Topic: Stake.com - The Leading Crypto Casino - Drake, UFC, Everton, Alfa Romeo F1 Team - page 149. (Read 283656 times)

I do not know why people put so much emphasis on casino reviews? We all know that many of the good reviews that are done on these sites are paid for or bad reviews are coming from competitors or some butt hurt gamblers that does not understand the house edge and claiming that sites are rigged when they lose money. 

There are 900+ pages of discussions about Stake.com in this thread alone.... and the majority of it is not negative attacks or scam reports from the gamblers that are using it. Stake.com has proven that it is one of the leaders in the Crypto currency online gambling scene, so there should not be any doubt about that. 

What kind of positive review that may encourage you to use a gambling platform? Stake has been running for years and has proven themselves as one of the top crypto casinos. Although they had been better (in terms of bonuses) in the first few years but they are still providing good bonuses for active players. If you want to read review, you can visit btcgosu or gamblingbro, 2 review sites that provide honest review and managed by member of this forum.

At this point, I'll really appreciate it if someone would point me in the direction of reviews about Stake platform.

I've stressed, without reserve, the limited number of positive reviews I've gotten about stake (actually, just one positive review) and the others aren't really encouraging me to use the platform. If any, can someone point me in the direction of such reviews within this forum as members of the forum can give me better reviews than outside the forum

Nope.

You didn't lose the same amount in each of the hands you lost.

You didn't win the same amount in each of the hands you won.

You're making calculations as if there are only three potential outcomes in blackjack:  lose your entire wager, push, or profit the amount you wagered (win even money).

This is not the case.  There are many more possible outcomes than these 3.  

Other factors:

You did not wager the exact same amount every single time.
You played games other than blackjack.
You did not play perfect strategy.

BlackyJacky Doesn't even seem to be trolling. Twitchy showing off the class they are, not only explaining once in a clear and thorough answer, but several times. applauded.

[Over $9,000] The Sky Is The Limit



On the Stake Limbo game, win at least two unique multipliers, from the following list:

| 10x | 20x | 30x | 40x | 50x | 60x | 70x | 80x | 90x | 100x | 110x| 120x | 130x| 140x| 150x | 200x| 210x| 220x |230X | 240x| 250x | 300x | 350x | 400x | 500x | 600x | 700x | 800x | 900x | 1000x | 1500x | 2000x | 2500x | 3000x | 3500x | 4000x | 4500x | 5000x | 10000x |

To be eligible, you need to hit at least 2 different multipliers.

Extra reward: If 5000x is one of those unique multipliers you need to hit to be eligible, you will get an extra reward. More info bellow

1 USD minimum bet amount (in any currency).

Giveaway's Topic: https://stakecommunity.com/topic/81647-%F0%9F%A5%87-over-9000-the-sky-is-the-limit-%F0%9F%94%A2/

Just ignore this guy, otherwise he keeps spamming.
Nobody can tell me that ALL bets of his shown in the statistics tab are from blackjack, that is NEVER real.
So they numbers he is claiming are also false, and that's why not even necessary to have a discussion about them.

We see these people come and go here. Just keep your business in your scam accusation thread. Spamming here makes more and more people just clicking on the ignore button.

Just complain about this on reddit or the stake forum, there u might find more interest.

Actually, when comes to unsupported accusations of scamming or fraud, I do not think we should leave people to spread around misinformation and continue to go unchallenged, what would happened if someone who does not fully understand the laws of probablities or some basic math started to read things like that and none challenged? There would be matter of time before some of those people who are not as experienced as you or Twitchy seal are started to believe or even repeat things which are not accurate.
I am sure you have personally known cases of misinformation spreading like wildfire when people do not even care to check the statements they share with others. That is the reason I challenge BTC FUD when I can or speak against quacks who profit off the health of other people (who have been convinced their AIDS can be cured with seawater and Tea).
So, even though it is TS' personal choice to reply those posts, I applaud him for taking the time to do so.

TwitchySeal claims that below "Statistics" bets won and lost refer to dealer hands won and lost.

He also gives us the statistic of dealer hands won and lost:

https://i.gyazo.com/32faa13ec0a1e8fb3f020990465e8e0b.png

42,5% of dealer hands are won, 8,5% of dealer hands are push and 49% of dealer hands are lost.

If we reduce the 42,5% of dealer hands won from the 49% of dealer hands lost, that means a player loses 6,5% of the dealer hands.

Here is the proof why TwitchySeal is lying!

If bets won and lost refer to dealer hands won and lost, then I lost 4,6% of the dealer hands.

That would mean I lost 1,9% less dealer hands and experienced a 1,9% player edge (6,5% - 4,6% = 1,9% player edge)

1,9% player edge means that I won 1,9% of the total amount wagered.

1,9% of 9,5 million USD wagered = 180,000 USD profit.

But as I lost around 30,000 USD from my pocket instead of winning 180,000 USD, bets won and lost can not refer to dealer hands won and lost!

You see?

TwitchySeal is too stupid to understand basic math and publicly lies that bets won and lost refers to dealer hands won and lost!

He is also too stupid to understand, that if the advertised house edge is 0,5% and my Stake statistics states that I lost 4,6% of the bets placed, that the Stake in-house Black Jack system must be rigged!

The answer is inside your inquiry. The bonus has been decreased for those users who don't make deposits and wager a good amount. The base reward for the VIP rank has been removed a few months ago. Now you need to have some activity (deposit + wager) to be eligible for the base reward. I'm Platinum III on both Primedice and Stake. I have the experience of getting less than $5 from the Primedice monthly bonus for my inactivity. While I never received low amount like that in Stake as I'm an active gambler there.

There is no need to explain over and over again.

Because he just looking for some attention. The more you respond, the more he gonna send the same thing on the thread. It's better to explain one time, and I have already seen multiple people explain it to him.

He still doing the same things, so wasted a lot resource.

They need to fix it as to access my account I used 4G from my phone for some time.Of course by copying bets is just some random play but I have won about 6 bets already in 5-6 days doing this,copying bets,I just give a quick scan to the games that are in different parlays and then choose to bet on or not.May be since I click a lot of multis to check,maybe it is because of that that stake gives me error 429,too many requests in a short amount of time,hopefully they fix it as it really need to be fixed,I want to copy a lot of bets and I don't want to delay the process  .

Just like many other VIP Platinum members here who received a consistent $5 monthly bonus last month even without playing, they now only receive $1. Stake didn't even provide an explanation for why this reduction in the monthly bonus occurred. And now they're simply stating that the computation of the monthly bonus is correct and no irregularities with the monthly bonus.

Well, been a while since I last copied any bet on stake, even though I used to really engage myself in doing that a lot in previous times for the same believe as yours   , but I haven't really been lucky since I've never copied any bet that made it to winning.

In all the times I've engaged myself in copying bets from other players, I've never did encounter the error you are talking about, and neither have I ever encountered any error per say, so if indeed, the error you are talking about is a system error from stake, I trust that by now, they must have discovered and possibly are fixing it already.
I also will try making some deposit to my stake account this afternoon and try some bet copying, since I don't have any particular match in mind to bet on, and I also don't want to play slot or casino games, will try some bet copying and I hope by then, the said error you are talking about must have been fixed, if it's from stake side by the way...

I think Stake needs to fix the error of giving people who place bets in short amount of time,I mean sport bets from copying other people,they just keep giving me the http 429 error which is too many request in a short amount of time,they need to fix this,I am just placing 2 bets now before being put in that error,I just am there waiting,seeing other people bets and copying what bets I find suitable to copy them,however I want to copy lots of such bets as I believe someone will hit it big and I need to be there with the bet copied  .

If the mechanics of the game are transparent (like any of the stake house games or any card game), then you can actually figure out the house edge without making a single bet.  You just add up the payout of every possible out come and find the difference of the total wager and total payout.

No, #ryzaadit .... we should encourage discussions like this, because there are a lot of people who does not understand the "house edge" and how different games work.

Let's use this discussion as an educational opportunity for other people apart from BlackyJacky to learn more about this. I think a lot of conflict can be prevented, if people knew how these things work, but casinos are not really helping to explain it.  

You know how I went on about Stake changing the RTP on some games and how this makes the calculation of the advertised house edge almost impossible. (Millions of bets are necessary to verify it and by that time it might be slightly adjusted) 

It's crazy to see your action

You have more time to response to these, over, and over again + explain to him. It's clear, he doesn't want to read your clarification or explanation. If I was you, I just ignore him and put him on ignore. The more you response him, more chance he keep posting. If everyone ignore him, then he just posted some spam complain to here and since no body response him. He will be tired by him self, and be gone (like usual typical user like him).

He doesn't care with other people argument, he only care by his story and hoping/supporting people who have the same thought with him.

Stop using bets.  It's wrong.
When the advertised house edge is 0.5%, you will statistically lose 0.5% of the total wagered.  Not total 'bets'.  Total 'wagered'.

"Bets" is ambiguous.  It doesn't make sense to attempt to make the calculations you're trying to make using "bets".  

Very simple math for you here.  Take the house edge and multiply it by the total wagered.  That's how much, on average, you will theoretically lose.

If you wager $50,000 your expected losses would be $250

If you wager $200,000 your expected losses would be $1,000

If you wager $8,019,299.22 (in crypto at todays value),

your expected losses would be $40,096.50




Obviously you are doing it wrong since you think you should be in profit over 100k playing a game with a 0.5% house edge.

You can keep pretending like you shouldn't be losing money, but that won't change reality.  When you play a game with a 0.5% house edge, you can expect to 0.5% of however much you wager.  

Every single semi intelligent person will agree with me here.  This isn't rocket science, it's very basic math.

TwitchySeal loves to show that he is too stupid to understand basic math!

Info 1)

If you take a look at my statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers:

Bets: 180,904

Wins: 78,285

Losses: 86,612

If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285 = 8,327)

Losing 8,327 bets out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost.


Info 2)

The advertised house edge for the Stake in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means longterm I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed.

Losing 0,5% out of 180,904 bets placed = 900 bets to lose.

If you compare Info 1) with Info 2), you can see that I lost 8,327 bets instead of the 900 bets I should lose = 9 times more!

While there is a deviation from the expected outcome, it can not be 9 times more after 180,904 bets!


Info 3)

When the house edge is 0,5% and you placed 180,900 bets, you will lose 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips.

The remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because they are neutral and you will win 50% = 90,000 bets and lose 50% = 90,000 bets.

4,6% of the bets lost while I should lose only 0,5% means my experienced deviation of the 180,000 coin flips is 4,1%!


Now let's take a look at the standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips:

A) Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (In 68% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0,12%)
 
My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 34 times higher than the standard deviation (4,1% : 0,12% = 34)


B) 3 times standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 0,36% (In 99,7% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0.36%)
 
My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 11 times higher than the 3 times standard deviation (4,1% : 0,36% = 11)


Info 4)

The Stake bet transaction history only states 180,000 single bet events and no overview of my experienced house edge.

To get my experienced house edge from the bet transaction history, I would need to take a look at all 180,000 bets and calculate it manually!

If the cards were dealt fair and I lost only 0,5% of all bets placed while the statistics states that I lost 4,6%, then the Stake statistics is rigged!

In either case, the Stake in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged and Stake has to compensate at least the 30,000 USD I lost from my pocket.

Their strategy to ignore me, while they are clearly at fault, will fail!  



Yes.