Synthetic research simulation · no deposits · no prizes · no cash value · read-only
Virtual Casino ExperimentData ↓

Completed local reference world · Protocol v1.0.0

1,000 synthetic players entered with identical R10,000 bankrolls.

Their policies differed. Every wager was recorded. One realised path is shown beside 1,000 independently seeded alternatives.

Calendar time181 shared simulated days

Bankroll monthOne R10,000 allocation episode

Net P&LCurrent bankroll minus every allocation

RTPGross payouts divided by stakes

Generated result · not a layout example

The visible world

Simulation complete through . Denominators include all 1,000 policies, including inactive policies.

Total virtual wagered

R 20 157 766101 422 settled wagers

Paid to synthetic players

R 18 588 773

House result

R 1 568 993Exactly − aggregate player wager P&L

Actual RTP

92,22%95,56% weighted theoretical RTP

Players ahead

227 / 1,00022,7%

Players behind

773 / 1,00077,3%

Ruined at least once

26 / 1,0002,6%

Used all six allocations

0 / 1,0000,0%

Exposure over time

House result accumulated

Cumulative house resultCumulative GGR ended at R 1 568 993 after 181 simulated days. The zero reference is shown.
Cumulative GGR ended at R 1 568 993 after 181 simulated days. The zero reference is shown.

All policies shown

A wide outcome distribution

-R 20KFinal P&LR 70K
Final player P&L distribution. Median -R 1 843; 5th to 95th percentile -R 9 912 to R 9 591.

One path is not a policy verdict

Visible winners meet their alternate worlds.

The ranking uses allocation-adjusted lifetime P&L. Each policy is rerun 1,000 times; a positive visible result can coexist with a negative across-world median.

The five highest and five lowest visible-world policies, with expected and replication context
Rank / policyCohortObserved P&LExpected P&LAcross-world medianAhead across worldsWagers
#1P0472Large bets, frequentR 69 862-R 4 656-R 9 961188 / 1,000 (18,8%)227
#2P0426Large bets, frequentR 52 096-R 2 753-R 9 711234 / 1,000 (23,4%)103
#3P0235Medium bets, frequentR 50 520-R 3 001-R 5 656187 / 1,000 (18,7%)201
#4P0946Random controlR 46 043-R 1 012-R 3 479289 / 1,000 (28,9%)51
#5P0695Loss-chasingR 45 910-R 6 934-R 9 744196 / 1,000 (19,6%)143
#996P0659Loss-chasing-R 15 874-R 3 901-R 9 797189 / 1,000 (18,9%)122
#997P0446Large bets, frequent-R 17 807-R 1 447-R 9 976251 / 1,000 (25,1%)260
#998P0498Large bets, frequent-R 19 991-R 2 059-R 9 909258 / 1,000 (25,8%)232
#999P0424Large bets, frequent-R 19 995-R 1 220-R 9 965246 / 1,000 (24,6%)226
#1000P0466Large bets, frequent-R 19 996-R 1 381-R 13 702282 / 1,000 (28,2%)239

View the complete ordered distribution →

Interpretation

Negative expectation still produces conspicuous winners.

The aggregate result favoured the house, but 227 policies finished ahead in this realised world. That is not a contradiction. Volatility spreads short-run outcomes around a negative expected value.

The replication laboratory asks the harder question: did a leading policy remain unusual under new random paths, or did its rank mostly reflect one lucky draw history?

Open the replication laboratory →

Separate experiment

What if the goal is one R100,000 payout?

The Make It Big study holds monthly spend at R1,000 and varies stake size, attempt count, and transparent tail distributions. It has its own protocol, seed, entrant population, survival analysis, and downloads.

Open the Make It Big study →

Research boundary

This is not playable.

Balances are fictional and have no cash value. There are no deposits, withdrawals, prizes, visitor wagers, tips, operator links, or claims that a staking system beats the house.

Read the safety and ethics review →