I understand how the "Provably Fair" system works. It is not full proof by any means. Please refer to the link I posted earlier, it is easier to understand from Trevor. I have quoted a portion of the Trevor/Libertaad conversation below'
"This is why we claim that the browser-based Provably Fair implementation is compromised. In fact, I believe you have alluded to that in your closing argument. If Provably Fair allows a "handful" (or more) of savvy users to ensure the house isn't cheating, and I can show that the remaining majority of users are still vulnerable to exploitation, then the system cannot be reasonably claimed as "fair" and, at the very least, cannot be "provable"."
Of course provably fair isn't PERFECT, but does it have to be? All it has to do is show within a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the casino is being fair and I think it does that. Isn't that all that matters?