Are you trying to bury the issue because you understand my explanation?
Why not just remove the provably fair claims so that players are deceived?
There are NO ANY ISSUE. I have answered your questions. I Will answer more, when I take time.
The issue is your games aren't provably fair. If you have time to spam the forum you have time to take a second to understand what I'm saying.
Answer
The important thing to note is that the card deck is shuffled before the game starts and before the player seed is passed and known by the server. This is guaranteed by revealing the server hash. Let's suppose the deck was shuffled or deliberately constructed in favor of the house. After the player starts a new game their seed is passed to the server. The server uses the seed to calculate the shift number (it's described how it's calculated on the provably fair verification page). Then the card deck is cut based on the shift number. The number of cards that will be cut is not known in advance (and can not be predicted without knowing the client seed), thus it's impossible to construct a deck that with any possible shift number would still provide advantage to the house. This makes it useless for the house to try to cheat and initially shuffle the deck in its favor.
No, it's not.
If the deck is constructed so that no A, K, Q, J, or T of the same suit had less than 11 cards between them, with the last card being considered next to the first card - a royal flush would be impossible to hit regardless of the seed the player chooses.\
In order for the game to be provably fair, the player seed needs to effect the initial shuffle - not simply where the pre shuffled deck starts dealing from.
Answer
The layout of the reels is provided in the each Slots game page.
Yeah I already mentioned I found them.
Thanks. I was able to find the reel layouts, it's good you provide them.
But like in video poker, the player seed is limited in what it can influence since the initial result is generated non transparently.
Maybe an actual example will help you understand.
Here's the result of an initial shuffle, before the players seed is used to determine where to 'cut' the deck:
D3,C7,S5,S7,HK,DA,C8,S2,DJ,DQ,CA,D7,H3,HT,S6,C2,ST,HA,H9,SA,CT,C3,H7,S3,S4,DT,D8,C4,H6,H5,H2,D2,D5,CJ,S8,D4,D9,SJ,CK,SK,DK,S9,CQ,HQ,H4,C9,C6,H8,C5,D6,HJ,SQ
I color coded the royal flush cards.
You'll notice that no matter where the deck is cut, the player has no chance at being dealt a royal flush.
Can you prove that the the shuffle was not manipulated to make royal flush possibilities happen less often than they should?
Tomorow, okay? 
