Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 03:44:46 PM

Without much experience on this field [so my words can perhaps be treated as empty air], IMO the idea that originals being rigged can be somewhat thwarted. On a past case regarding Stake's Minesweeper game, a rep of CG even went to a length to create an account here [granted, he didn't state it openly that he's the CG staff, but it can be very easily inferred], built his own verifier,explain to the player [whom... rather have similar trait with this OP] how he can test with his "home-made" verifier, and shown that [IIRC] random sampling came out verifiable.

No problem that you do not have much experience on this field, I am able to enlighten you:

Info 1)

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.

However, 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.

0,5% house edge out of 180,900 bets placed I should lose 900 bets + a possible small deviation.

8,327 bets lost - 900 bets I should lose = 7,427 bets too much lost.

Info 2)

Bets

After 180,900 bets, the technically maximal possible deviation is 0,4% from the expected outcome according to the law of large numbers (See Info 3).

180,000 bets x 0,4% = 720 bets I could maximal additionally lose on top of the 900 bets I will lose based on the 0,5% house edge.

7,427 bets too much lost minus 720 bets I can additional maximal lose = 6,707 bets = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

House edge

0,5% house edge = 900 bets plus 720 bets I can maximal additionally lose = 80% additional maximal possible house edge.

0,5% house edge plus 80% = 0,4% additional maximal possible house edge = 0,9% maximal possible house edge!

Experienced house edge 4,6% minus 0,9% maximal possible house edge = 3,7% additional house edge!

3,7% additional house edge : 0,4% additional maximal possible house edge = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

Stake's own statistics is 100% proof that their in-house Black Jack system is rigged!

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.

Now let's take a look at the technically maximal possible 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%)

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%)

What does 99,7% mean?

When you make 333 times a serie of 180,900 bets, then 332 times the deviation from the expected outcome will be up to 0,36% and only one time the deviation will be higher than 0,36%.

I was not able to find how much the deviation could be in this one case where it is higher than 0,36%, but likely not more than 10% of the 0,36% = 0,4%.

Info 4)

The Stake bet transaction history only states 180,900 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 180,900 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.