Topic: Proving that my gambling script works. - page 4. (Read 1853 times)

As I've said a billion times... my only aim is to make profit for myself and investors. That is the end goal. If it is being met by the script, I'm happy with the script. Naturally if I ran this for too long a time in one shot, it would make losses, so I have to run it in short intervals while it watches for green trains/red trains.

You can stop applying maths to a script which you have not seen. It is impossible to do so. You never know, I might be sitting on some Nobel Prize material. I will continue making a 20% ROI daily for the next year. Just look at my stats! You'll see it

That's why I suggested 20 million bets early in the thread. Should be easy enough to do with a script.

Not going to happen though.

(Bold/red added.)

Wait.  What is the controversy here?  Alia already says that the script will lose over time.  Insofar as I can tell, her claim is that it can quasi-magically succeed in its first few runs—most of the time—but will occasionally super-duper fail.

---

This intersects with my “fixated gambler” hypothesis as to Alia’s motives, stated on the first page of this thread.  Obsession with discovering a secret way to win is not at all uncommon.  Note:  Historical experience with persons making extraordinary claims does show that such an obsession is not mutually exclusive with dishonesty toward others.  A personal obsession with a winning script may or may not coincide with a scam.  There have been many historical instances of such people who seemed to genuinely believe their own claims on some level, while actively performing what could not have been other than consciously calculated steps to fool others.  The study of such phenomena is fascinating (and does intersect with much historical study of religion, cults, and superstitions generally).

---

I am actually one of those people who is critical of how the p < .05 confidence level is oftentimes (usually?) used—just because it’s commonly used.  Of course, the reason stated by LoyceV (1/20 chance of a fluke being far too high) is part of the importance of repeatability of an experiment by independent parties.  Thus, regardless of p-value:

If Alia wants to use “empirical” evidence to override the known laws of mathematics, then the experiment must be repeatable to be scientifically valid.

You are absolutely correct, but we can change the p-value to anything we want. 0.05 (i.e. 5%) is a commonly used minimum standard as I said, but we could equally decide to be more rigorous by increasing the number of runs thereby resulting in a smaller p-value.

5% still doesn't prove a script works: this would lead to the false result that 1 out of 20 gambling scripts is EV+. That can't be right.
It can be a good method to disprove 95% of the gambling scripts, but it doesn't prove that the remaining 5% works. Run the same test again, and another 95% will fail.

This is how (almost) all gamblers turn their profit into a loss, and then start "chasing losses", which is a great way to lose more money. Do you really think casinos would still exist if if would be possible to consistently beat them?

Because:


As for this quite reasonable question:


I already gave a reasonable answer:


When drafting those words (before RGBKey posted his auditing offer), I had considered mentioning persons including RGBKey as potential auditors.  I decided against it:  I should not try to entangle anyone in such a task, unless that person is already willing to apply his technical competence to the task of being a fair and rigorous “skeptical investigator”.  Not all scientific and engineering professionals would wish to deal with such a controversy.  I am glad that RGBKey offered to do so, fully of his own accord.

I will note that the professional scientists who usually do such investigations of famous psychics, etc. are fair and scientifically rigorous in their investigations.  Their own scientific reputations are on the line:  They would not kill their own credibility by presuming any conclusion in advance, or by applying anything other than their usual scientific standards as they do elsewhere.


I predict similarly.  But I hope otherwise.  Given how Alia’s ultimate answer has turned out to be that our “stupid equations” don’t apply because we don’t know the “intricacies” of her script, RGBKey’s offer of an audit is a challenge:  Put up, or shut up.

I think the point is that it should be important for alia, who is claiming to be able to defy everything that you just said. And handing it over for an audit would be a much quicker way to do it that dragging this out for 100 days.

I fully expect alia to weasel out of this for some random reason.

I mean, do we really need to? Even if she/he found an exploit of some sort and is actually able to profit from it, why not just use it and get rich alone, there is no need to sell it, you can destroy every single casino and win millions.

Why?

I've heard too many times how someone has found winning method, ignored all warnings and finally busted all bankroll.

No one can't fight against math and logic and no one can't fight against negative expected value.
Even with low house edge such as 1% no one can beat the fact that casino has 1% advantage over players, whatever you do that advantage will remain.

Also there is no guaranty that game won't generate very bad streak, I've personally experienced 4 losses in row playing on multiplier 1.1X which is if I am not wrong 90% chance to win and calculate what is chance for that.

I am not sure why is so important to prove something which doesn't exist.

Last-minute add-on:


Some of my posts take much time to write, gather links and quotes for, etc.  I wrote the below part about auditing before RGBKey posted this.

I myself will vouch for RGBKey’s technical competence for performing such an audit.  I don’t know gambling; but I have interacted with RGBKey in the Development & Technology forum, and he knows his stuff.  I would trust the results of any gambling script audit performed by RGBKey.

What say you, Alia?

---

---

Pathetic.  This is where I stop even trying to argue, and just break out my popcorn.

Actually, I should have done that awhile ago.

---

TL;DR on Alia’s script and her arguments in favour of it.

---

You forgot Cloudflare:


Also, you’re preaching to the vicar.  Observe that my signature contains my e-mail address, the admonition “Use PGP!”, and the identifiers for two PGP keys (ECC for GPG 2.1+, Keybase, and some other implementations; RSA for everybody else).  And I have been vocal about my dismay at the abysmal state of PGP use amongst users of so-called “cryptos” (!):


As a 90s-era cypherpunk, I’ve been pushing PGP use for so long, to so little effect, that at this point I will do almost anything [NSFW] to raise user awareness of actual “crypto”.  (That thread started with general applied cryptography background at a beginner level; I had intended that when it really got going, lessons would move on to PGP/GPG use and also, OTR for chat.)

Anyway...


The full extortion threat is here:


That did strike me as a peculiarly stupid bluff to make, if it was a bluff.  But aTriz did avoid the contract; and rather than dropping some scandalous bombshell, Alia apparently returned his prepayment on it.  Moreover, I note, Alia had previously rattled a similar sabre at me (albeit much more weakly):


I cut that off cold; Alia only has from me a few bits of high-grade sex talk (PMed with PGP)—disclosure of which could moderately upset me just on principles of privacy, plus severely titillate the forum.  Nothing which could actually hurt me.

Given Alia’s propensity to rattle an extortionate sabre, I presume that what you quoted was a bold but badly-calculated bluff.


I think that if the person who started that thread was satified, then the matter can be considered resolved.  scam_detector seems unbiased; remember that he started by making serious accusations against me, too, in the alia scam thread (then dropped his accusations against me when I showed contrary evidence).  I will admit that I have a moderate positive bias toward aTriz, of the kind inevitable amongst human beings in social scenarios.  (N.b. that as of a few days ago, I had a strong positive bias toward Alia; and that did not stop me from changing my opinion based on credible evidence!)  Given your post history, you must admit that you have a strong negative bias toward aTriz—really, that you bear a grudge.  Whereas scam_detector seems interested only in detecting scams (for which reason, I will now pay close attention to any accusations he makes).  He locked the thread—not when Lauda publicly suggested it, but much later, when he decided it was appropriate.  I think that settles it.


True.  (suchmoon’s post on the same page, excerpted above, is an eye-opener on this point.)


The only possible point for whom?  Such an allegation is obviously your point; and you’re the only one who has made that allegation here.

As for Alia, I have advanced two different (but not mutually exclusive) hypotheses as to why Alia is doing this:  The “kook” theory of a self-described “degen” gambler fixated on the idea of a winning script; and the “long con” theory of a scammer with nothing to lose, who cooks up the ploy of an ill-designed “empirical” experiment she has a large chance of winning by blind luck.  Since there is no evidence other than Alia’s uncorroborated word of any script being actually used here (plus other reasons), I now lean strongly toward the latter theory—exclusively.


Interesting theory.  I note that this thread was started after the (in)validity of the signature contract had been broached, and many people were advocating that it should be voidable.  Means (that foolhardy vouch), motive (the signature contract), opportunity (obvious).  But that alone does not make a case beyond reasonable suspicion; any other evidence?


The weight of all evidence I have thus far seen is that aTriz got sucked into a situation where he was a bit starstruck, and made some foolhardy mistakes—even, yes, one which looks quite ridiculous.  The totality of the situation must be examined:  The vouch in question, the unprecedented signature contract, and also my own involvement.  (Remember that aTriz was seeking my signature, too, as I disclosed in the other thread.  In view of Alia’s close public association with me, I hope that my reputation for technical credibility did not improperly weigh in his eyes in favour of a script which I myself didn’t even know about until after the scam accusations broke.)  All this was examined, in the aTriz thread where aTriz was the topic.

Remember:  Many people got fooled here.  I myself got fooled, badly.  Even theymos got fooled—not so badly, but nevertheless.  There was a domino effect:  I looked to theymos’ neutral reporting of a fact (/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin verification) on Alia’s trust page; arguably, I may have read too much into it.  Via private as well as public communications, I am almost 100% certain that aTriz first heard of Alia due to me.  So, aTriz got fooled even worse than I did—in some part because I was fooled, and Alia was carrying my afterglow.  Of course, aTriz is responsible for his own decisions, just as I am for mine; but still, this is the simplest explanation, and the most likely.

---

Another idea:  Publicly commit a hash of the script:  Bit-for-bit, exactly the version which was provided to aTriz.  Perhaps even a keyed hash (HMAC).  I would be willing to produce and escrow a secret key for that purpose, under appropriate terms as for the purpose of this commitment, and the exact circumstances under which I would agree to disclose the secret.

This would fix the bit-for-bit identity of the script, as a reference point for any future investigation of it (whether publicly, or by a private auditor).

So, Alia, do you have a problem committing a SHA-256 here?  I don’t think the keyed hash would be necessary, for any script of nontrivial length.  (I would suggest that keyed hashes be used for such purposes as committing evidence of names, e-mail addresses, and other very short texts which could easily be bruteforced from databases of known identifiers.  That is a large mistake of many people who commit identity hashes.)

---

Another idea:  Private audit.

Alia, you yourself made this an issue:


If your ultimate answer is that your critics lack sufficient knowledge to judge your script because they haven’t seen it, then it is incumbent on you to grant such knowledge.

In both open-source and proprietary software, paid professional audits by independent third parties are an industry best practice.  Proprietary software is typically audited under NDA terms.  In this case, I seriously doubt that any credible expert would make of himself a laughingstock by accepting an ordinary audit job for a mathematically impossible script.  However, perhaps a credible auditor may be interested in approaching this as a “skeptical investigator”.  There do exist eminent scientists who make a hobby (or even a secondary career) out of investigating famous spoon-bending psychics, and the like.  Their investigations are not jokes; they are serious and scientifically rigorous.

Why don’t you ask some of your critics here if they’d be interested in taking a paid audit job under NDA?

(Note:  I am not offering to do this, for the following reasons:  (0) Obvious COI, which would present at best an appearance of impropriety; it needs to be an independent third party, who was never before involved with you.  (1) My lack of technical competence in the specialist subject of games of chance—a deficiency I intend to fix, but have not yet.)

---

s/Nobel Prize/Fields Medal/.  Which is much more exclusive, and would be almost unprecedented if Alia really be a woman.  Oh, don’t complain about my mention of an inconvenient fact; I’ve already been branded “politically incorrect”:

I'll offer to audit this script. If alia wants to send it to me then I will go through it and analyze how it works and post my analysis about it here without revealing its inner workings. I don't plan to bet money with it, instead to analyze the code.

AKA gambler's fallacy.


Do more than one bet per day. Easy.

I've seen this countless times: someone makes a claim that defies math, physics or logic, and rejects any argument without valid reason. Your can't argue against that, it's hopeless.

Gambling has a very simple and very basic rule of thumb, one that keeps the casino in profit: any player is more likely to lose everything than doubling his money. Winning doesn't mean it's likely to win again, no matter how hard you believe that.

That's fucking hilarious. Looks like you just want to get the script for free. If I ran the script every day for 5 years and made a 20% ROI 9/10 times, then I'm 100% sure all users here would concede.

Extending this to 5 years will not prove anything. The only way to form any kind of opinion about your script is for it to get audited, or at least the only way to form an opinion that your script is not a complete scam is for it to get audited.


You should allow aTriz to release the script he received from you.

If you say so. Well, guess I have a 3% chance, but I'm telling you it will happen. Wait and see. If you want me to extend it to 200 days or 1000 days then I don't mind doing so, but I'm also sure that interest in this thread will drop after 15 or so days

That's the wrong equation. You've calculated the odds of hitting exactly 90 out of 100. You want the odds of 90 or more out of 100, in which case you would use the binomial distribution referred to earlier in this thread. The true result is around 3%, about one million times higher than the one you've quoted.

You do realize that as it stands now, no one will ever buy your script from you, for a number of reasons.

If your script has any level of legitimacy, you should allow others who have the ability to audit the code and methods to do so. This is probably the only realistic way of redeeming your trust.

Yeah you are very right. In my eyes, the criteria are a 90% success rate (so 18/20, 9/10 and 90/100 are equal in my eyes) but you are 100% correct about the first part. I forgot about the actual criterion.

(82.5%)^90 = 3.02590556e-6%

Still astronomically small, so I will continue.

Do I have a problem with aTriz disclosing a script that I was trying to, at one point, selling for 1 BTC a piece? Absolutely.