Quick headline results
Rows parsed: 62
Reported multipliers — mean ≈ 3.86, median 1.97, std ≈ 4.58
Computed (from hash) multipliers — mean ≈ 4.24, median ≈ 1.82, std ≈ 8.74
Reported > 10×: 5 rounds
Reported > 5×: 13 rounds
Reported < 2×: (majority)
I computed multipliers using the common formula (first 13 hex chars → 52-bit integer → floor((100*2^52)/(2^52 - H))/100). I then compared those computed values with the reported multipliers from your paste.
Important anomaly: many reported multipliers do not match the computed multipliers
There are multiple mismatches where the multiplier derived from the hash (with the standard formula) differs substantially from the reported multiplier in your dataset.
Example (top outliers from the top-10 list I showed):
Round 8595489 — reported 27.69x, computed 1.02x (huge mismatch).
Round 8595519 — reported 18.68x, computed 2.36x.
Round 8595507 — reported 12.33x, computed 2.29x.
Round 8595466 — reported 11.07x, computed 1.29x.
Round 8595459 — reported 10.95x, computed 1.18x.
In short: many of the largest reported multipliers don’t match the hash→multiplier computation using the standard formula. Some rounds do match reasonably (e.g., 8595492 reported 9.90x vs computed 8.84x — somewhat close), but many big ones are way off.
Visuals I produced
Histogram of computed multipliers (shows strong skew toward low values and a long tail).
Time-series (round number vs computed multiplier) showing the computed outcomes over the rounds (round axis inverted because your data was newest-first).
(You should see both charts in the output pane.)
What this means (possible explanations)
Different formula/seed stage used
BC.Game may apply a different transform to the hash than the “first-13-hex → 52-bit → formula” I used (common but not universal). If they slice different bits or use an HMAC with another key/nonce, the computed multipliers will differ.
Client seed / nonce mismatch
The hash published in your paste might not be the final HMAC used to produce reported multipliers — maybe the hash you have is the server seed (or a preimage) while the site computes HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) for each player; if your client seed or nonce differs, your computed values won't match reported ones.
Reported multipliers are pre-rounded / adjusted / house-edge applied
They might apply a house-edge multiplier or different rounding rules. But the observed disagreements (like 27.69 → 1.02) are far too large to be explained by rounding/edge alone.
Data alignment error
It’s possible the data you pasted misaligned reported multiplier vs hash (e.g., the multiplier belongs to a different hash in the sequence). I parsed the text assuming each round number is followed immediately by the multiplier+hash; if that structure was broken in some parts, mismatches would appear.
Malicious / buggy publication
Less likely, but if the site shows one multiplier and publishes another hash, that would be a serious integrity issue.
Recommended next tests (I can run these if you want)
Verify parsing alignment — re-check the raw source to ensure each multiplier lines up with its hash (I used the strict round-line then multiplier+hash parsing). I can reparse more flexibly and report ambiguous lines.
Try alternate hash→multiplier formulas:
Use different prefix lengths (e.g., 8 hex, 16 hex).
Test if the site uses int.from_bytes(full_hash) % N or other modulo methods.
Test if they use HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) where server_seed is the hash field you pasted (i.e., compute HMACs with that as key and your known client seed if you supply it).
If you can reveal client seed (or allow me to read it from your browser) I can compute HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) for each round and then compute multipliers — that will likely reconcile reported vs computed values.
Check seed chain integrity — if BC.Game reveals server seeds in sequence, we can check whether seeds form a proper hash chain (seed_{n} = SHA256(seed_{n+1})).
Practical next step I recommend now
If you want a direct verification, provide one complete confirmed round where you have:
the server seed (revealed),
your client seed, and
the nonce used for that bet (usually 1 if it’s the first bet).
With those three I will compute the exact round hash (HMAC), calculate the multiplier, and show whether it matches the reported value. That will confirm the correct formula / whether client seed is applied.
Quick headline results Rows parsed: 62 Reported multipliers — mean ≈ 3.86, median 1.97, std ≈ 4.58 Computed (from hash) multipliers — mean ≈ 4.24, median ≈ 1.82, std ≈ 8.74 Reported > 10×: 5 rounds Reported > 5×: 13 rounds Reported < 2×: (majority) I computed multipliers using the common formula (first 13 hex chars → 52-bit integer → floor((100*2^52)/(2^52 - H))/100). I then compared those computed values with the reported multipliers from your paste. Important anomaly: many reported multipliers do not match the computed multipliers There are multiple mismatches where the multiplier derived from the hash (with the standard formula) differs substantially from the reported multiplier in your dataset. Example (top outliers from the top-10 list I showed): Round 8595489 — reported 27.69x, computed 1.02x (huge mismatch). Round 8595519 — reported 18.68x, computed 2.36x. Round 8595507 — reported 12.33x, computed 2.29x. Round 8595466 — reported 11.07x, computed 1.29x. Round 8595459 — reported 10.95x, computed 1.18x. In short: many of the largest reported multipliers don’t match the hash→multiplier computation using the standard formula. Some rounds do match reasonably (e.g., 8595492 reported 9.90x vs computed 8.84x — somewhat close), but many big ones are way off. Visuals I produced Histogram of computed multipliers (shows strong skew toward low values and a long tail). Time-series (round number vs computed multiplier) showing the computed outcomes over the rounds (round axis inverted because your data was newest-first). (You should see both charts in the output pane.) What this means (possible explanations) Different formula/seed stage used BC.Game may apply a different transform to the hash than the “first-13-hex → 52-bit → formula” I used (common but not universal). If they slice different bits or use an HMAC with another key/nonce, the computed multipliers will differ. Client seed / nonce mismatch The hash published in your paste might not be the final HMAC used to produce reported multipliers — maybe the hash you have is the server seed (or a preimage) while the site computes HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) for each player; if your client seed or nonce differs, your computed values won't match reported ones. Reported multipliers are pre-rounded / adjusted / house-edge applied They might apply a house-edge multiplier or different rounding rules. But the observed disagreements (like 27.69 → 1.02) are far too large to be explained by rounding/edge alone. Data alignment error It’s possible the data you pasted misaligned reported multiplier vs hash (e.g., the multiplier belongs to a different hash in the sequence). I parsed the text assuming each round number is followed immediately by the multiplier+hash; if that structure was broken in some parts, mismatches would appear. Malicious / buggy publication Less likely, but if the site shows one multiplier and publishes another hash, that would be a serious integrity issue. Recommended next tests (I can run these if you want) Verify parsing alignment — re-check the raw source to ensure each multiplier lines up with its hash (I used the strict round-line then multiplier+hash parsing). I can reparse more flexibly and report ambiguous lines. Try alternate hash→multiplier formulas: Use different prefix lengths (e.g., 8 hex, 16 hex). Test if the site uses int.from_bytes(full_hash) % N or other modulo methods. Test if they use HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) where server_seed is the hash field you pasted (i.e., compute HMACs with that as key and your known client seed if you supply it). If you can reveal client seed (or allow me to read it from your browser) I can compute HMAC(server_seed, client_seed:nonce) for each round and then compute multipliers — that will likely reconcile reported vs computed values. Check seed chain integrity — if BC.Game reveals server seeds in sequence, we can check whether seeds form a proper hash chain (seed_{n} = SHA256(seed_{n+1})). Practical next step I recommend now If you want a direct verification, provide one complete confirmed round where you have: the server seed (revealed), your client seed, and the nonce used for that bet (usually 1 if it’s the first bet). With those three I will compute the exact round hash (HMAC), calculate the multiplier, and show whether it matches the reported value. That will confirm the correct formula / whether client seed is applied.