Jump to content

Limbo Seed: data Summary : Updated 47k bets


Featured Comment

2 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

please note that to count from 1 to 350,000,000,000,000,000,000 would take you about thirty-eight trillion, nine hundred fifty-one billion, two hundred ten million, eight hundred twenty-six thousand, two hundred ten years!

hold my beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There In this chapter, we expand Aggarwal's framework to not only accommodate categorical and mixed value data streams but also capture historical information about the statistical distribution of clusters in the streams using the clustering criterion proposed by Andritsos et al. (2004). 

... Barbara et al. 2001;Andritsos et al. 2004). These methods use mutual information between samples variables to make clustering choices. 

... COOLCAT(Barbara et al. 2002) is an entropy-based clustering algorithm that minimizes the average entropy of clusters. LIMBO(Andritsos et al. 2004) tries to minimize the average relative entropy between the samples distribution and the distribution of these samples once they are allocated to clusters. These entropy-based approaches are intuitively appealing, since they can avoid the use of artificial distance measures for categorical data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

1: Here is the result of a single bet as it is presented in the Limbo game
  "1.03x"

2: Stakes own online verification tool clearly shows that this is incorrect.

The actual Final result for that bet as confirmed by Stake is
image.png.28e599789d72822c22a256635f5c391b.png
 

It's actually correct.  From the algorithm they use to determine the outcome:

image.png.e78167a9bb68dab5436fed51c947be2c.png

 

20 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

The term "provably fair" is in itself a contradiction. 
For the most part I see it is used as a form of misdirection.
and misdirection is the showman's favourite tool, (also used by tricksters, scammers and pick pockets)

Fairness is always subjective. 

 The perception of objective fairness, is common in many sports, it is a process in which all parties with a vested interest agree on how fairness is measured, and this is set out in writing via a rule book of some sort. Fifa's rule book is 140 pages long. Yet still in every match there are heated arguments over interpretation of those rules, and in the end any disagreements between two parties will be settled by the subjective opinion of the referree.

It's true that the term itself can mislead players into thinking that it means the games are actually fair when in reality all it does is provide players the means to  understand how the outcome will be determined, and after the fact verify that the outcome was indeed determined in that way.

But that's no reason to discount the entire concept.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 11:15 AM, dupeddonk said:

It's actually correct.  From the algorithm they use to determine the outcome:

image.png.e78167a9bb68dab5436fed51c947be2c.png

 

It's true that the term itself can mislead players into thinking that it means the games are actually fair when in reality all it does is provide players the means to  understand how the outcome will be determined, and after the fact verify that the outcome was indeed determined in that way.

But that's no reason to discount the entire concept.  

lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmao no, i have been playing since 4 weeks on stake, maybe a thousand hours in limbo and slide together.

It's not scam just 99% of the players spend 10 minutes and said "omg it's rigged i don't win". Yes maybe sometimes you have to be lucky with original but if u are too agressive with bets above 1% of your wallet it's normal that you lose.
 

I got a very little file with stats, each time i see one multiplier minus than 1.25 i bet with x1.25, i got a 78% win rate.

Or looking for high multiplier, like looking for 10 rise your bet each 5 or 6 rolls, maybe risky but you have more chance to get back your money with benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot conclude PF with such smaller data. In-fact, house edge doesn't matter for such low number of rolls.

Not even 100k rolls, you should do a minimum of 1 million rolls to actually witness close to 1% house edge as advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

Seems api is not available. 

No api no record of bet data :/

They removed the api key from your profile on the site, but if you can make bets then the api is up.  You can make a bet and then check the POST request headers for your "x-access-token" in dev tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

This is an interesting statistic, do you have the original source?

Ahah not really, just when someone share big hit in tchat u will see a lot of people say "limbo is scam" but it's been five minutes lmao you're just impatient

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bitpopsy said:

You cannot conclude PF with such smaller data. In-fact, house edge doesn't matter for such low number of rolls.

Not even 100k rolls, you should do a minimum of 1 million rolls to actually witness close to 1% house edge as advertised.

yes, I'm glad you agree. thanks for your comment.

 

4 hours ago, Aispa said:

Ahah not really, just when someone share big hit in tchat u will see a lot of people say "limbo is scam" but it's been five minutes lmao you're just impatient

that does happen very frequently in the chat.

9 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

They removed the api key from your profile on the site, but if you can make bets then the api is up.  You can make a bet and then check the POST request headers for your "x-access-token" in dev tools.

I'm aware of that thanks. The issue as I see it is that if you do use the api and a dispute arises over a placed bet or result, the support staff won't entertain you.

On 7/9/2021 at 9:09 PM, Dexthesexx said:

@Ghostnipple regarding the wrong verification of 1.03x the calculation of 1.0356 supposed to be rounded up?

Rounding up or down can be a contentious issue when a large sum of money is concerned. 

If the game Final result is 1.999999999999x

the game displays this as 2.00x 

However if my target was 2.00x, I've lost that round, as I'm over target by 0.000000000001x

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

Rounding up or down can be a contentious issue when a large sum of money is concerned. 

 

Javascripts math.floor();   (rounding down) produces a a perfectly even distribution on a range.  You'll pretty much always see it when generating a random number with the built in function: 

Math.floor(Math.random());

Provably fair algorithms use it for the same reason. When using a range in javascript , which requires a min and max, in most cases the min is inclusive and the max is exclusive. So if you ask for a number from a range of 0 to 100, it will sometimes return 0 but never 100.

It's not the most intuitive concept to grasp, but if they were to round traditionally, or round up, using Math.round(); or Math.ceil();, the distribution wouldn't be even.  With Math.floor(); it is.

I would post a link to a good explanation on stackoverflow, but for some reason @MilicaR claims its against the rules to post any link to another website (even though it's not) and seems to have it out for me.  If you catch me in chat some time I'll post it there for you, or anyone else.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

Javascripts math.floor();   (rounding down) produces a a perfectly even distribution on a range.  You'll pretty much always see it when generating a random number with the built in function: 

Math.floor(Math.random());

Provably fair algorithms use it for the same reason. When using a range in javascript , which requires a min and max, in most cases the min is inclusive and the max is exclusive. So if you ask for a number from a range of 0 to 100, it will sometimes return 0 but never 100.

It's not the most intuitive concept to grasp, but if they were to round traditionally, or round up, using Math.round(); or Math.ceil();, the distribution wouldn't be even.  With Math.floor(); it is.

I would post a link to a good explanation on stackoverflow, but for some reason @MilicaR claims its against the rules to post any link to another website (even though it's not) and seems to have it out for me.  If you catch me in chat some time I'll post it there for you, or anyone else.  

 

Posting irrelevant jargon serves no purpose except to confuse those who don't understand it.

The Final result ie. 1.9999999999x takes precedence over any other result that is shortened for presentation and convenience.  (1.99x)

This is entirely logical, however as logic  is not entirely grasped by all, I asked Eddie to confirm that for me today. Which he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...