Infisnake

1/ We investigated @500Casino’s Towers game We found the house edge is up to 8x what they advertise, since 2023. Advertised: 5% house edge Actual: up to 40.13% We estimate $3.5m–$21.6m in extra player losses over 3 years. 500 takes the 5% again on every row you climb. Captured game code, our game testing and real payouts from 2024 and 2026 all show the same paytable. We’re asking 500 to address this publicly and compensate affected players. Full breakdown below.

13 weeks after our request for data, Winna has published its side. We’ve reviewed it independently; here’s what the evidence shows, so players can judge for themselves. - Our verdict is unchanged: on the evidence supplied, Slide VIP was NOT provably fair. -That is not a finding that results were manipulated. Winna’s numbers in the evidence package add up; what’s missing is independently verifiable evidence of how each round’s seed was chosen. WHAT WINNA'S DATA SHOWS We independently recalculated all 13,125 rounds Winna published, and every result matches its seed. The betting records Winna supplied cover only this player, and his 62 bets agree with the records we examined earlier. Results across the whole game are consistent with the stated formula for a 98% theoretical return. So the round data adds up. But it only shows that each seed produces its result, not how each seed was chosen. Winna also didn’t publish the full list of the player’s target multipliers, so some of its probability figures, including its estimated 1 in 107 chance of a loss at least this large, can’t be independently reproduced from the provided package. WHAT'S MISSING Winna says each round used the next seed from a pool of 10 million, created in one batch. The package doesn’t include that original pool, the record of its creation or independent proof of the order in which the seeds were used. What it provides is a record of the 13,125 rounds, published after the fact. Each Slide VIP result combined Winna’s secret server seed with a client seed. That client seed never changed: it was the hash of Bitcoin block 779,588, public since March 2023. Because the client seed was already known, each server seed’s result could be calculated the moment the seed was created, before it was assigned to a round. In principle, that would let seeds be picked for their results, and every check above would still pass. Winna says each round’s hash, a one way fingerprint of its seed, was shown when the round opened. A real pre bet hash stops a seed being swapped after it’s shown. It doesn’t show that the seed was picked fairly in the first place, or that it was really the next one in the pool. We have not seen verifiable proof that those hashes reached the player before he bet. HOW IT SHOULD WORK Winna’s own public Slide shows the right way to do it. It launched on 18 May, while Slide VIP was still running, using this design: A hash chain: 1 secret seed is hashed ten million times over, and only the last hash is published, as the anchor. Play then runs backwards: each round’s seed, once revealed, hashes to the previous round’s seed, back to the anchor. With complete, numbered public round records, a skipped or swapped seed is detectable. A future Bitcoin block. The client seed is the hash of a specified Bitcoin block that hasn’t been mined yet, a value no one can know until the block exists. The chain and the choice of block must both be published before that block is mined. That fixes the order of seeds before a single result can be calculated. Slide VIP as Winna describes it, had neither safeguard. WHY IT MATTERS The key question in this dispute is simple: were seeds chosen with their results already known? With the public Slide design, properly implemented, anyone could have checked that against records made before play. With Slide VIP, it rests on Winna’s word. That cuts both ways: even if Winna’s account is accurate, the published records don’t independently show it. WHERE THIS LEAVES THE DISPUTE The dispute remains unresolved on the evidence provided. We cannot establish that the player’s results were manipulated, nor that they weren’t. Winna’s data shows which seed each round used, but a record published afterwards can’t, on its own, show how those seeds were chosen. The lesson for the industry is that implementation matters. Fairness protections and the records needed to verify them, should be designed and tested before launch. A sound implementation gives players and operators alike evidence anyone can check, so disputes are settled by verification rather than competing accounts.

1/ A player reported Betfury​.com Limbo So we investigated their Originals - what we found: Their “Provably Fair” implementation is FAKE Limbo advertises 99.02% RTP Our test returned 97.33% That is 2.7× the advertised house edge We placed 240,000 live bets across 3 games. Full breakdown below