Topic: Proving that my gambling script works. - page 5. (Read 1848 times)

It is math, but it's bad math. Here's why:


Firstly, the odds of getting 90/100 are several orders of magnitude higher than the odds of getting 100/100. You can't claim you will see odds of 4.4197e-7 "happen before your eyes", and then immediately change the criteria in the next sentence. Also, this is now the third time you've changed the criteria, from 18/20, to 9/10 and now to 90/100. These give vastly different p values, and therefore vastly different degrees of "proof".

Secondly, I'm sorry but the phrase "before crying "but muh math" because your math does not apply to my script." is laughable. Either maths is applicable to your script (and therefore, as we've shown, your script is a scam) or you've written a script which breaks the fundamental laws of mathematics, in which case you are sitting on Nobel Prize material.

So do you have a problem with aTriz disclosing the script in order to prove the script actually exists?

The script changes its bets based on the past busts, dumbfuck. It also changes based on whether the last play was a win, loss, etc. for efficient bankroll management. Scoff in the face of proof. Retard

The script was being sold for ~$10,000, which is a lot of money if you are a 19 year old girl, a 15 year old boy, or both ($5k for each of them). She would only need to sell one copy in order to have profited very handsomely. When you have a vouch from a fairly reputable person, it wouldn't even make sense to ask to use escrow because if you pay for the script and alia doesn't send it to you, you can simply ask the person who vouched for the script for a copy. Once alia receives payment for one copy of her script, she can simply abandon her account, and move onto another medium to scam another way (or otherwise leave).

A couple of things:
1 - PM stands for 'Personal message' and notice the word 'private' is not within the name
2 - If you want to maintain confidentiality, GPG (or another encryption means should be used), this is primarily how I judge if I will be willing to disclose information received via PM
3 - If GPG is not used, there is the potential for anyone with access to the forum DB to trivially read your PMs, even after they are deleted because the entire DB is backed up every day.


To your point, it is possible alia sent the script (if she in fact sent a script) encrypted, as she said she recommonds this be done, and/or that aTriz otherwise agreed to confidentiality. However, at this point, the legitimacy of the alleged script has been throughly debunked by multiple people in multiple ways, so it is probably safe to say that no one will be buying the script from her. It is very well possible that alia will agree to forgo any previously agreed upon confidentiality and doing so is certainly within her rights.

I would point out that alia threatened to release information about aTriz (source:
Take a look at my above logic. I would probably go a step further and say that aTriz cannot even produce evidence of bets placed (by him) in the relevant timeframe.

Interesting question.  It well may be the case that no script is being run now; and at best, the only evidence we have of a script now being run is Alia’s unsupported word.

However, I seriously doubt that Alia’s script be wholly non-existent.  Perforce, something must have been on-hand to provide to paying marks customers.  It simply would not do, if the script-selling scam business had to close down early due to paying customers complaining of having received nothing at all.

As for the question of aTriz disclosing his copy of the putative script, I think that raises a far stickier issue than that of the signature ad contract.  I am not familiar with the situation, other than what’s been discussed in public threads; but given Alia’s secretiveness about that script, I presume that it must have been provided to him under some sort of confidentiality terms.

For an analogy, consider PMs which Alia sent to me.  I have publicly disclosed a few of those; but I only did so when reasonably required for an investigative or otherwise evidentiary purpose, and I minimized the disclosures as much as practicable.  Even after what has happened to date, I would not dump out all the PMs in public.  That has nothing to do with my opinion of Alia, and everything to do with my principles about PMs.

If the script were reasonably required for an investigative purpose, then I would urge aTriz to disclose it.  But I see no such need here.

What Alia claims the script to do is mathematically impossible; and we don’t need to see the script for that to be proved.  By analogy, suppose that somebody disclosed to aTriz under strict NDA a design for a perpetual motion machine, or a recursive compressor.  Would it be required that aTriz violate the NDA for the purpose of publicly proving that the thing is bunkum?  (Obviously, that is a rhetorical question.)

I can think of some circumstances under which such a disclosure might be required, for other purposes; e.g., if an investigator were comparing gambling scripts sold by allegedly different people for the purpose of linking identities, identifying the real authors of such scripts, etc.  That question is beyond the scope of yours.

Parenthetically, I note that you claimed that the signature ad contract was still valid and binding on aTriz.  Whereas that agreement was clearly voidable.  Here, you are clearly setting the stage for some suggestion that aTriz actually disclose the script—predictably followed by pressure on him to disclose the script, and accusations that he’s protecting a scammer if he doesn’t cough it up.  Why the switcheroo, with you here insinuating that agreements can be freely ignored?  Not that I’m surprised to see this level of inconsistency from you.

---

Oh, here we go!  I wrote the above prediction, hit “Preview”, and was informed in red letters that another post had been made—this one.  “Here, you are clearly setting the stage for some suggestion that aTriz actually disclose the script—predictably followed by pressure on him to disclose the script, and accusations that he’s protecting a scammer if he doesn’t cough it up.”  Well, you don’t wait long building these things up, now do you?

Until aTriz can prove otherwise, it appears that aTriz was vouching for a script that didn't even exist

Three bets on day 1.

Day 2 has... wait for it... ONE bet (1.37 or something like that):



A super-secret math-defying script for one bet? Totes legit.

Maybe I was not clear.

alia allegedly sent aTriz some kind of gambling script for him to test and vouch for. aTriz claimed to test this $10,000 gambling script with faucet money for 10 minutes and vouched for it. In order for aTriz to test this script, alia would have had to have sent the script to him. I am curious to know if aTriz is able to produce/show the script that alia sent him.

According to the OP, alia is using the handle 'makealiagreatagain' on bustabit, however a review of the betting history on that account only shows four bets made, even though the OP claims to have run the script for two days.

I am willing to say there is a fairly decent chance that alia is not running a script, especially considering all of alia's bets appears to be 'all in' bets.

If alia is not currently using a script, then maybe there was never any kind of script in the first place.

Your "proof" consists of saying that the odds are "astronomically small" and yet don't apply to you because... you've done something? That's not proof of anything.

BTW you are woefully inconsistent in your numbers. The bolded part suggests that you will win 100 in a row but then you follow that with "9/10 times". Make up your mind.

I hope you realize that given the nature of our prior relationship, your patent disrespect for maths is more embarrassing to me than any other part of this sordid affair.

It is worse than your being publicly caught by me in a lie, when I was searching for some means to prove your innocence and corroborate your identity.  (Whereas you claimed you knew were close IRL friends with “Dave” from “the best wallet recovery service”, Dave doesn’t know you—so says Dave.)

It is even worse than the evidence that you are actually a boy, as presented by credible people such as theymos, ibminer, and NLNico (i.e. not forum “you = satoshi = aliens!!” wackjobs).

It is just that bad.

If you had some deeper mathematical understanding than your critics, then you would shred their arguments in mathematical terms.  That’s what I do to idiots who wander into Dev & Tech.  If you claim that your critics’ arguments are


...then you would use your own superior knowledge of the script to explain with mathematical arguments where your critics are wrong.  Actual mathematical arguments, not the cock-eyed handwaving plus statistically invalid empiricism which you just presented as “mathematical proof”!

I hang my head in shame that I ever associated with someone who sneers at “muh math”.

---

Such pathetic unintentional comedy belongs in certain Off-Topic threads.

If gambling works based on calculation then it is not called as a gambling. All those calculation looks can achieve but when you start playing you will get completely new set of output and that's why is a game of luck. I don't agree that any kind of script can give us a consistent profit whether it is 5%, 10% or any other percent. You may win one time but next time not sure.

So...  How does your “mathematical proof” explain o_e_l_e_o’s easyscript?

@o_e_l_e_o, I want to invest!  Or buy your script!  (P.S., I am suing you in Bitcourt for trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity of your script’s name to that of easyseed.)

What you presented is neither “mathematical proof” in the rigorous abstract sense by which mathematicians use that term—nor a valid design for an empirical experiment, as explained by the “stupid equations” and results thereof set forth by RGBKey and o_e_l_e_o.

(And that’s “Mr. nully” to you.)

Aaaand that's the nail in the coffin for you. I clearly outlined the odds of me getting the specific ROIs on a site with a 1% house edge, guess you just ignored all of that. Good work nully

“Mathematical proof”.  Interesting definition of the term.  If the above-quoted text be “mathematical proof”, then I’m Satoshi Nakamoto and the Earth is flat.

I... just gave mathematical proof... and you're still stuck on dumb ass analogies. Seriously, leave.

Your statement is like stepping off a roof of a skyscraper. It doesn't matter if you think the laws of physics don't apply to you, said laws will work just the same.

Math will catch up to you just like gravity does because the site you're gambling on operates in this universe, not in your fantasy land.

I'll put it simply so you half-wits can understand.

With the house edge, the odds of winning a bet at or above a 1.2x multiplier is 0.99/1.2 = 82.5%

So the odds of getting a 20% ROI on any bet is 82.5%.

Now, the odds of getting a 20% ROI on any bet ten times in a row is (82.5%)^10 = 14.6%.

This is assuming your aim is to hit 1.2x or more 10 times. The script does not do this, but for the sake of simplicity, I am using 20% because that is my target ROI.

So, even without a script, on pure blind luck, the odds of anyone getting a 20% ROI ten times is 14.6%.

What about 100 times? The odds of getting 20% ROI 100 times is (82.5%)^100 = 4.419721e-7%, astronomically small. And yet, with my script, you will see it happen before your eyes. I won't post here every day, but for the next 100 days, 9/10 times (or more), you will see a 20% ROI on the initial bet. And please don't reply here with some bullshit, just wait for the proof before crying "but muh math" because your math does not apply to my script. It applies to what you know but not to what I have done.