of users will hit the range 9993-10000 in around 1000 tries.


This seems very strange but the post I've made here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49125605 was about a site without scam

and here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48004767 this guy seems to have proven this site uses different hashes and scam their users.

I'm not saying they are not scamming since they change hases, I was talking only about the variance in a not cheating probably fair game.

Look very closely at my 2 screenshots.  You'll see that it shows a RANGE of numbers,  not a single number.  The ranges are 0 through 10 and 9987 though 10000.  In 0 through 10 you can clearly see that at least 95% if not more of the numbers have all been hit at least once and in some cases even hit MULTIPLE times.  0 was hit only once.  If you're a developer at all,  you can see that all I did was select ALL numbers and then sort them based on ASC (ascending) and DESC (Descending) orders.  The fact that the 9000 range showed 9987 is alarming in and of itself without any other scrutinizing.   But if you look at the upper tier numbers,  you'll notice that 9994 through 10000 are all missing from the data.  This is because they have NEVER been hit.  Ever.  The odds of all of them not being hit in order like that is so small that you couldnt store that number to represent it on modern hardware.  So 9994 - 10000 missing would be like 0 through 6 not existing at all in the lower tiers and from the data you can see how unprobable that would be.  In fact,  you could select ANY range of 6 numbers and you'd see that there wouldnt be any chance of ALL of them missing if you have this many rolls for a sample size.  The sample size we're using is greater than 30000 if you combine my own 18K with all the others that have noticed the same thing.

The casino tries to claim that it's "variance",  but variance would not explain this oddity since it's not just a single number,  it's a complete range.  The only explanation is cheating in the form of not all numbers have the same probability of being rolled.  Some have a higher chance than others.  If that were the case then what you would see is that entire ranges of numbers would show less hits than those with a higher probability and thats exactly what we've documented here.  In the data you can also see that even 9886 - 9985 has a lower chance of being hit than 0 - 9885.  It's not as noticable however because the probabilities differ based on 'tiers'.  There are 6 tiers,  each tier has it's own probability level.  This is easily codeable but VERY difficult if not impossible to prove without very large sample sizes (which we have now since the passage of time has allowed for that data to be gathered).

What range of numbers? I just rolled 9983.



And I've started here 2 days ago after reading here.

You forgot the most important part.  This isnt about 1 number.  This is about a RANGE of numbers that are not hit IN ORDER.  1 number missing isnt something unusual.  But a RANGE of numbers are HIGHLY unusual for the amount of sample size we have 18K for myself,  18K for some other guy,  10k for someone else...  We all came to the same conclusion,  the upper tier of numbers simply do not show up..... at all.  Not just SOME of the time.  But AT ALL.  None.  Notta,  golden goose egg.  This is only possible if the casino is CHEATING on it's "Provably fair" claims.  And if they are cheating here,  they are MOST LIKELY cheating in every other aspect of their casino as well and there are very credible explanations of how that can/could be done for each of their site's features.  The credibility comes from the fact that we now know the site cheats.  If the site couldnt be proven to have been cheating,  then these explanations would carry as much weight.

Adding a little, very little something



I've rolled 9983 and missing 0.00000001 BTC on the winning 

This is still a low number.
You can still roll under 10000 for millions of rolls! If you are lucky you will get 10000 on 1st try but if you are unlucky (and this is improbable) you will never get 10000, it can took even an infinite number of rolls to get the 1st 10000.
Now if we consider an infinite number of rolls we have exactly one roll=10000 every 10000 rolls, and with all these results, we can calculate when we expect to hit 10000 with a median value.
The Median value is the value where 50% of user will expect to hit 10000.
The Median value for 1/10000 is 6888 and is the number of tries where we switch from lucky to unlucky person.

The % to get the roll is the written below and I used this formula:

I made this example for 10000 with OpenOffice right now.

The % to hit 10000 after x rolls is


While the % to hit 9885-10000 is

---

Of course, all above considering the website is not cheating

It's even easier than that.  This is the crypto scene after all.  There are PLENTY of smart contract platforms capable of securing a "server seed" or a group of seeds such as server, client seed, nonce, etc such that it cant be changed.  ETH, EOS, Troll errr Tron, even BTC could be used.  Heck you dont even need to use a smart contract.  You could use a hash from any of the blockchains although it would be cooler to use a smart contract.

What i mean is the rate of win = as what you said or the mean of this thread's topic "not enough users win", please check back how many posts (per day) that won $20 prior to this acusation topic, and how many of them right after this topic. Only on the date 1 Jan 2019 alone (after this topic) there are multiple claims of $20 winning within the same day, you can check back days before that and count to see how many $20 are there per day to see if "win rate" is normal.

To cheat on this it is too easy, since everything is on their servers / even the s3.amazon... verifer is belong to them also, they can easily do it, i.e (if you are not IT related/coder then study first as if it can be done):

If (SiteProfit <= ExpectedProfit){
    If (UserRollResult > 9997){
         Response1 = HTTP504 --- try again later / site unavailable (damn it let just blame Cloudflare protection haha).
         Response2 = YourNextServerSeed;
         Response3 = Nonce;
         Response4 = YourPreviousServerSeed(modded);            
    }
}
else {
       GameDefault = ProvablyFairGame;
}

P/s: If they really want to have "Provably Fair", it is easy, let a third party company/trusted organization to host the verifier as well as before & after seeds from both what user received & what is on the roll server. The user can then verify by compare both the result with server & third party saved data. Too easy, unless they don't want to do so.

Nothing changed there, there were always many users winning $20. This topic is not claiming nobody is winning, it's claiming not enough users win.

When dealing with sites that cheat in this manor,  it's not uncommon for them to suddenly disable it in an attempt to make it seem legit.  Like,  'O hey look!  See!  Theres the winners!'.  But it's all just part of a predictable behavior pattern that we can predict here before it even happens.  Or maybe they'll read me saying this and decide not to change a thing at all lol.  The data that is available is enough to convict them in the court of opinion and anything they do or do not do in the future is completely irrelevant.  As my wife has said and warns me,  once a cheater,  always a cheater.

Since acusation of the site's cheating right before 1Jan2019, the winning claim on another post popup like coming from nowhere (at least 5 nick names with $20 win). "God of luck" ilsten to you guys..lol.

While that reasoning does stand by itself alone,  it really doesnt stand a chance if you also couple it with clear evidence that shows exactly WHY those statistics in the forum are what they are.  If you combine the forum statistics with my own screenshots and data collection over a 1 year period,  its VERY clear that my data EXPLAINS why the statistics in the forums exist.  Theres a reason for the large gap in the forums and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with people's lack of greed for an extra 5 bux and everything to do with the fact that there really are NOT as many $200 winners as their should be.  There are not even as many $20 winners as their should be either for that matter.

Just take a look at my statistics for numbers 0 through 10 and compare them for numbers 9000 through 10000.  Riddle me this,  why is there such a large statistical difference .  The answer is very simple if you stop and think about it.  It's that Freebitco caps how many winners that it will allow from each 'tier' I guess you could call it and if that were true,  we'd see exactly what we're seeing in both the forums statistics as well as my own data.  He wont reply here because he knows he'll get destroyed with any explanation he can dream up.  You just cant combat hard evidence and there is no point in trying to do so.  He will ignore anything that's actually proven,  but he'll be all over anything that ISNT proven like white on rice in an attempt to make themselves look legit.  The ONLY defense he'd have is "You made all that data up yourself".  Thats the only defense he'd have,  but it's not just me that is seeing this.  It's multiple people and we've each gone about proving the SAME result in different ways,  mine is probably the one that took the longest but imo it's also the most compelling evidence that exists given that it has the largest sample size.  So his next defense would be "You're all conspiring against us!".  At that point,  if you still believe him,  you deserve to lose whatever they steal from you

And I also dont think this cheating stops at just the free rolls.  As the old saying goes,  where theres one,  theres more definitely applies to fraudulent activity.  I fully believe this cheating extends into the dice game, jackpot option, and the lottery (although in a different manor).

Let us also not forget that this place has THE HIGHEST house edge of any online casino.  What is their excuse for that?  Their excuse is all the extra's such as the free rolls, promotions, etc.  But uhm,  we already know they're cheating on those,  so where does that leave them as an excuse for the house edge being so high.  It doesnt.  It just proves to us even more than these guys are just Bitconnect 2.0,  complete with a rebrand coming and everything (right as all the cheating accusations are being proven,  how coincidental is that lmfao).  The rebrand does one thing and one thing only for them.  It takes their name and connection to fraud/cheating out of all the google searches, forum searches,  etc.  Only those that were here BEFORE would know the difference.  New people (which they have already admitted is their target audience,  it's called turnover in the gambling realm) would not likely learn of their old past without substantial digging/research.  But when a gambling site rebrands,  it usually fails because it's most often times just a public admittance to the fact that they are indeed guilty of whatever it is they are trying to escape.  The best course of action is NOT to rebrand during a period where you're currently being accused of cheating.  Probably best not to rebrand at all regardless if you're a casino.  Casino rebrands are notorious red flags of scam sites.

Also, 20x50 is 1000 posts and is not statically relevant as a number because we have a very low % of winning numbers (under 1%), we need a bigger number to get a realistic value besides variance.
Does this website haven't a public list of rolls?

I don't claim to understand how their particular hash generations work but it seems to me like you're right in that you can't use forum posts as a statistically valid way of counting winners. It is only potentially indicative of something and doesn't constitute as proof of anything.

I saw it and I don't think that numbers that you counted mean something. There is no way how we can know real number of $20 and $200 winners. Users who post in that thread proof of winning get extra $5 bonus. Users who won $20 are more incentivised to post because $5 is significant bonus to their winning. I think that big number of $200 winners don't bother to sign up on forum to upload proof just to get five bucks. And when people win bigger amount of money, not everyone want show it in public and attract attentiin to themselves. Offcourse, it's just my assumptions without knowing real number of $20 or $200 winners. There was also complaints about their lottery, that there was only few users that posted proofs that they won. But if I would win over 2 BTC one day, I'm not sure that I would want to post about it in public to get few bucks as a bonus.

Did you see this post comparing the ratio between $20 and $200 winners in that thread? Based on my sample size of 118 winners, the $200 prize should have drawn 12 times more than it did.

Yeah, and there is even dedicated thread where people are posting their $20 and $200 wins. It's interesting how @broke_tradah would explain this thing. Probably he will say that freebitco.in allow to win for small part of their users to show that they're legit, while thry are cheating with rest of users.
It would be interesting to hear TheQuin words about OP case. I asked once him to post here, but he choose to ignore this thread because OP didn't provided more proofs than just words.

Since you're not quite capable of deciphering sarcasm from comments,  I'll refrain from speaking in tongue thats impossible for those with an IQ less than that of a rock to understand.

It's quite possible to rape a scamming casino.  You can watch me on my live stream for proof of that.  No amount of "provably fair" cheating on their part is going to be able to stop a gambling bot in what it does or how it works.  I have no problem racking them over the coals both on a forum as well as in their pocket   There are plenty of other casinos to screw with if freebitscam ever decides to close up shop (or in this case,  re-brand as they are attempting to do now to erase their bad reputation).  But why switch when they are the easiest crooked kid on the block to steal from and pick on.