Quote from: Horsbyname on Today at 09:59:17 AM

Updates regarding the Evidences that Holydarkness was suppose to receive from Kirito89.

Holydarknes didn't act as a bridge and posted a novel without containing a single piece of evidences we were agreed on.

I asked him to reread the agreement and stand by his words. Holydarkness dropped all his statements upon which we were agreed.

His Judgment can be read here

Quote from: Horsbyname on March 12, 2025, 07:09:38 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on March 11, 2025, 09:11:00 PM

No Evidences

[...]

Umm... you actually forgot to quote the post that posted the findings I found upon looking at the evidence provided to me by DuckDice through Kirito89 [quoted below the double line, for the sake of transparency], as well as to address the matter I asked following the findings, where your narrative changed from where your threads's aim is seeking transparency of their provable fairness due to your 158 losing streak, to offering them a fair offer.

I don't think the two can mutually exist; Either you look for transparency or you look for a refund.

So, I'll ask again: "a fair offer for what, if I may ask?"

Quote from: holydarkness on March 10, 2025, 07:49:46 PM

[...]
The results of what's provided to me, and I can confirm, are as what Kirito89 said above:

Of Provable Fairness due to Losing Streak
The spreadsheet given to me was not like the previous attempt made in collaboration with Khaled0111 where the list shows the longest losing streak in under or over. The spreadsheet that is in my possession, however, is basically the betting history of the player itself, his winning and his losing. 0 and 1. A yes and a no. A win and a lose.

With about thousands of entries that made my eyes water just to scan them, not only that the statement of playing in 15.5% chance is unfounded as the bets were made with 33% chance, the more important point that I think is better to be pointed out rather than the 33% v. 15.5% is that I can not find a losing streak of 158 times. Not even a 50 losing streak in a row.

With this, I believe I can safely say that the claim of 158 losing streak at 15.5% is unproven to be true.

Of Fairness and Transparency as The Aim of The Thread
The player sent DuckDice an email asking for a refund if transparency can not be provided, despite the claim that the purpose of the threads are to get clarification of the losing streak. I can see that the emails are indeed sent from the players email address as shown on the other thread.

Though it entitle overseers to question the real purpose of the threads, I choose to ask the player, for the very last time, of his true intent: with above explanation that provable fairness being proven, that 158 losing streak never existed and DuckDice has been transparent with their games, that it was not rigged, do you still stick to your original narrative, that you only seek for clarification and transparency, thus accepting above findings as satisfactory and made peace with your loss, or were the threads are indeed an attempt to get a refund for loss during your stay with DuckDice, and thus, the above transparency through betting history is negligible and you will not accept any answer until the refund being initiated?

Quote from: holydarkness on March 11, 2025, 09:11:00 PM

[...] And since I am still standing from the neutral ground, in the spirit of transparency, I "exported" the data to AI, since reading the line one by one proven to take a lot of time and put strain on my eyes so much, and I am not that good in writing spreadsheet formula that can easily pull the data off, this is the tally of the winning/losing streak according to the data being processed by AI:

Code:

Here are the five longest streaks of consecutive 1s and 0s in your data:

1s → 8 times
1s → 7 times
1s → 7 times
1s → 6 times
1s → 6 times

0s → 18 times
0s → 17 times
0s → 17 times
0s → 17 times
0s → 16 times

[...]