500 Casino statistics measured by WagerDB from a tagged public bet feed and labelled on-chain hot wallets. These are observations from our own data collection, not operator disclosures.
| Window | Wagered | Paid out | Observed RTP | Bets | Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 hours | $585.3K | $3.14M | 535.8% | 4,219 | 322 |
| 7 days | $5.28M | $21.81M | 413.3% | 23,592 | 1,171 |
| 30 days | $24.29M | $92.84M | 382.2% | 79,310 | 2,087 |
| All time | $24.29M | $92.84M | 382.2% | 79,310 | 2,087 |
Observed RTP = payouts ÷ wagers across the public feed; short windows swing wildly and are not the theoretical RTP of any game.
Deposits into publicly known casino hot wallets across the chains we index; coverage is partial by construction and understates total volume.
Everything on this page comes from our own adapter against the casino’s public bet feed: bets recorded, amount wagered, amount returned, top games by volume, biggest wins and most active players, across rolling 24-hour, 7-day and 30-day windows.
It is a sample of a public stream, not the operator’s full book. Bet counts are exact — we either saw a bet or we did not — while ratios are indicative, because what an operator broadcasts is its own choice.
Payout ratio here is simply returned divided by wagered over the window. For a mixed lobby of slots and house games it should land in the low-to-mid nineties as a percentage; a figure above 100% over a short window is normal variance, because a single large multiplier moves the whole number.
A ratio that stays far below the theoretical range across a large sample is the case worth investigating, and it is the question we answer directly, with the same data, on the "is this casino rigged" page for each tracked operator.
No. It is every bet we saw on the public feed. Operators throttle and filter what they publish, so treat volumes as a lower bound.
Variance. One large multiplier in a modest sample lifts the ratio above the theoretical range without anything unusual happening.