But gladly, there is a recent post being posted in a lot of threads, someone created a brain test!
I developed a small brain test to check if you know how the casino collects the house edge
You go to a brick and mortar casino with 1,000 USD and make 10 USD bets at a Black Jack table:
Example A)
After 100 bets made you leave the table with 980 USD
1) How many bets did you lose?
2) How much percentage is your experienced house edge?
Example B)
After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,020 USD
1) How many bets did you win?
2) How much percentage is your experienced player edge?
Example C)
After 100 bets made you leave the table with 1,000 USD
1) How many bets did you lose or win?
2) How much percentage is your experienced house or player edge?
You aren't able to answer this easy test confirms that you aren't able to understand how the casino collects the house edge!
As you aren't able to understand how the casino collects the house edge, you aren't qualified to comment on Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack and you are also not qualified to judge my evidence!
And even though you are neither able to understand how the casino collects the house edge nor qualified to judge my evidence, you felt the necessity to publicly hallucinate about me:
It is not my fault if Casino Guru is too stupid to understand what a 0,5% house edge means and that the law of large numbers determines the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome based on the number of attempts!
To compare Casino Guru with the police is misleading and a court will never appoint them as an expert witness!

Hmm... must be fun to live in the world inside your head where you're always right and when someone pointed out that you're not, either ignore the fact [because you're always right, so you shouldn't address the matter where they show that you're not] like when you try to point out my "fun fact" that stake routinely scan this board, which I then show the full statement made by the rep herself, which prove that the "fun fact" is actually a, well, "fact", or, when an ADR refuse to mediate due to the lack of evidence, they're stupid.
Comparing CG to police is misleading... is it, though? Try to go to the police and accuse someone without concrete evidence, see if they'll take your case seriously. By "your concrete evidence", I believe we all [but you] understand that what you served them --if we compare to what you tried to serve to CG on your thread there, as well as here in those wall of text and numbers-- are not valid as a compelling
prima facie because well, your understanding of how the system works is wrong, but then again, in the world you're living inside your head, you're the one who always right. Even three AI and other people are wrong.
"Fun fact": this phrase kept repeating in my head while I write this post, "off with his head!", I guess I know why, LOL.