Hi,

I explained that yes, that is exactly Stake's implementation- it is 1:1.

If you use the same seed pair, and nonce, you will get the same result- you can double check that by checking on stake's site, or stakestats.

Therefore, my simulator is simulating what would be genuine, real games, if those seeds were used. You can try to diminish that by saying it's just a simulation, but that's exactly how the game is coded- the visuals and frontend are just there to animate the mechanics, which are core and are indeed open source and reproducible.

If my code can replicate the results of every hand you ever play, given the same inputs (hmac(secret=unhashedserverseed, message=clientseed:nonce:round)) independent of their site, then it is the same game.

Your analysis was flawed because you were miscounting natural blackjacks, improperly using doubles and splits, and this skews your RTP down.

Stake Stats uses similar code to reproduce your bets- they are not connected to the house, or anything like that. They have no idea whether you won or lost, and yet, they can still reproduce specific nonces. Have you ever considered why, or tried to do it yourself? I guess not.

You can't be serious posting that with no context; of course you aren't going to have 99% rtp or anything close when you end up doing 46 unit blackjack hands with a lose point of barely 200. Were you doing increase on loss, or just tilt betting? The RTP could be >100% and betting like that will still often lead you to a very bad result.

I know this whole topic is kind of a joke, so I wanted to contribute with some code. That's the only way, I find, to avoid user error when reporting the statistics of these games.

Note also that RTP (1 - house edge) is not magic or a directive; it's just the behavior of any casino wager being an 'unfair bet'. It can be found for any period by taking 1 - (pnl / wager). This is all-inclusive as far as bet sizes, changing bets, changing multipliers, etc. But if you are doing a very risky strategy, it will reflect back in that value, by deviating very high or very low. That is introducing volatility (a good/bad thing).

As for missing bet archives, or stakexposed or whatever- I do find missing bet archives concerning. None of that is relevant to whether og blackjack is listed house edge or not, because the implementation of the original games are fully open source and verifiers can be made independent of any of these websites. When trying to argue that RTP (house edge, which would imply the actual results are being tampered with to be less favorable like an adjustment in the middle attack, for games like blackjack, limbo, etc) is being changed or malleable, you have to first explain how they are able to predict and make actionable arbitrary HMAC inputs, which you can find more information about here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2104

Here you guys go,


https://pastebin.com/GAuuPhE8

you can check that the simulator is accurately using stake's original bj formula, as it will print out the card order for test1/test1 nonce 1- or anything else you switch in near the bottom there, it can be your own seed pair, so long as it's unhashed of course.

One thing I had to do was count naturals as 1.5 wins, not just 1. This brings the winrate much closer to what is expected, because you're getting back 1.5 units when you win, not just 1. I think this was discussed earlier in the thread.

Without doubling, and when using an imprecise/poor strategy, the house edge is very high. Before I implemented doubling properly to this, it was hard to get less than 5% edge.

It is also worth noting that on Stake, when you have a draw/push, it doesn't count as a loss or a win. So the playthrough goes up in the stats, but it doesn't say there was a game at all.

Here is the strategy I used:



Here is a random result of 100,000 games:


You can adjust how many games are run in the code, it by default does 100k- you can do any number you like, even their supposed 10 million. It might just take a minute though

How to use: I do not suggest running random code without checking it first. But, this is entirely open source, so check it before running it. You need python.
`py originalblackjack.py` in any cli. You could also run this from an online python environment, but if it's a free one, it may have issues simulating too many games. I'm sure you can figure it out if you care this much.

Takeaways: it's hard to approach the house edge without a lot of games, and playing perfect strategy, including all proper doubles with no fear or balance worries. The edge is quite low in that case. When naturals only count as 1 win, it can feel low, even though it's not. There is a reason mass-playing perfect strategy og blackjack on a bot was one of the best ways to farm wager, if you had those tools.

This simulator follows stake's implementation 1:1; there are no liberties taken here.

Thanks for reading

When you make everything a job we all become less free, not more free.

What something like the sweatcoin idea does (I recall hearing about it because I did some surveys asking if it sounded good as an incentive to exercise) is actually gamify some mundane task, rather than create any economic fluidity. It also is highly optimistic and prone to abuse, and if you do not immediately start thinking of ways to abuse the system, then you are very naive and likely holding a bag or two, respectfully. This goes for most systems like this. It stops being fun or valuable as a tool and becomes a minmax effort.

There are probably a lot of factors at play...

I think that general societal unrest or dissatisfaction tends to play a large part. As well, a mixture of the economy being good and there being a surplus of value in cash but less work to justify it (ie, inflation). I would argue that while of course the quantity has increased, the actual intensity is more matching the 90's compared to the 2000s. I was looking for any charts that might support that but I can't find any very relevant long-term charts that might reflect gambling interest, aside from one specifically for Australia which spans long enough, and sort of meets my assumption.

Here is a very interesting chart.
https://ugaminggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Screenshot-2023-06-27-at-2.12.05-PM-1024x630.png

The Australian chart in question- it's worth noting that gambling apparently went down during COVID, but has obviously spiked right back up after. That places like Stake and such have exploded in the past few years is no coincidence.

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/ABS-6291.0.55.003-LabourForceAustraliaDetailedQuarterly-EmployedPersonsByIndustrySubdivisionSex-EmployedTotal-GamblingActivities-Persons-A2545784A.svg/1200px-ABS-6291.0.55.003-LabourForceAustraliaDetailedQuarterly-EmployedPersonsByIndustrySubdivisionSex-EmployedTotal-GamblingActivities-Persons-A2545784A.svg.png[img]

The rise of gacha games, which are independent of COVID but were also exacerbated by COVID, may also be poisoning younger people more readily than they would have otherwise with certain instincts.

I read his other posts.. he is just unused to decadence. I find it very cute, in a way, or perhaps a little optimistic. It is nice knowing there are people who want to learn that much and try to use organized, thoughtful ways to narrate their progress. Even if he dreadfully needs a proper teacher and the longer he is without one the longer it will take to integrate to any degree.

Introducing gambling of this level to someone totally alien to it is about as dangerous as giving free samples of meth, I feel.

Here are relevant sections, I'm not really sure what this discussion is other than people being anxious about potential KYC. But that will always be the case, you know? Of course those people who are just naturally breaking T&C by existing but in a not very offensive way will be worried. All the more reason to withdraw.

As for wolf.bet itself, the site really is behind in terms of... everything. The XP race is pitiful. The core set of games is very weak. Chat is over-moderated. Bad rakeback. Bad bonuses. Zero comp.

One cent rain? One cent. Laughable. VIP wheel and any bonuses might as well just be rakeback+, and even then, still weak. It feels like anyone who sticks there just doesn't know there are much, much better alternatives.

It's a pretty slick site but nothing they do is very impressive or stands out.

5. KYC/AML
§1
Wolf.bet shall have the right, at any time, to ask for any KYC/AML documentation it deems
necessary to determine the identity and location of the User. Wolf.bet shall reserve the right
to restrict service and payment until identity is sufficiently determined.

...

'as part of the registration process...'

(Not, of course, currently the case, but already in the Terms)

§6
Wolf.bet may require the User to become a verified User, which includes passing certain
checks. The User may be required to provide valid proof of identification and any other
document as it may be deemed necessary. This includes but is not limited to, a picture ID
(copy of passport, driver's license, or national ID card) and a recent utility bill listing the
User’s name and address as proof of residence. Wolf.bet shall reserve the right to suspend
wagering or restrict Account options on any Account until the required information is
received. This procedure is done in accordance with the applicable gaming regulation and
the anti-money laundering legal requirements

I just use doge mostly. (Much regret because I used doge there as trash coin before the boom, lol. Woopsie. What was like $20 in my statistics is now $4000). Lesson learned, sort of.

I do find using USDT makes me more aware of how much I am spending. It's a little difficult sometimes to know just how much I'm blowing because I can't do the conversion in my head easily.

Anyway, wolf.bet is probably the only casino site I've been on where I feel both scammed and not scammed at the same time. The website is so provably fair that after just 100 samples testing of limbo at various payouts, it was almost perfectly aligned with the expected probability, with the exception that 20-30s never really showed up. This leads me to believe it is so fair, it may be exploitable with proper statistics.

As for exchanging, unless they charge some stupid fee or perhaps require you to only bank out with your original crypto, that's basically like giving you free access to an exchange with no maker/taker fees attached. Yes, you'll probably lose it anyway, but I don't think it's hard to grab some doge and start dogeing around. Even now it feels like monopoly money. It's sort of like taking quarters to an arcade at this point.

Here's the thing. From looking at Coinbase's 17/18 run and the equivalent days up until now, the actual average volume is down. There are, as expected, less overall coins in circulation. Which is the point of a deflationary currency. Assumedly, it might raise a bit since the low after the high hasn't happened, but up until the 20k run in 2017, it's pretty fitting.

In the same patterns, the least trading happened in the low's run-up, and the most trading happened shortly after the high; as people realized it was not going to stay there. Interestingly, the volumes traded on those high days were very close.

102819.83
+
102548.43

dec 22 2017 vs jan 11 2021. So yesterday was the 'ok, we're not going back to 45k for a week at least if we even do' moment. Actually, sentiment seems to indicate most agree with the above that it will correct.

On the low trading count day (accumulation for the entire run I suppose), the volumes were 11894.4 and 6253.5.

It seems more as if there are nearly double the traders, but the valuation is about the same. Double demand = double volume. Double volume same demand = double price.

It sorta fits together I guess.

This is a great quote and pretty much sums it up.

The hardest part of trading is realizing when you shouldn't be trading :p

Stocks are still much easier for me than daytrading simply because it forces me to wait 24 hours between the majority of decision making, as I don't feel like being a pattern day trader. Given those have some extrinsic value to believe in compared to just unreasonable expectations (as powerful as that is), there's something more to study, too.

Easily the biggest fund drain for most is the inordinate fees when making too many trades in too short a period. Often someone will end up changing positions so much they would have done better simply getting stopped out form the first one and taking a break.

Don't go all in and don't sell all. Perform steps and ensure that even if the price decides to sweep back the other way or further on, you can cut losses or capitalize as is reasonable.

You don't specifically need TA, but I find it to be a helpful source of "focus". Many people will overuse and rely on TA to the point they forget that TA is created and, as a result, fallible and not entirely reliable. It's a severe case of survivorship bias.

fyi. it's not because of grayscale. institutions do their best to not affect price as much as they can. if they did something like that, it would endanger their certs + investor interest if it was obvious; no one would give them professional access if they are manipulating the market.

now... a lot of ordinary folks all doing it at once while coordinated?

: )

reading the litigations and the memos sent in, their community is entirely clueless to what flies in court, and did not help them at all.

however, this also means xrp holders are idiots, which means it will probably still rise in price regardless. they did it before, too. doesn't make any sense, its use case is logical but driven by people who are too opportunistic, and the overall message is missing entirely.

hence, a buy.