Quote from: FatFork on Today at 11:55:43 AM

Actually, that's why martingales and similar strategies don't work well in gambling. Even with a perfect 50/50 chance, there's still a very real possibility of hitting a losing streak of twenty, or even more, rolls.

In casinos it is even worse, because you never have 50 to win. It is 48.64% in European roulette and 47.37% in American roulette.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 12:48:53 PM

... so I don't think the larger prize winners are less likely to post.

That's what I was thinking.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 12:48:53 PM

That's peanuts compared to the sample I mentioned. With half the data from 10 out of 152 pages, I got a 0.00000239452 chance of it happening. Assuming (I'm not going to count 152 pages) that continues on the other pages, the chance of so little $200 prizes is (give or take) 0.00000239452³⁰. That's around 2.4*10^-169. Your one in a million poker hands are going to happen eventually. The E-169 thing confirms foul play.

I have to agree with you, I had the numbers in my head and it already seemed to me a deviation too far from the mean but I started to look at the other pages and they look the same, so everything indicates that with the larger sample we would still have similar numbers.

I think I flopped one Royal Straight Flush in my entire life (and only won the blinds because my opponents folded), which has a probability of 0.000154%. And I've played millions of hands. It's two orders of magnitude more likely than this.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 12:48:53 PM

Quick math:
I checked the "BITCOINS WON BY USERS" counter on their website. It increases by about 1 Bitcoin every 40 seconds. That's about 15 Bitcoin per hour. 360 per day. At 5% house edge, the house earns about 18 Bitcoin per day. That's $1.25 million. Could that be anywhere near the truth?

This should be kept in mind in case they come back claiming to have solved all the problems. The numbers don't add up.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 12:48:53 PM

It's hard to convince people a tag is justified, when it comes to statistical evidence.

Well, you have just convinced me. Although I had already red tagged them for other reasons. You didn't consider a neutral tag then?