could You or someone else please explain why Live Dealer is not "Provably Fair"?
Provably fair doesn't mean "hard to cheat" it means it is impossible for the site to cheat without being detected* through the use of strong cryptography. A video of a dealer doesn't prove the deck has the right number of cards, that the deck hasn't been stacked in favor of the house, that the dealer isn't trained to deal "seconds", etc. It certainly makes it HARDER to cheat compared to some site that is 100% opaque but it isn't provably fair. The difference is "fair" vs "PROVABLY fair".
PROVEN EVENT #1:
If a site generates a random 256 bit number and provides me the hash I know they can't change it after the fact. If they change their secret number it won't produce the same hash.
PROVEN EVENT #2
If I generate my own 256 bit number and provide it to the site (after EVENT #1) and the site XOR the two values to use as the "combined secret" then I can prove that the site couldn't have rigged the random number in their favor (as they don't know until after selecting their random number what mine will be).
PROVEN EVENT #3
If the game is based on the combined secret in #2 I can prove it was done fairly. After the game the site will reveal their secret number (which I can verify hashes to the hash provided in event #1). I can also verify that the "game secret" is the XOR of the house's secret number and my secret number. Assuming the house also provides details steps on how that number produces the output I can verify they have shown me the proper output (sequence of cards, winning number, win/loss, etc).
When those three events occur and in the proper order, and are verified by the user it is not possible for the house to cheat. Try to think of a scenario where the house could cheat and not be detected. It is mathematically proven that if I lost then it was due to "fair chance".
A video of a dealer doesn't provide that. It may make it harder to cheat but harder to cheat isn't the same standard as PROVABLY fair. You "could" (not a accusation more a thought exercise) manipulate the video feed, the shoe used to deal could be designed to read the cards and allow the dealer to deal the second card (i.e. player has 16 and hits in BJ, the next card is a 5 and the second card is a K). The quality of the video, the resolution, the angle, etc may make it HARDER to cheat but the house still CAN cheat. Likewise the use of a video dealer makes it impossible for YOU to prove the game is "fair" (losses/wins based on random chance). It basically comes down to trusting the site. Maybe a video live dealer will increase the trust players have but it still requires trust. The same thing would apply to other games. In roulette a video feed doesn't guarantee the wheel is fair (i.e. each number has an equal and random chance of being picked) and not rigged.
* The point of this thread is that while an event can be provably fair it requires the player to verify. So a game can be in theory provably fair but if the player doesn't a) submit its own random player key, b) verify the hashes of house key, c) verify the output matches the combined game key then while it is provably the house could cheat. If the rate of verification is low and the rate that house cheats is low it is very possible the cheating would go undetected. If there was an automated software on the player's computer which verifies all game outcomes it ensures the provable is proven. If enough players used it then it would become impossible for the house to cheat for any significant period of time.