Topic: Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot! - page 1282. (Read 1991083 times)

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

This is due to a missing * 5 multiplication from the substring selection that was added later on in development to the servers but not properly updated on the frontend. There is no way we can exploit this (as backend used the correct algorithm and therefore gave the correct roll numbers), it's an inaccuracy in our check script and our provably fair system still holds. The page has been updated and fixed, the few cases of bets that failed this verification will now verify properly using that script. Most bets verified but some failed due to the "shift over 5" nature, with the missing * 5, the verify script was using characters 5-6 (index + 5) instead of characters 5-10 (index * 5 + 5) for the second and subsequent tries when looping through viable roll numbers.

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

Looking for a reply to the cheating post as well.

Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that.  Explanation please?

can you post the proof of your findings, so that people can see it also?

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

I personally feel that your point about the "difference' causing him to lose is invalid, would he have adjusted his client seed etc knowing that the system used was different? This only seems to be important after the fact given that he lost.

I'm doing my best to provide a fair experience, I'm also working on code so I can be less reliant on developers to solve these sorts of issues. At the end of the day though his roll was fair and unmanipulated.


Also coinfist is a shill for another casino: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/coinfist-365873  (Notice all his posts are him screaming that PD is a scam in all caps) I'm not refunding him 0.01 which he lost placing a 100% fair bet. He literally created his forum account to simply type anti PD posts. Instead of proving that the verification section text  was incorrect you should instead try and prove that he did not get a 100% fair bet.


Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.


Primedice is 100% fair but our verification page text has mistakes on it and is inaccurate end of discussion. We will edit this page today (hopefully without error this time)

Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better.
Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback.

Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever .

Screenshot

I could only catch this, there were two more after this within 2 minutes of the all bets tab scrolling down.

Insane!

I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Yeah i rly like how dooglus and some other members rly helpout , not only pd , but all other sites to become better.
Feedback is always a good thing , doesn't matter if its positive or negative. When its rly good quality feedback.

Not like guys that straight away post huge red letters how its scam without any proofs and thoughts whatsoever .

It seems like this is mostly resolved.  Dooglus has once again helped out a site and Stunna has said he'd make it right.  It's really nice to see some professionalism on the forums.

Stunna maybe you can just keep PD2 up for awhile longer and see how many accounts were effected?  Then you could post the user names of who may have coins coming to them and ask that they send you their login credentials (ID # and password) or log into oldprimedice to collect their funds?

Dooglus, I, for one, get your point.  The rounding error was most pronounced at the high odds bets.  I appreciated the detailed calculations, so by playing 1% a player was facing a 1.495% house edge rather than 1%, correct?  However, if they were doing the default 49.5% it was a 1.01% house edge.

Thanks to you both.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.

Why do you and Stunna keep repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% higher than advertised?

I just gave lots of examples of what the house edge actually was:


You even replied to that post, and yet keep on repeating that the house edge was only 0.005% too high.

One the 0.01% game the house edge was 50.5%, which is 49.5% too high.
On the 0.1% game the house edge was 5.95%, which is 4.95% too high.

Sorry to keep repeating this, but I'm not sure why you aren't getting it.

Do you not understand what I'm saying? Or do you think that if you keep repeating yourself then people will believe you?

The chance of winning a bet was 0.005% lower than advertised. That doesn't mean the house edge was 0.005% too high. The house edge was too high by an amount which depends on the chance of winning. When the chance of winning is meant to be 0.01%, reducing that by 0.005% is halving the chance of winning, and so increasing the house edge to 50.5%, not to 1.005%.

I don't think that's true.

Just-Dice was doing a lot of pretty complex stuff, keeping track of 1000 different investors, and distributing the profits and losses of every bet in proportion to the size of people's investments.

PD has a bunch of "fluff" like achievements and levels, but none of it is really very important to the actual game. As I understand it they're just a bunch of extra counters per player which affect how much the faucet pays you.

I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised.

The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets.

Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance.

On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were).

That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge.

Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge:

But Primedice isn't as simple as Just-Dice...

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.