Reporting Jefe for False Advertising/Scamming

Scammer's profile link:
Explanation of the trade:15m 07 for a glitch that gives you a "much higher chance of winning".
Can see much higher here: [VERIFIED] SPAWNPK Staking Glitch - WIN MORE STAKES
http://prntscr.com/cgy896
Statistically, without rng it is 6% more, not 10% which he confirmed countless times.

How they scammed: False advertised and won't give me a refund.

Sythe PM picture: [VERIFIED] SPAWNPK Staking Glitch - WIN MORE STAKES Skype redirects to the one I have posted.
http://prntscr.com/cgy74w - Screenie so when he removes it.

Skype profile ID & conversation pictures: http://prntscr.com/cgy6td

Other relevant trade screenshots: Confirms that it was advertised 60/40. - http://prntscr.com/cgy61r
http://prntscr.com/cgy6a0 - Confirming it again cause he claims he never did.

-The odds are 56/44 not involving rng, that is not 60/40 and that is what I paid for.
I don't wanna leak his method and have him cry about it, but I can tell staff everything over skype/pm.

-False advertising about stacking damage (saying I can do it any hit when I can only do it on one specific hit) I have a screenie I don't wanna expose the method.

-Said there is three ways to utilize the method.
He said it in a way where he could use the method, stacking damage, in 3 different situations. I think he meant that you could use it at 3 different times during the stake.

If mods want any more proof, add my skype: furreal.rwt

 

Another thing, if you look at this in another way comparing the bonuses of certain items, you probably have a less chance of winning while using this method.

 

1. I am not the only person who verified this at around a 60% win rate, Furreal even admits himself that the person who verified this method for me also confirmed it was a 60% average win rate (This is before he purchased).

http://prntscr.com/cgy9id



2. He clearly agrees that "without RNG" it is a 56% win rate, then goes to say

which is just straight up stupid.



3. Bear in mind this person has only used this method himself 3 times, in which he won 2 out of the 3 stakes lol. For an accurate representation of this "60/40" he would need to stake at least 100 times.

I gave this user money to start staking which he then proceeded to win 2 out of 2 of his first stakes using the method.
http://prntscr.com/cgyas1
http://prntscr.com/cgyb0b (claims cause of pid but still used the method)



TLDR: User knows and acknowledges the method works but wants a refund. Don't know if the user knew 60% was 6/10 because he's acting like he should be winning every stake.

 

It does not work as advertised, it gives u a slight 6% chance of winning.
I vsed you 10 times, you used the method 5 times, and lost 3/5 times. I used the method the next 5 times, and lost 3/5 times. It is a 4/10 method. If you want to count the stakes I won, it is 6/13. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is not 60%. Also, you clearly said that I could add damage to any hit of my choice, which is a FALSE statement. You also said that there were 3 ways to utilize this. I don't know who taught you the definition of utilize, but what you told me was not utilizing, it was using.

I can explain my second reply to a mod because I don't want to leak this method.

 

Yes, it gives you a flat rate of a 6% advantage, like you said yourself WITHOUT RNG, the way I use it gives me an average win rate of 60%, which is what I meant in terms of which way you utilize it. You confirmed this % with RS Crown before even purchasing.

5 stakes is not an accurate representation, you also went 2-0 using the method that's 100% so what's next lol.

I also know 60x2 dice hosts that have also lost 3/5 times, does that mean it's not a 60% win chance?

You were clearly confused on what I meant by utilize which I swiftly explained to you here:
http://prntscr.com/cgye8d

You then went on to win the next stake after this explanation, I don't see how you could confuse my words THAT much seeing as it's clearly a STAKING glitch, what did you expect to receive a PK'ing one instead?

 

Copy paste me all the Skype chat logs, and any other conversations you had with Jefe before the trade was completed, and point out which ones relate to any representation (statement) about how the alleged method increases the probability of winning. You can do it either on this thread, or in a Sythe PM.

In any event, an innocent misrepresentation will not warrant a ban, the issue for me is are you entitled to a remedy, and if so, how much.

 

[5:03:01 PM] Jefe: It's been verified for a minimum 60/40 advantage.
[5:03:48 PM] Jefe: So that's what you'll get.
[5:03:58 PM] Jefe: And I can show you ways to get a greater advantage if you use it correctly. - He says its 60/40, but later agrees with me 56/44.
He never explained anything beforehand, he just gave vague statements.

 

It looks to me like he said it's been verified at 60/40 though. Which it technically did, didn't it? The man who "verified" this method needs a shake. It's an old method used on several rsps's that gives you a slight advantage.

 

Me and @Loyal To The Game have conferred and had a look at the chat logs. We agree that Jefe represented that the method would at minimum confer a '60/40' advantage. This conclusion was not based solely on the fact that someone 'verified' that using the method would cause the advantage. That was a factor, but ultimately Jefe made many strong representations independently that the minimum advantage conferred would be '60/40'.

That being the case, the next question is why Fur thinks the method does not confer a '60/40' advantage; he has the burden of proof. Having looked at the method, how it works, and Fur's argument, we agree that Fur has a legitimate reason to doubt whether the method does indeed confer a '60/40' advantage. Not all of those reasons are found on this thread - in part because the method is secret.

Since Fur has demonstrated to us that the method might not achieve its advertised '60/40' advantage, the ball is passed back to Jefe. Jefe has to satisfy us that the method does indeed confer a '60/40' advantage, and he has to demonstrate that without merely referring to the fact that it had been 'verified' by someone else. After Jefe explains to us why he believes the method confers a '60/40' advantage, we can make a decision.

 

> User purchased a Staking method to increase chances of winning.

> User received advertised product.

> User acknowledges and agrees that the method does indeed work.

> User asked the verifier for a rough win % in which he was told 60%.

> User asked me for the average win % which I stated 60/40 because this is a 100% accurate representation of what myself AND the verifier had agreed on and achieved during thorough usage of this method.

> User doubts it's 60/40 due to losing 1 out of 3 stakes and getting himself cleaned. It's funny that after I GAVE him gold and he won the first 2 there were no complaints. Btw winning 2/3 is equal to a 66.6% win rate.


As far as I'm concerned there are only 2 people who have thoroughly tested the win % for this method, myself and RS Crown and both agree to a 60% average win rate using it.

There is 1 person who has also used the method, who is Furreal, he has tested this method for 3 stakes and has emerged with a 66.6% win rate so unless he can disprove what myself and a $300 donator with a large number of vouches agreed on, then I don't see the issue. At the current moment all he has done is prove that he's won 66% of his stakes using a method he acknowledges works.



Also @Gfs

Jump on discord for me if you can please I have a couple of questions.

 

Correct.

Circular reasoning. The whole issue is whether the product received was the product advertised.

Misleading. Fur acknowledged and agreed that the method does increase ones chances of winning, but that it doesn't increase it to a '60/40' chance of winning, the method which was advertised.

You made representations as well, so this point is insufficient; we considered that in context with all the circumstances.

We have no doubt about your honesty. The issue isn't whether you are being dishonest - your honesty isn't in doubt - the question is whether your method does as advertised.

This excludes Fur's primary reasons for doubting the method being 60/40 - this is not the reason why we're asking you to substantiate your claims.

Fur relied on both your representation, and the fact that RS Crown had verified it. Since he relied on your representation as well, you cannot solely rely on RS Crown's verification. You cannot verify your own representation by saying that it is true, which is why we want you to substantiate it. We're not doubting your honesty, we just think it's reasonable to think that the method may not give you an average win % of 60/40. This might be because we don't understand it fully. That is why we're asking you to substantiate your claims to help us understand that, as you say, that it gives the person a minimum 60/40 % chance of winning.

3 trials is insufficient to draw a meaningful and valid statistical inference.

We did require Furreal to demonstrate to us why he believed it didn't deliver on its advertised promise. He successfully raised with us doubt about whether the method would actually deliver on its promise. From that, it would obviously be unfair to then immediately demand a full refund for you. That is why we are asking you you substantiate your claims. It is probably the case that we're misunderstanding the method, a problem which we are asking you to help us address.


In any case, I have to head off; @Loyal To The Game the game should be around later to follow up on this. To reiterate, we're asking you to help us understand how this method actually gives someone a '60/40' % chance of winning; you wouldn't want us to make a decision without fully understanding it. It is for that reason that we're asking you to help by substantiating your claims.

 

http://prntscr.com/ch44tb - this is what was advertised, and that is what the user received.

The method was never advertised at 60/40, if it was it would have been in the advertisement thread, the whole 60/40 idea is a sole opinion given by 2 people who have tested and reviewed this method and have successfully reproduced the win % stated.

He asked what the win % was using this method, and he was given the number 60% as as a representation of what both myself and RS Crown has successfully produced while using it. Bear in mind I have been using this for a while.

My point is that not just myself, but another member of the community who has already established a solid reputation among the community has also vouched for the win %, that being said he also runs his own RSPS store so it's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

This statement contradicts itself because if you weren't doubting my honesty you'd just take my word for it. I know what you're trying to say just be careful how you word it.

Most likely.



@malakadang @Loyal To The Game Simply PM me on Discord with your Skype and I'll happily go through it with you over screenshare and share my ways on how to use it most effectively.

 

bump

 

This method was patched approx 5 hours ago now, we agreed that there would be a 3 day patch guarantee but unfortunately it was patched on the 4th so he's no longer owed a refund.

I have spoken to @Loyal To The Game the past couple of days and he has been busy with school yet never failed to update me and remind me that he hasn't forgot about this report, and for that I applaud you.

As for @malakadang I've left you a couple messages on discord the past few days with 0 response from you, I had been trying to get you on Skype to run you through the method but evidently you had something else going on, a little update wouldn't have gone a miss.

As far as I'm concerned at this point there is no longer any real way to fully "prove" the % of this method, all we have to go by is a trusted member vouching for it and another member (whose honesty you are supposedly not questioning) having used it for over a month. Furreal does fully admit that the method does indeed work yet got himself strung up over a couple % of odds.

With that being said my method was 100% legit, and the odds given were accurate, I gave him gold to start using the method with when I didn't have to and was also willing to coach him through it.

Another bit of key information that was left out was the fact that I wasn't even able to get on screenshare with Furreal to see if he was even executing the method correctly and efficiently, therefore if there was an information gap then the doubts he voiced to both Mala & LTDG are invalid as nobody is even sure he knows what he's doing. This is no fault of my own as I was willing to do everything possible to make sure he understood.

Screenshots proving Furreal was unable to get HIS screenshare to work:
http://prntscr.com/cig9xz
http://prntscr.com/ciga6k


lmk anything else that needs to be addressed.

 

numbers say it is 56/44. You advertised 60/40, I don't understand this.

 

To give everyone an update, I've collected all the information I can, speaking to RS Crown, Furreal and Jefe. I've tried to be as objective, fair, and impartial as possible. The reasons are quite long given the nature of the case, and will be redacted so as to not expose the method (given I'm not particularly familiar with RS staking, I have no idea what's known or what isn't known, so I've been cautious).

I hope that given how thorough I tried to be that both Jefe and Fur will accept the decision. I'll post again shortly.

 

See the TLDR below, also, given how the glitch/method should still remain secret, I've redacted as much sensitive information as I can, and sent the unredacted version to Jefe and Fur.

First I'd like to apologize that this took longer than it otherwise could have taken. Here's the decision: Jefe is to repay Fur one-half of the purchase price (7.5m 07 or 15m) because (a) we're not convinced that the evidence supports the fact that the glitch/method was capable of conferring a 60/40 advantage; and (b) we didn't feel that a full refund was appropriate given that Fur and Jefe did rely on RS Crown's verification; and (c) after Fur reported the glitch, I'm told that he did use the method at times. Perhaps Fur used it to test the method further, perhaps not. One cannot take the benefit of the method which confers some benefits, but not all benefits and yet seek a total refund. Accordingly this was a mitigating factor in favour of Jefe, and so we thought as a whole one-half(7.5m 07 of 15m) was appropriate.

There are two matters should I feel should be pre-empted:

Why 60/40 advantage had to be shown and not a slight advantage:
A contract can incorporate terms from multiple documents. That is what happened here: the thread and Skype. Although the thread does not contain any representation that a 60/40 advantage would be conferred, the Skype conversations unambiguously did. I've copy pasted (and cherry-picked) all the relevant Skype conversations relating to the extent of the advantage conferred:

Note: Jefe was very responsive, helpful and tried to allay the concerns that Furreal had. If the logs don't come across that way, it's because I've redacted them entirely.

Spoiler: Skype Logs

[2:00:53 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: has it been verified?
[2:01:07 PM] Jefe: Guy is writing it now.
[2:01:13 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: whos verifying it
[2:01:19 PM] Jefe: RS Crown
[2:01:36 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: ah
[2:03:51 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: ye said slight
[2:03:54 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: he said slight advantage
[2:04:14 PM] Jefe: dw I'm talking to him atm.
[2:04:20 PM] Jefe: Showing him different ways to use it.
[2:06:55 PM] Jefe: Just showing him how to use it effectively because it deffo gives more than a "slight" chance at winning.
[3:08:14 PM] Jefe: I literally showed RS Crown me staking for a good 30 mins.
[3:08:20 PM] Jefe: Over screenshare.
[3:08:35 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: he said its like a 60/40
[3:09:11 PM] Jefe: Yeah but for some reason he's looking at it from an outsiders view
[3:09:20 PM] Jefe: Because there's multiple ways you can utilize the glitch
[3:09:22 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: i can leave a review on it fory ou if u want
[3:09:23 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: like what?
[3:10:01 PM] Jefe: You can use it in about 4 different ways during the stake, I won't say much more, but you use it based on the current stake situation, he's looking at it from a more overall point of view.
[3:10:09 PM] Jefe: Which is understandable seeing as he doesn't play
[3:10:14 PM] Jefe: But I'd say more like 70/30
[3:10:15 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: thats so vague xD
[3:10:19 PM] Jefe: Of course it is.
[3:10:31 PM] Jefe: If I said it any clearer you could try and figure it out.
[3:10:41 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: na lol i dont care enough ;p
[3:12:26 PM] Jefe: Even so 60/40 is still huge for staking, even though that's a lowball of a %
[4:01:02 PM] Jefe: Not interested?
[4:01:05 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: naw..
[4:01:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 60/40 too rsiyk
[4:01:15 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: how does it work that its so beneficial?
[4:02:29 PM] Jefe: It's 60/40 minimum, it can be used several ways during the stake, it really depends how it goes.
[4:02:35 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: so vague lol
[4:02:41 PM] Jefe: So basically.
... method...
[5:02:37 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: id have to test i t myself tbh
[5:02:39 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: thats how i am
[5:02:47 PM] Jefe: Lol.
[5:03:01 PM] Jefe: It's been verified for a minimum 60/40 advantage.
[5:03:48 PM] Jefe: So that's what you'll get.
[5:03:58 PM] Jefe: And I can show you ways to get a greater advantage if you use it correctly.
[5:05:50 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: and we'll see if its 60/40
[5:06:02 PM] Jefe: Nah, it's been verified 60/40 I'm not doing it on you.
[5:06:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: would that give it away?
[5:06:30 PM] Jefe: It would give away part of it, but there's still a method to it.
[5:06:33 PM] Jefe: It works in your favour.
[5:06:35 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: hmm
[5:06:37 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: ill give u 10m 07 for it
[5:06:47 PM] Jefe: Because people try and replicate it and because they can't they waste hits.
[5:19:22 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: as long as the method works, I will pay you
[5:19:24 PM] Jefe: It's not even about that.
[5:19:27 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: then whats it about
[5:19:41 PM] Jefe: I don't want stuff like "nah this method is bad I don't want it" blah blah, even though it works.
[5:19:46 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: as long as it is
[5:19:47 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 60/40
[5:19:50 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: i will pay you
[5:20:01 PM] Jefe: I've had it verified, I'm clearly serious about sales. But I'm not giving it before being paid.
... trade completed ...
[5:23:23 PM] Jefe: This is what you have to do.
[5:23:30 PM] Jefe: So basically I'll explain the glitch.
[5:32:51 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: but [redacted]
[5:32:56 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: doesnt mean a 10% better chance of winning
[5:34:00 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: [redacted] /=/ 10% bonus
[5:34:07 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: wait
[5:34:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: rematch
[5:35:22 PM] Jefe: and of course it depends on initial RNG
[5:35:30 PM] Jefe: If you're hitting 0's all fight nothing you can do
[5:36:04 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: kk lets rm
[5:36:07 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: i wanna see it again
[5:36:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: dont use it
[5:36:34 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 0-1
[5:37:17 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 1-1
[5:37:55 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 1-2 your lead
[5:37:58 PM] Jefe: Stakes like those you can't do much about
[5:38:00 PM] Jefe: Just bad rng
[5:38:51 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 2-2
[5:39:29 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: you won
[5:39:30 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 6/10 times
[5:39:32 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: i won 40%
[5:39:33 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: xD
[5:39:44 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: okay in that way it sucks, is there another way to utilize this?
[5:39:47 PM] Jefe: From 5 stakes lol
[5:40:02 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: any other ways to use this?
[5:40:04 PM] Jefe: Now let me do it on you.
[5:40:47 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 1-0 me
[5:41:23 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 2-0 me
[5:42:11 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 2-1 me
[5:42:54 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 3-1 me
[5:43:09 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: the fact that you [redacted] reduces your chance to win by like 50%
[5:43:40 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 3-2 me
[5:43:47 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: so out of 10
[5:43:48 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 6/4
[5:43:52 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: the one without the glitch won
[5:44:03 PM] Jefe: Tbh, every win was because of bad RNG.
[5:44:12 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: not relaly
[5:44:20 PM] Jefe: The [redacted] saved me a couple of losses.
[5:52:33 PM] Jefe: But ultimately it comes down to practice.
[5:52:37 PM] Jefe: I can use it well.
[5:52:38 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: how is it practice
[5:52:46 PM] Jefe: Knowing the right times.
[5:53:02 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: won again there cause of pid
[5:53:24 PM] Jefe: Now you wanna say cause of pid and what not but that's the same when you were vsing me XD.
[5:53:33 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: the thing is
[5:53:36 PM] Jefe: You're 2-0 using the glitch.
[5:53:38 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: lets say [redacted]
[5:53:40 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: right?
[5:53:45 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: yea its cause the guys hits suck
[5:53:46 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: but without rng
[5:53:53 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: if u use it on me
[5:53:59 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: right?
[5:54:09 PM] Jefe: You can look at it that way.
[5:54:11 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: thats a 6% difference
[5:54:12 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: [redacted]
[5:54:15 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: so it is a 54/46 chance
[5:54:21 PM] Jefe: ?
[5:54:25 PM] Jefe: Would be 56% with your logic.
[5:54:27 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: yea
[5:54:29 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: not 60%
[5:54:43 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: but il keep trying this
[5:54:44 PM] Jefe: But that doesn't mean it's 60% because your logic is using it at the start of a stake.
[5:54:45 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: lets see how it works
[5:54:51 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: rng doesnt matter
[5:54:52 PM] Jefe: If you use it at the end.
... talk about damage...
[5:55:38 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: the odds of them being [redacted]
[5:55:41 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: is 1/600
[5:55:52 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: pc 2 tridents?
[5:56:07 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: ro like
[5:56:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: 1/550
[5:56:08 PM] Jefe: The odds of them [redacted].
[5:56:24 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: the odds of [redacted]
[5:56:25 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: much greater
[5:57:08 PM] Jefe: Doesn't really play into effect seeing as there's an equal chance of hitting any of them.
[5:57:16 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: this is not worth 15m lol
[5:57:24 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: it genuinely isnt
[5:57:38 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: + you said its 60/40, but its not 60/40 lol
[5:57:42 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: its 54/46
[5:57:45 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: which is not worth 15m
[5:57:50 PM] Jefe: How is it 54
[5:57:58 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: its honestly less
[5:57:59 PM] Jefe: Using your logic it would be 56.
[5:58:08 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: okay yea 56/44 my bad
[5:58:13 PM] [$100 Donator] Furreal [100+ Vouches]: take this into account
[5:58:14 PM] Jefe: Using it effectively pushes it to 60+ easily.
[5:58:21 PM] Jefe: RS Crown even confirmed that.
[5:58:31 PM] Jefe: I was doing it with him for almost 45 minutes.
[5:58:33 PM] Jefe: Not 5
... for another 200-300 logs it talks about damage, back and forth, RNG, etc etc etc.

Why Jefe's method couldn't support a conferral of a 60/40 advantage:
It should be noted that Jefe didn't have to prove a 60/40 advantage conferred outright, just that he had evidence that would probably support a 60/40 advantage. In other words, we were happy to give Jefe the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately here, there was too much doubt, and not enough benefit to cover the shortfall.

To ascertain how much advantage was conferred, I wrote a script that would trial the outcome of a stake given the parameters. This meant I had to make some assumptions about how the private server calculated damage. [redacted] The damage follows a uniform distribution - ie every integer between 0 and the max-hit has an equal chance of occurring, given that the accuracy die was rolled favorably(it is not normally distributed). This was an assumption made, but given that OSRS distributes damage uniformly, and based on what I could find online + Jefe and Fur's independent observations, I went with that.

Based on that, without factoring in accuracy, here are the results:

Note: A draw occurred because in my model, I modeled the Innocent players attack then the Glitched players attack. If after both attacks, both parties are in negative HP, then the result is a draw (because the they both dealt fatal blows). As far as I know, sometimes you'll get the first hit, and sometimes you won't. I expected that to be allocated 50%, and so simply allocated half the draws to Glitch and Innocent Wins, but have also put the percentage of Wins excluding the Draws.



Given that I had ignored accuracy (which has an effect), and that I had to assume a uniform distribution, I modeled alternative parameters that would give the method a clear advantage. Those parameters were that I would assume the innocent player would start [redacted - less hp start] and that they would only [redacted] stake at varying degrees of accuracy; a uniform distribution was still assumed. The varying degrees of accuracy were: 100%, 95%, 90% and 85%. The results:



Here is a graph for the glitched win percentage summarizing the above:



Given that even an assumption that clearly favours the method struggled to confer a 60% advantage, I don't think the evidence supporting the method is capable of maintaining a statement that the method can confer a 60% advantage; it almost certainly doesn't. I would say perhaps a 55-58% advantage at best.

There are also some factors that go against the method which I should mention here:

1. [Redacted - explaining the EV (expected values) of weapons and how they reduce the win percentage of the method given the max hits]
2. At least in the hypothetical (I haven't modeled it in the other situation), the data shows that as the accuracy percentage decreases, so too does the win percentage. This seems might seem to mitigate the effect of assuming 100% accuracy in the first set of results, as 100% accuracy is most favourable toward the method/glitch.

TLDR: The 60/40 advantage was incorporated into the contract via the Skype messages. I modeled, with 1,000,000 trials the likely outcome of the method assuming a uniform damage distribution and 100% accuracy and got 54.5 - 55.5%. I modeled with 4,000,000 trials the outcome if the innocent party started with [redacted - lower hp], and factoring accuracy of 100%, 95%, 90% and 85% and the probability reached 58-59%. There was still too much doubt given how favourable that hypothetical is toward the method + the fact that [redacted - EV analysis in point 1], which would reduce that 58-59% in the hypothetical and the 54.5 - 55.5% in the original model. Given Fur also relied on RS Crown's representations, and given he used the method after reporting - even though it may have been just to test for the glitch - it seems appropriate for Jefe to compensate Fur 7.5m 07 of 15m.

My conversation with RS Crown supports this conclusion.

To prove that I did the 5 million trials and wasn't talking out of my rear:
https://i.gyazo.com/c17c53b94c24e2d2fca76c5270e6d7de.png
https://i.gyazo.com/d0bd200fe1583b25bc0ca5c1ec9fb9df.png
https://i.gyazo.com/44cbb54a75c24b9efb572b107bf99edc.png
https://i.gyazo.com/5495ab26ddf76182e921acaf821a8eb8.png
https://i.gyazo.com/8ef95e0820fb6bac033808c081946556.png