Topic: Proving that my gambling script works. - page 6. (Read 1805 times)

I'm perfectly able to make entirely valid observations about the claims that you have made without needing to see your script.

Additionally, these very sites that you're betting on attempting to prove your script are "100% math based" and run using "stupid equations". That's how the entire provable fairness system works, using cryptography and statistics, two very important fields of math on which you are very intent on dismissing as they tend to go against your claims. But hey, if you want to ignore millennia of advances in human thought and just go "it just works lol" then be my guest, but I'm not going to remove my trust because the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.

I wonder if aTriz is able to produce a script of any kind that he was vouching for...

The intricacy seems to be that you have no script. You just placed 3 identical bets. There is no script needed for that.

alia:   You have heard of the expression that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof?   

And, I would read that kind of expression to mean that the burden of proving your seemingly "extra-ordinary" claim lies upon you to prove with evidence and/or logic.  You seem to be attempting only the evidence side by asserting that you are going to run an experiment, but several times, posters have already pointed out how your proposed experiment to prove your point would not prove your point, even if you were to obtain a result that is favorable to your claim(s).

Do you believe that you do NOT have any kind of extraordinary evidentiary nor logical burden to establish your seemingly extraordinary claims?

Like I said, many, many times... not everything has to be 100% math based. My aim is to make profit for people, and I am doing it. That is my end goal. Not to fit your stupid equations (which are not even relevant since you don't know the intricacies of how my script works)

I spoke imprecisely, to avoid going off on a tangent.

I actually saw scam_detector’s thread first, but gave it no credence:  Accusations from an alt of an unknown user, who also lodged accusations against me (for which he later apologized; see here for my opinion).  Of course, this was before theymos intervened...  But as a matter of habit, such things cause me to check trust pages; whereupon I saw RGBKey’s negative feedback.  Thus, that was my “first alert”.  That was what made me slam on the brakes, and re-evaluate the whole situation.  On-topic here, because it specifically pertained to the sale of this gambling script.

Edit:  I myself have oft wished that the trust feedback pages would display full timestamps.  I think there’s a way to obtain this information, but have not looked into it.

---

Topical thread for gambling scripts which “work” in defiance of “mathematical mumbo jumbo”!

...and the Earth is flat.

I looked at your various assertions here nullius, and it seems that you are correct that RGBKey was one of the first ones who publicly highlighted, in the trust system, against alia - accordingly, I could not find a way, exactly to see the time that his trust rating was posted - and in that regard, it would be helpful in some cases if the trust rating pages were to show both the date and the time of the initial post (and even the date and time of the last time that edits are made to the post, if any).

The odds are essentially hardcoded, e.g. if you bet on a 50:50 "dice roll" your chance to win is actually 49.5% and your chance to lose is 50.5%, the difference being the house edge (1% in this example). There is no way to "narrow" these odds. That's how gambling sites make money. If there was a way to defeat that they would go out of business in a jiffy.

There is of course variance and in a short run like o_e_l_e_o showed you can win more than you lose or vice versa. However there is no way for the player to control that so any script claiming to do so is a fallacy. Again, if someone could do that they would be an instant billionaire, or more accurately - gambling establishments wouldn't exist.

I don't know man, look at all that empirical evidence. Who cares about words and theories and all that mathematical nonsense. /s

I have made my own script. I call it "Easy Script". It has gauranteed returns. It is 100% effective. To prove this, I ran it 10 times looking for a 20% ROI each time. It was successful 10/10 times. I started with 1 bit, and ended with 3 bits. I made 200% ROI. It never lost! You can see the proof here:

https://www.bustabit.com/user/easyscript

---

What's my point here? Anyone with half a brain can tell that this is clearly nonsense, despite the proof I have posted. It was blind luck, and if I continue to play the script, I will lose money. I know this despite my 100% success rate so far, because every script will lose money.

There is no such thing as a winning script. There is only short-term luck, and long-term losses.

You missed my point here.

Player placed 3 bets on multiplier 1.08 and called this winning method.

This user tested method for 2 years and after 2 years user is trying to prove that script works by placing 3 bets at 1.08X...betting 100 satoshi.

Such gambling much fallacy

She's only betting 1 bit i guess which is faucet, and she started with 1 bit

so 1.08*3 = 1.24

I thought this was going to start with 1 btc but nvm

Am I the only one who see 3 bets cashing out on 1.08X and calling this 24% ROI?

Even before alia closing the previous "deal" it sounds like a kind of ponzi scheme that involved paying off of older subscribers with new ones - and perhaps once in a while doing a supposedly debt paying (or "free") cam show to have all her bases covered for hard dicks that might appreciate losing the bets just to get the "free" cam show... hahahahaha..

What a great scheming idea from alia the boy or girl (or man or woman) that gets BTC_Talk forum guys to think with their little heads rather than their big ones.      Gotta see some humor in some of this, no?

I am really skeptical of any online gambling against a gambling website algorithm except perhaps if they are almost 100% transparent with their algorithm, then perhaps mathematically you could figure out a loophole way of beating it, but I find it implausible that the algorithm would be 100% transparent (maybe someone could point out examples of gambling sites with 100% transparent algorithms to show that i am wrong with my assertion).

So let's assume that the gambling site is amongst the most generous, and they only give 2% to the house - which would then create a 4% spread  - accordingly the house has a 52% of winning and the player has a 48% chance.

Any script should then narrow that gap to make the odds greater for the player, perhaps even shifting the odds in favor of the player.  Somehow it should be provable that the script accomplishes what it claims, and if the seller of the script cannot at least describe how the script improves odds for the player, then the seller of the script is selling snake oil, no?  

I understand that the methodology of a script and mathematics can become quite complicated, so sometimes, the explanation for how the script shifts odds in more favorable for the player might not be understandable by everyone, and therefore it could require a certain high level of mathematical knowledge to understand how the script is increasing odds in favor of the play (presumably the on buying the script).

It seems that in this case, alia is all over the place asserting the conclusion that the script works, but not really ready, willing or able to explain with any kind of specifics how the script supposedly accomplishes what she proclaims it to accomplish.  


Edit:

I do appreciate the mathematical discussion in o_e_l_e_o's above post that also refers back to RGBKey's discussion of the odds of 20% win with a house that supposedly has only 1% odds in it's favor.  No matter what, there would need to be some demonstration from alia regarding either how her script narrows the odds to be more in favor of the player to actually show that in a decently long and statistically significant test... so yeah, I agree running the script for a short period does not prove anything, and even alia's currently poor credibility status would cause some skepticism whether she is actually employing neutral testing grounds... it is almost like a neutral 3rd party would have to run the script for a statistically significant period of time to show how it performs compared with no script, and even that? who has fucking time for attempting to empirically proving something one direction or another, merely for the sake of possibly redeeming some of alia's seemingly shot reputation.

You are totally right. My bad.

It's not irrelevant, it is basic mathematics. It holds true regardless of what is written in your script.

Incidentally, if we are changing the "proof" from 18/20 to 9/10, (and it seems that way, since your first post has been updated with a Bustabit link and ROI, but not mentioned Cyrptobust), running another Binomial Distribution as RGBKey did on page one of this thread, the random chance of achieving your "proof" increases from 29.4233% to 45.5893%.