😭😭😭 "Help, I have no arguments left, so I’m just going to mock and merit my friends instead!"
Nutildah – The Master of Deflection@Nutildah – Ah, back again with
zero arguments, more merit farming, and now throwing Grok into the mix as if that somehow invalidates hard data. Let’s tear this apart.
🔹 If you think AI is running my posts, that’s just your excuse for being unable to counter with anything meaningful.
🔹 Second, you love misquoting to create distractions. Yes, I called out FoxyMethoxy’s claim because the idea of a casino game being truly “open-source” is laughable. His script is not from Stake, nor is it a verified replica of their backend logic. If anything, it’s just another shiny object to keep people from focusing on Stake’s refusal to provide real bet histories.
🔹 Third, you’re still avoiding the key questions. Instead of your usual clown-show mockery, try addressing these:
✅ Why did Stake delete StakeExposed.com and erase it from archives?
✅ Why won’t Stake provide users with full bet histories under GDPR requests?
✅ Why does Stake’s RTP consistently fall far below advertised numbers?
You have all the energy in the world to dig up two-year-old posts, but you never have the guts to question Stake’s shady practices. What a coincidence.
And as for your "Blackjack" joke—is that really your level of argument now? When all else fails, just insult and deflect? That’s the tactic of someone who lost the debate but still wants to save face.
You can mock, misquote, and dance around the facts all you want, but the reality is simple—Stake is running a provably rigged operation, and you’re working overtime to cover for them.
Now, go ahead and merit another post attacking me—it won’t erase the evidence against Stake.
The real problem is, your shitposts actually cover real issues caused by stake, such as myself being scammed 10k after 2 single bets.
I am not able to see how his shit posts cover up that Stake's in-house Black Jack is provably rigged?
Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack is nevertheless clear visible:
Info 1)The advertised house edge for Stake's in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means long-term I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed.
However, if you take a look at my Stake bets 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)BetsAfter 180,900 bets, the maximal possible deviation is 0,4% from the expected outcome according to the law of large numbers (See Info 3) below).
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 additionally maximal lose = 6,707 bets =
additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!
House edge0,5% house edge = 900 bets plus 720 bets maximal possible deviation = 80% additional maximal possible deviation from the house edge.
0,5% house edge plus 0,4% (80% additional maximal possible deviation) =
0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge!
Experienced house edge 4,6% minus 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge = 3,7% additional experienced house edge!
3,7% additional experienced house edge : 0,4% additional maximal possible deviation =
additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!
Stake's own bets 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 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 180,000 coin flips, 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%.