Quote from: nutildah on January 04, 2019, 03:33:56 AM

I don't claim to understand how their particular hash generations work but it seems to me like you're right in that you can't use forum posts as a statistically valid way of counting winners. It is only potentially indicative of something and doesn't constitute as proof of anything.

While that reasoning does stand by itself alone, it really doesnt stand a chance if you also couple it with clear evidence that shows exactly WHY those statistics in the forum are what they are. If you combine the forum statistics with my own screenshots and data collection over a 1 year period, its VERY clear that my data EXPLAINS why the statistics in the forums exist. Theres a reason for the large gap in the forums and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with people's lack of greed for an extra 5 bux and everything to do with the fact that there really are NOT as many $200 winners as their should be. There are not even as many $20 winners as their should be either for that matter.

Just take a look at my statistics for numbers 0 through 10 and compare them for numbers 9000 through 10000. Riddle me this, why is there such a large statistical difference

. The answer is very simple if you stop and think about it. It's that Freebitco caps how many winners that it will allow from each 'tier' I guess you could call it and if that were true, we'd see exactly what we're seeing in both the forums statistics as well as my own data. He wont reply here because he knows he'll get destroyed with any explanation he can dream up. You just cant combat hard evidence and there is no point in trying to do so. He will ignore anything that's actually proven, but he'll be all over anything that ISNT proven like white on rice in an attempt to make themselves look legit. The ONLY defense he'd have is "You made all that data up yourself". Thats the only defense he'd have, but it's not just me that is seeing this. It's multiple people and we've each gone about proving the SAME result in different ways, mine is probably the one that took the longest but imo it's also the most compelling evidence that exists given that it has the largest sample size. So his next defense would be "You're all conspiring against us!". At that point, if you still believe him, you deserve to lose whatever they steal from you

And I also dont think this cheating stops at just the free rolls. As the old saying goes, where theres one, theres more definitely applies to fraudulent activity. I fully believe this cheating extends into the dice game, jackpot option, and the lottery (although in a different manor).

Let us also not forget that this place has THE HIGHEST house edge of any online casino. What is their excuse for that? Their excuse is all the extra's such as the free rolls, promotions, etc. But uhm, we already know they're cheating on those, so where does that leave them as an excuse for the house edge being so high. It doesnt. It just proves to us even more than these guys are just Bitconnect 2.0, complete with a rebrand coming and everything (right as all the cheating accusations are being proven, how coincidental is that lmfao). The rebrand does one thing and one thing only for them. It takes their name and connection to fraud/cheating out of all the google searches, forum searches, etc. Only those that were here BEFORE would know the difference. New people (which they have already admitted is their target audience, it's called turnover in the gambling realm) would not likely learn of their old past without substantial digging/research. But when a gambling site rebrands, it usually fails because it's most often times just a public admittance to the fact that they are indeed guilty of whatever it is they are trying to escape. The best course of action is NOT to rebrand during a period where you're currently being accused of cheating. Probably best not to rebrand at all regardless if you're a casino. Casino rebrands are notorious red flags of scam sites.