Gamdom Confirms Higher Crash House Edge and Refunds Players $339,000

Gamdom has confirmed that its in-house Crash game operated with a higher house edge than the advertised 1%, following an investigation published by ProvablyFair.org on November 1.

In a November 3 statement, the operator acknowledged that the edge ranged from 1% to 3%, depending on the player's target multiplier. Gamdom said it has changed the formula to apply a flat 1% edge across all targets and credited $339,113.41 to 1,293 accounts after recalculating historical rounds.

How Gamdom calculated the adjustment

Crash players must cash out before a rising multiplier stops. Gamdom said its revised formula leaves the instant-crash rate unchanged while raising the other crash points slightly. Under the change, a round can produce an equal or higher result than before.

The operator said it re-ran historical rounds using that formula. Where a previously unsuccessful bet would have reached its auto-cashout target, Gamdom recorded a win and credited the corresponding balance.

It also allocated $250,000 in reload credits to the same accounts, in proportion to each account's adjustment. Those credits are separate from the $339,113.41 balance correction; the statement did not specify their conditions.

Gamdom did not identify the historical period covered or explain how manual cash-outs were treated.

What the investigation found

ProvablyFair.org calculated a 2% house edge at a 2× cash-out target, rising to approximately 2.79% at 10× and 2.98% at 1,000×. Its analysis identified an additional reduction in the multiplier formula beyond the separate 1% instant-crash rule.

Based on 99,119 bets captured over 44 hours, the investigators estimated $1.58 million in extra expected player losses from January through October. That assumed the observed wagering pace, target mix and formula held across the period. It was not a confirmed refund total.

The report proposed compensating affected bets for the difference in expected return. Gamdom instead described recalculating outcomes and crediting bets that would newly reach their auto-cashout targets.

Separate fairness concerns remain

The investigation also questioned whether Gamdom's hash-chain setup proved that results were committed before play and protected against advance selection. It explicitly said its findings did not establish manipulation.

Gamdom's statement addressed the payout formula and historical adjustments, but did not explain how it would resolve those separate concerns. Correcting the advertised house edge answers one part of the investigation; evidence about how the result sequence was selected remains a separate question.