---
title: "Against All Odds: The Mathematics of 'Provably Fair' Casino Games"
description: "Statistical analysis of 20,000 crash game rounds verifies the 97% RTP claim. But 179 rounds per hour means expected losses exceed 500% of wagers hourly."
date: 2026-01-25
updated: 2026-05-04
author: "Philipp D. Dubach"
categories:
  - "Quantitative Finance"
keywords:
  - "provably fair gambling"
  - "crash game mathematics"
  - "RTP statistical testing"
  - "gambling house edge"
  - "crash game strategy"
type: "Project"
doi: "10.2139/ssrn.6065213"
canonical_url: "https://philippdubach.com/posts/against-all-odds-the-mathematics-of-provably-fair-casino-games/"
source_url: "https://philippdubach.com/posts/against-all-odds-the-mathematics-of-provably-fair-casino-games/index.md"
content_signal: search=yes, ai-input=yes, ai-train=yes
---

# Against All Odds: The Mathematics of 'Provably Fair' Casino Games

*Philipp D. Dubach · Published January 25, 2026 · Updated May 4, 2026*


## Key Takeaways

- Statistical analysis of 20,000 crash game rounds confirms the 97% RTP claim: the estimated probability exponent is 1.98 versus a theoretical 2.0, within 2.2% accuracy
- At 179 rounds per hour with 16-second median intervals and a 3% house edge per round, players face expected losses exceeding 500% of amounts wagered per hour
- Monte Carlo simulations of 10,000 sessions across four strategies (1.5x to 5x cash-outs) confirm every single strategy produces negative expected returns
- The probability of reaching multiplier m before crashing equals 0.97/m, so a 2x target succeeds 48.5% of the time while 100x works just 1.1% of rounds


---


<br>

>Gambling can be harmful and lead to significant losses. Participation is subject to local laws and age restrictions. Always gamble responsibly. Need help? Visit BeGambleAware.org

<br>

Crash games represent a category of online gambling where players place bets on an increasing multiplier that can _'crash'_ at any moment. The fundamental mechanic requires players to cash out before the crash occurs; successful cash-outs yield the bet amount multiplied by the current multiplier, while failure results in total loss of the wager.

![Crash game showing an airplane flying with increasing multiplier until it crashes](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/flight-game.gif)

The specific game I came across is a variant that employs an aircraft flight metaphor. Let's call it _Plane Game_. What intrigued me wasn't the game itself but that it said "provably fair" on the startup screen, which I assumed to be a typo at first. I stand corrected:

>A provably fair gambling system uses cryptography to let players verify that each outcome was generated from fixed inputs, rather than chosen or altered by the operator after a bet is placed. The casino commits to a hidden "server seed" via a public hash, combines it with a player-controlled "client seed" and a per-bet nonce, and later reveals the server seed so anyone can recompute and confirm the result.

The stated Return-to-Player (RTP) of that specific game is 97%, implying a 3% [house edge](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/110415/why-does-house-always-win-look-casino-profitability.asp). After watching a few rounds, the perceived probability felt off. And if there's something that gets my attention, it's [the combination of games and statistics](/posts/counting-cards-with-computer-vision/). So I did what any reasonable person would do: I watched another 20,000 rounds over six days (112 hours total) and wrote [a paper about it](https://static.philippdubach.com/pdf/202601_PD_DUBACH_The%20Online%20Gambling%20Fairness%20Paradox.pdf).![Script recording 20000 rounds over six days (112 hours total)](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/crash_game_stats.png)
 

The distribution below shows the classic heavy tail: most rounds crash quickly at low multipliers, while rare events produce 100x or even 1000x payouts. The maximum I observed was 10,000x. This extreme variance creates the illusion of big wins just around the corner while the house edge operates relentlessly over time.![Heavy-tailed distribution of crash multipliers on log-log scale showing most rounds end at low multipliers while rare events exceed 100x or 1000x, with maximum observed at 10,000x](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/fig_distribution2.png)
For a crash game with RTP = r (where 0 < r < 1), the crash multiplier M follows a specific probability distribution. The survival function is particularly relevant:

$$P(M \geq m) = \frac{r}{m}$$

This means the probability of reaching at least multiplier m before crashing equals r/m. For any cash-out target, the expected value of a unit bet works out to:

$$E[\text{Profit}] = P(M \geq m) \times m - 1 = \frac{r}{m} \times m - 1 = r - 1 = -0.03$$

*Related: [Variance Tax](https://philippdubach.com/posts/variance-tax/)*

This mathematical property makes crash games theoretically "strategy-proof" in expectation. No cash-out timing strategy should yield better long-term results than another.![Survival probability curve on log-log scale showing probability of reaching target multiplier: 2x succeeds 48.5% of the time, 5x at 19.6%, 10x at 9.7%, 50x at 2.0%, and 100x at just 1.1%](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/fig_survival_annotated.png)
The empirical data matches theory almost perfectly. A 2x target succeeds about 48.5% of the time. Aiming for 10x? That works only 9.7% of rounds. The close fit between my observations and the theoretical line confirms the stated 97% RTP.

So is the game fair? My analysis says yes. Using three different statistical methods (log-log regression, maximum likelihood, and the Hill estimator), I estimated the probability density function exponent at α ≈ 1.98, within 2.2% of the theoretical value of 2.0. This contrasts with [Wang and Pleimling's 2019 research](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50168-2) that found exponents of 1.4 to 1.9 for player cashout distributions. The key distinction: their deviations reflect player behavioral biases (probability weighting), not game manipulation. The random number generator produces fair outcomes.![Q-Q plot comparing empirical vs theoretical quantiles with perfect fit line and 10% confidence band, showing close alignment confirming fair random number generation](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/fig_qq_enhanced.png)
I then ran Monte Carlo simulations of 10,000 betting sessions under four different strategies: conservative 1.5x cashouts, moderate 2.0x, aggressive 3.0x, and high-risk 5.0x targets.![Strategy comparison boxplot showing session returns for 100 rounds: 1.5x Conservative averages -2.9%, 2.0x Moderate -2.4%, 3.0x Aggressive -3.3%, and 5.0x High Risk -3.5%, all negative](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/fig_strategies.png)
Every single strategy produces negative expected returns. The conservative approach has lower variance but still loses. The aggressive strategies lose faster with higher variance.![Simulated player sessions using 1.5x strategy over 200 rounds showing multiple trajectories trending toward expected loss line of -3% per round](https://static.philippdubach.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,quality=85,format=auto/fig_trajectories.png)
The consumer protection angle is what concerns me most. My data revealed 179 rounds per hour with 16-second median intervals. At that pace, with a 3% house edge per round, players face expected losses exceeding 500% of amounts wagered per hour of play. The manual cashout mechanic creates an illusion of control, masking the deterministic nature of losses.

*Related: [Gambling vs. Investing](https://philippdubach.com/posts/gambling-vs.-investing/)*

The game is provably fair in the cryptographic sense. The mathematics check out. But mathematical fairness doesn't ensure consumer safety. The house always wins, and it wins fast.

>The only winning strategy is not to play

The full paper preprint with methodology and statistical details is [available on SSRN](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6065213). Code and data are on [GitHub](https://github.com/philippdubach/stats-gambling).



---

## Frequently Asked Questions


### Are provably fair crash games actually fair?

Yes, in the cryptographic sense. Statistical analysis of 20,000 rounds confirms the random number generator produces fair outcomes matching the stated 97% RTP. However, mathematical fairness doesn't ensure consumer safety, as the rapid pace of 179 rounds per hour means expected losses exceed 500% of amounts wagered per hour.


### Is there a winning strategy for crash games?

No. Monte Carlo simulations of 10,000 betting sessions across four strategies (1.5x, 2x, 3x, and 5x cash-outs) confirm every single strategy produces negative expected returns. The game is mathematically "strategy-proof" because the expected value equals RTP minus 1 regardless of cash-out timing.


### What are the odds of reaching a specific multiplier in crash games?

For a 97% RTP crash game, the probability of reaching multiplier m before crashing equals 0.97/m. A 2x target succeeds about 48.5% of the time. A 10x target works only 9.7% of rounds. A 100x target succeeds just 1.1% of the time.


### How much do players lose per hour in crash games?

At 179 rounds per hour with 16-second median intervals and a 3% house edge per round, players face expected losses exceeding 500% of amounts wagered per hour of play. This is far faster than traditional casino games.



---

Canonical: https://philippdubach.com/posts/against-all-odds-the-mathematics-of-provably-fair-casino-games/
Content-Signal: search=yes, ai-input=yes, ai-train=yes
This file is the canonical machine-readable variant of https://philippdubach.com/posts/against-all-odds-the-mathematics-of-provably-fair-casino-games/. Author: Philipp D. Dubach (https://philippdubach.com/).
