Bitcoin Forum

I was once selling a gambling script (for which I received a lot of backlash) and was called a scammer. I am saying that it is profitable in the short run - people do not believe me.

Every day, for the next 10 days, starting from 12:10 AM UTC, I will use the script.

1 bit will be wagered on Bustabit and 3 bits will be wagered on Cryptobust. You can follow along daily, since the times have been set in stone, and will not change. You can even watch me play, if you wish to do so. I will screen record each run through and post it here.

Note: I am no longer selling the script, I just want to prove people wrong.

Anyway, the aim for each run will be a 20% ROI. I recommend 5-10% ROI with the script, but 20% will be my aim each time. As I stated previously, the script usually works 9/10 times or more. So, I will be running it a grand total of 20 times (once on each site daily).

If the script does not yield 20% ROI 18 times out of 20, I will admit that I "lied", and will leave the forum. I will also send a few bits to people who warned against me.

If the script yields 20% ROI 18 times out of 20 (or more)... well, then I guess my point has been proven.

We will see. You shall all see.

PS: If you have mathematically sound reasoning below, your post shall stay. If you have words of encouragement, the post will stay. If I lose more than 2 times and you want to roast me, the post will stay.

If you insult me for no reason, I will delete your post. If you spam irrelevant stuff here, I will delete your post. Trolls, please return if I lose (aka not happening)

Follow the progress here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/makealiagreatagain

Note that the real bets are in decimals but Bustabit only shows integers.

Day 1 - 24% ROI

Day 2 - 37% ROI

Day 3 (part 1) - -100% ROI

Day 3 (part 2) - 37% ROI

What is the point to open this thread?

If you make a regular profit from gambling then I don't believe it because if that is true then you wouldn't have opened this thread to tell it to the public but you would have been busy in collecting profit every day.

The point is to clear my name in a public way. People think I was lying when I said I had a profitable gambling script - I was not.

I would not use this with my own funds, mainly because a 10% chance of loss is too risky for my risk appetite. I do use it for investor funds and take a cut, but naturally, I keep this low, because the chance of losses are real. However, in the short term, profits are always guaranteed as long as you keep the ROI low. I will prove this in a manner that is entirely provably fair.

18 times of 20 is 90%. ROI - 20%. Expected value is 1.08. There's a chance of 92.5% to reach so easy target without using any scripts. So, you would not prove anything.

Can you bump this up to a more reasonable number, e.g. 20 million or so. Thanks.

At a 1% house edge, which both of these sites have, the simple chance of 20% return is 82.5%. The chance of alia getting 18, 19, or 20 of these 82.5% chances in a group of 20 is as follows: (https://i.imgur.com/n0n3NbD.png)

https://i.imgur.com/n0n3NbD.png

(For those unfamiliar, this uses the Binomial Distribution to find the chance of k successes out of 20 trials. Here we are interested in k=18, k=19, and k=20 so we sum those results).

This comes out to 0.294233 (rounded to the 6th decimal place), or 29.4233%.

So basically, the chance of alia's script working (according to the known laws of probability) are around 29.4%.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this because screen recordings can be faked, livestreams could have been pre-recorded and such, but I won't get any more into that in this post.

The house always win

You should start with a larger bet. If you do, if you are right then you will have enough money so it won’t matter what anyone else thinks and can just retire.

Alia, I am open to the possibility that you sincerely believe what you are saying.  Please compare the following recent experience of mine, in a context not involving monetary gain or scam accusations.

It began in the Vanitygen thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25804.msg29772437#msg29772437), in Development & Technical Discussion.  (I linked to the post which led into the discussion; continue reading downthread.)  With no obvious material motive, Jude Austin (a Legendary!) claimed to have randomly found an address with funds on an imitator of directory.io.  Discussion ensued involving me, DannyHamilton, LoyceV, and dooglus on one side, and Jude Austin on the other.  Key points:




N.b. that Jude Austin spends his cycles on LBC, too.  From his posts, I infer that he passionately believes in the notion of finding address collisions.

Jude Austin subsequently began a thread in Technical Support titled, “I found a collision. The hard part is proving it. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2901465.0)”  I did not participate in that thread, or even read it; life is too short.

Now, compare the title of your thread here:  “Proving that my gambling script works.”


It is possible that you could persuade people that you’re a kook instead of a scammer.  Attempting to empirically “prove” the mathematically impossible is not so different from writing university professors long e-mails with designs for perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, or a peculiar favourite of mine, recursive compressors.  I am not trying to insult you here:  That’s just how it is; and if you sincerely believe in your script, then you may not realize how others see this thread.  It looks like a good analogue for this:


It is also possible that this be your run-up to some future attempt to sell the script again, or otherwise profit from mathematically impossible claims about games of chance.  If you were to do that, such would conclusively show your motives.

Now, a question which is sensitive, but must be asked:  Somewhere in your post history, I saw you describe yourself as a “degen” in matters of gambling.  (Don’t take that as an insult:  You said it.)  I am asking you a reasonable question, not to attack you:  Are you fixated on the idea of a winning script?  Many gamblers become obsessed with similar ideas.

I am posting partly for the purpose of saying what I say, and partly to see whether you sincerely wish to challenge in open discourse the people who tell you that what you claim is mathematically impossible.  Some of them are gambling experts (which I am not), who have crunched numbers specifically about the game you are playing.  I have reviewed their arguments.  What they say is sound.  What you claim is not, to make an understatement.  Whereupon I myself am more interested in really knowing why you’re doing this.

It is impossible on mathematics. But if a gambling site is not fair, it tends to let win at beginning. I experienced that on many gambling sites. At beginning I won with my strategy and as soon as I wagered higher amounts, I lost. So if he is talking about winnings on short term run, he could be right on certain sites.

You are scared to use your own working script with your own funds? You are contradicting yourself mighty fine here dude. I suggest you up the ante to BTC0.1 per bet. After all you asked for upwards of 1 Bitcoin per investor for 'bigger gains'. 1-3 bits won't cut it  ;)

BTC0.1 per bet is somehow a very convincing thing for him to use into his bets. 1-3 bits is just good for trial basis.If it does work then go directly with bigger bets so that people would really be convinced but we do all the know the reality of gambling no matter how good the script is,sooner or later that thing will bust up no matter what 20% on bankroll is achievable not because of script but on your pure luck.

Ok keep us updated about your stats than  ;D
To earn that 20% ROI per day you might have to risk all you have because I am also one of the guy who never believes on gambling script or strategy.

Sorry to cut this quote in half; I will show where you were correct by the end.  But first, I want to highlight the problem here.

Many people’s eyes glaze over when they see equations; so I will snip those beautiful equations, and cut everything down to “money quotes” (so to speak):



Otherwise stated:  A user with a ruined reputation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31217052#msg31217052) has a 29.4% chance of “proving” that the script works—told you so!—and a 70.6% chance of doing what was probably going to happen anyway.

That’s about midway between betting on a die roll, and betting on a coin flip.  For a person with nothing left to lose here, it is close to a ⅓ chance of (imagined) instant redemption!  Not a bad bet for someone who managed to get red-tagged by theymos himself.


For a 29.4% chance of winning trust based on pure luck, with the downside risk limited to a grand total⁰ of 0.00004 BTC = 4000 satoshis (plus some unspecified “few bits”)!


Whereas:


Exactly.

---

Yet notwithstanding the foregoing, I still entertain the notion that a winning script may be Alia’s idée fixe.  Consider here the argument set forth in Alia’s negative trust feedback for RGBKey (2018-02-27) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=182468):


So, Alia states that “nothing can predict the future”.  Then advocates a method of predicting the future of a pseudorandom process.

And so, Alia admits that the script is based on a “mathematical fallacy”.  But in the next breath, “practice and experience” override the laws of mathematics.

Such blatant self-contradiction is oftentimes shown by those who are obsessed with an idea.  “Nothing can create free energy—and this was made clear in my thread.  However, I have here a machine which will run forever without any new energy input.  It is based on a physics fallacy; but practice and experience have shown me that it works.  Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.”

---

For the non-gamblers like me who are unaccustomed to talk of games and “busting”, I have an analogy:

Alia outlines what I will here call a (fallacious) calculation over collective probabilities.  A (correct) example of such a calculation is Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment.  The mining process is pseudorandom, a probabilistic search—a sort of gambling.  Difficulty is targeted such that on average, the time between blocks will be around 10 minutes.  Yet if you watch the blockchain, you will notice that the time between blocks is quite variable (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2995394.msg30802586#msg30802586).

Due to the targeting at 10 minutes, you might expect “intuitively” that too-short times would be followed by too-long times.  Sometimes, by happenstance, that is what occurs.  But other times, not.  Sometimes, a block is mined very quickly, followed by another block mined very quickly.  Sometimes, the opposite.  Sometimes, neither.

The only (almost-)true prediction¹ which could be made from this is that over the course of many blocks, assuming constant global hashrate, the average of block generation times will be close to 10 minutes.  This is analogous to predicting that over the course of many games, “ROI” will be close to -1% (the house edge).  The former won’t even be exactly 10 minutes, and the latter won’t be exactly -1% (negative one percent), because the processes are probabilistic.

Whereas what Alia claims this script to do is tantamount to claiming that you can semi-accurately predict the next block generation time based on the past few block generation times.  Um, no.  Try this concept for free:  Watch the blockchain, and try to guess about how long it will take the next block to come in.  Sometimes, by pure luck, you will come close with your prediction.  But mostly, you will just find the experience very frustrating.

---

0. Here interpreting “bit” per BIP 176 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki) as 0.000001 BTC = 100 satoshis.

1. Actually, I stated the matter somewhat backwards:  The difficulty adjustment is done every 2016 blocks retrospectively, by looking at how far away from the desired 10-minute target the past 2016 blocks’ average comes out to.  But this is only necessary due to changes in global hash rate; and I here oversimplify by omitting all discussion of fluctuations in hash rate.  If hash rate were constant, then you could reasonably make a forward-looking prediction that the next n block generation times would average out to about 10 minutes—for any large enough n.  Also then, difficulty adjustment would never be required.

It is also worth pointing out that 20 runs is statistical noise.

I set up a contigency table, played with the numbers and ran some chi-squared tests on them. I calculated for a p-value of 0.05 (This means that the results we achieve would be achieved by random chance 5% of the time i.e. we are 95% confident the script is working as advertised. This is a common minimum standard required across most fields of scientific.)

Even if the script could completely eliminate the house edge (which it can't), we would need around 6000 runs to obtain a p-value of <0.05. If the script could half the house edge from 1% to 0.5%, we would need around 23000 runs to obtain a p-value of <0.05.

Excellent point, o_e_l_e_o.  Curiously, 23000 runs is well within the realm of affordability for an experiment with the level of wagers Alia proposed:



Surely, to prove her point, Alia could put up <0.1 BTC for 23000 runs on each site, at the wagers she stated.  Moreover, to avoid any doubt, the experiment should be performed by a trustworthy person who PGP-signs an NDA agreeing not to disclose the script unless either it fails to perform as advertised, or it is found to contain any illegal material.  Skeptical investigators’ experiments always take such reasonable precautions.

I began writing a longer post about this, even thinking to offer to put up 0.0092 BTC (10% of the total) for this experiment.  But then I realized, that would only prove with confidence of p < 0.05 that the script could halve the house edge.  That is:  It would prove with >95% certainty that the script could cut your long-term gambling losses in half.  What about profit?

Say, how many runs would be required to obtain p < 0.05 confidence that the script can generate a 5% profit across many runs?  That is a modest “ROI”, at the low end of Alia’s claims.

Please do not insult Alia by suggesting that she prove only that the script can cut losses in half!  Who would want a winning script which only loses less?

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo... all I care about is proving that the script works.

I have gotten 1 bit on Bustabit and am running the script.

Fyi, in case nobody knows maths - whether I play with 1 bit, 0.1 btc or 1 btc makes no difference. I'm looking at ROI here.

And I will no longer post a screen recording, I will just send you my account link.

Yeah, maybe the maths says I am crazy, but this has worked for me before and I vehemently believe it will continue to work for me

Yeah fuck math. However anyone that claims they have a winning script/strategy but want to sell it makes little sense to me. Wouldn't you be able to just get rich using it? What is the point of selling it?

Don't try to address this ::)

It does make a difference, in mental mindset. The only reason you aren't going higher is because you know/expect it to not work, and do not want to lose money.

Someone testing a method with a few cents? Snooze. Someone testing a method with a few thousand dollars? I might take them more seriously. (or think that they are dumber)

Then put on your big boys pants and run the script with 1 Bitcoin. More profit for you. What's the problem? You asked for a lot of Bitcoins but you are scared to bet yours. You said you had a stash of coins at your disposal on that signed address. Use that to shush the critics! And you can't pay your bills by betting cents dude. Play with the pros or go back to the sandpit.

personally I sent alia 0.01 btc two times and she was able to profit for me , but I can't believe the script thing
The only thing that made me send money is that I will either win a little more btc or I will get a cam show , but I'm 100% sure that the script won't work in the long run
I mean personally if I know such thing I wouldn't sell it , why to sell a gold mine especially if it's an exploit !!

Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.

1) ROI is ROI. Whether it's on 1 bit or 1 bitcoin the return percentage is the same.
2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors

Did you see him gambling with your coins? Because I can promise you better ROI if you send me some coins too. I will return 200% to some people, get some big investments going and then off I go with the funds. It's called a ponzi.
I am going to refer to the OP as a 'he' because it's obvious by the used gamer's lingo that he is probably a male in his teenage years.





Asks for a lot of Bitcoins from investors
Terrified to bet his own cash
Seems legit
lol

op is a she , she had a service where you send your money and she gambles
if she won she takes a portion and send you your capital + a profit , and if she lost you can get a cam show with her and she gets naked
so it was a good idea but she decided to close it and to sell the script instead which I don't like

It's a HE.

Well, I’m glad you never showed that attitude when you stepped into Dev & Tech a few times.  Psshaw, maths?  Who needs ’em?  Bitcoin don’t need no maths—oh, wait.

What kind of alleged Bitcoin lover drips contempt for “mathematical mumbo jumbo”?

“Vires in numeris.”

---

C’mon, econ girl.  Absolute amounts matter, too!  If not, please explain to me how I can live on 1 satoshi per day.  I like the simple life.

And in absolute terms, “ROI” is big on big amounts, just as it’s small on small amounts.  So why not go for the big amounts?  Why...

---

...oh.  Oh, wait.

I never followed the thread where you were selling the script.  PLesae tell me, did you ever disclose there that “the script fails 9/10 times”?  Or did you disclose to your investors that “Anyone who asks me to use it with a larger amount is stupid.”?

---

So, what am I?  I don’t know any “gamer’s lingo”.  That’s why at first, I had trouble following all the scam accusations about the script.  I had to see it explained in terms of maths and probability, without the gambling jargon—oh, then I got it, and cooked up my own Bitcoin mining analogy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31367823#msg31367823) as laid out on the previous page of this thread[/url].

(Yes, I know that my flip “what am I?” is logically fallacious.  But I find it funny.)

The script fails 9 out of 10 times? Not quite what you claimed in the OP, is it now?

Is it what she claimed in the thread where she was selling the script?  This thread is supposed to somehow prove that that thread was legit.  Therefore, to be fair, the standard here should be at a minimum what was claimed there.

Edit:  A “gambling script” which “fails 9/10 times” is a hell of a gambling script.  Take a chance!  1/10 of the time, this script will win something!  And yes, I would readily find plausible a claim that this script wins money at least 1/10 of the time on a site with a 1% house edge.

Even in this thread:

Well it is good that we are on the same page.


I am not sure the point to this thread though...

Pfft, numbers?  Who cares?

---

suchmoon, I get your point.  You see that I do.  But I still interested in relating that to whatever claims Alia made when she was offering the script for sale.  Those should take precedence, given the purpose of this “proof” thread:  To prove that selling the script was not a scam, viz., that it will perform as then advertised.

Typo I meant wins 9/10 times

The claims in the original thread were different. It's quite clear that she's just making it up.




Love that last one. Fuck math, I make profit.

---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/827/621/fd6.gif

That makes no sense in the context:


This makes sense in the context:


So maybe add to this:


...also this:

---

Damn it, suchmoon.  +1 IOU.  Which will vanish and become something different if I gamble my sMerit using Alia’s script, the dog eats my homework, or I find any other handy excuse—“typo”.

I've maintained throughout that the script has a 90% chance of winning and 10% chance of failure... I don't want to risk 1 BTC on a 10% chance of failure, simple as that. The ROI is currently being proved daily anyway

Back atcha:  If the script wins 90% of the time and has positive ROI over time, then you shouldn’t worry about risking 1 BTC.  ROI, yes?  You’ll make it back, then make more.  Just like your investors.

You really can't read, can you? It is EV-. EV-. That is the opposite of what you said. It brings profit 9/10 times, but even if that one time is a loss, it's a big loss. Over an infinite amount of time the script will make losses, like ALL gambling methods.

You claim a 20% ROI 90% of the time, and a loss 10% of the time. Let's assume you start each roll with the same amount of bitcoin, hereby denoted b.

Over 10 rolls:

Starting balance, 10b
Wins: 9b x 1.2 = 10.8b
Losses: 1b
Overall: 10.8 - 1 = 9.8b

The script fails (by 2% over time, so worse than blind chance).

It's not worse than blind chance, it's not better than blind chance. It's the same as blind chance. That's how it is on dice/crash sites that have a fixed house edge.

On early Bustabit clones (i.e. Cryptobust.io) it's possible to make a +EV script that takes the bonus into consideration. DarkStar gave a specific example of that in another thread.

EDIT: I see this is in response to the statistics alia gave, but I'm just pointing out that her script wouldn't turn a -1% game into -2%. Whatever you decide to do on these sites carry the same negative expectation with or without a script.

That's the point I was trying to make. Her purported script is a mathematical impossibility. Apologies, I should have been clearer.

Some people just try to make their gambling strategy, script, or whatever automated gambling action they have sound it is working for the purposes of selling whatever they are offering to sell. Well, everybody knows that this is just plain BS. OP is just trying to make his script sell. Statistically, indeed, the more you gamble the more you come close to infinite number of games which would say that you would just lose.

So what the hell did you prove then? That it works by not working? '' I have this strategy that works for gambling '' It works by losing in the long term?

Guess, this proves nothing.

"infinite amount of time the script will make losses, like ALL gambling methods" which includes whatever OP is offering. That also results to the fact that they have admitted the script will not work 100% of the time and will likely result to losses in the end. Guess this debunks the proof OP is offering.

Can you be certain he wasn't e-whoring you?
Like did he/she write something on a piece of paper over skype to someone?


Wait wait wait wait wait
The scrips fails 9 out of 10 times  :o :o
You surely meant 1 out of 10 times?

Yeah it fails 1 in 10 times by my estimate. And, I will run it for ten days, once a day, just for proof, aiming for a 20% ROI daily. If it fails more than 1 time, I will admit to being a scammer and fuck off forever. But, the script works. Wait 10 days and you will have proof.

Except we have shown earlier in this thread that mathematically that will prove nothing.

What you're basically saying is - real life empirical proof about a script you have never seen is relevant, because you ran some irrelevant numbers about a script YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN!

Yes, that's exactly what he is saying. You said it yourself, it's EV-. What's the point of this conversation?

That's like saying we all will be dead in 100 years, so why even wake up in the morning? Why go to work? This line of logic is so, so flawed. Just because you will lose money after infinite plays doesn't mean the same thing will happen over 10 or 100 plays. That's why I stop the script when I have sufficient profit.

There is some dunning kruger going on here. It is more like saying I have a method that will make you immortal but you are going to die anyways. You claim the script works, my understanding of a strategy/script that works when gambling is a method that will make you win in the long term, otherwise it doesn't work.

''Just because you will lose money after infinite plays doesn't mean the same thing will happen over 10 or 100 plays.'' But why do I need your script, though? Why does anyone need it? I might as well just use my own stupid strategy and say the same thing.

Because mine works, and I have made and paid money for and to investors. Anyway, I am no longer selling the script. I'm just going to prove it works, then I'll gtfo. Remember all those who accused me of being a scammer and realise that you should never trust them again.

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31337818#msg31337818) 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31346980#msg31346980), the random chance of achieving your "proof" increases from 29.4233% to 45.5893%.

You are totally right. My bad.

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  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31410337#msg31410337)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.

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.    :D :D :D  Gotta see some humor in some of this, no?

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

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

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

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.

I don't know man, look at all that empirical evidence. Who cares about words and theories (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3024009.msg31157720#msg31157720) and all that mathematical nonsense. /s

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.

It was also cute that Alia copied her “I can profit off gambler’s fallacy” theory from her sale ad into retaliatory negative trust feedback.

Negative trust feedback from RGBKey was my first alert that there may be something amiss with Alia.  Coming from a competent regular in the Development & Technology Forum, a red mark warning that Alia sold mathematical impossibilities was a shock to me.  The retaliatory which alleged that RGBKey “has no idea what he is talking about” redoubled the warning.  Um, no; I’ve been inolved with RGBKey in technical discussions sufficiently interesting to attract gmaxwell.  RGBKey knows his maths and tech stuff.

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).

...and the Earth is flat.

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1887512)).  Of course, this was before theymos intervened (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31217052#msg31217052)...  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”! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0)

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)

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?

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

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

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.

As Bitcoin itself.  Bitcoin is “100% math based”, “fit [to] stupid equations”, pure “mathematical mumbo jumbo”.

Bitcoin as a whole is based on cryptography.  Among other significant pieces thereof, the mining system is also based on probability and statistics.  I explained this upthread:


Vires in numeris.  If you dislike “mathematical mumbo jumbo”, then why are you in Bitcoin at all?  Understanding Bitcoin requires a radically new mindset of the divine right of numbers:


I don’t have any gambling background.  (Earlier today, someone had to explain to me that many gambling sites have faucets for new users.  I had never heard of that...)  But as a Bitcoiner, I know and respect my numbers!  “Trust the numbers” (and nothing else) is Bitcoin ideology.

---

I think it was shaken out rather clearly in those threads that aTriz doesn’t have any scripting ability worth speaking of.

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.

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

“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.

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

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.)

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2664861.0).)

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.

I hope you realize that given the nature of our prior relationship (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2965530.0), 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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31227646#msg31227646) in a lie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31228569#msg31228569), 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. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31229524#msg31229524))

It is even worse than the evidence that you are actually a boy, as presented by credible people such as theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31217052#msg31217052), ibminer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31369675#msg31369675), and NLNico (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31244877#msg31244877) (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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0).

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.

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 (http://archive.is/4nU8h#selection-567.0-526.33) to the OP, alia is using the handle 'makealiagreatagain (https://www.bustabit.com/user/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.

Three bets on day 1.

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

https://i.snag.gy/GdE9c0.jpg

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

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

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?

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 (http://archive.is/pOutU#selection-535.2-535.100) 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 (http://archive.is/RFCIh#selection-6243.190-6243.354):
However from what I have seen, alia has not released any negative information about aTriz. One could argue that alia was bluffing when she made that statement, however aTriz would be very much aware that alia didn't have negative information about him and it should have reasonably be known that making that statement would make alia look very bad. To me, it does not make any sense this would be a bluff.

A lot of the concerns about aTriz were more or less being ignored in the thread about aTriz, and most of the conversation was surrounding the signature contract. If alia released the claim that aTriz did not actually receive/use the script he was claiming to vouch for, then this could easily be glossed over.

I don't think alia is exactly putting in a lot of effort into making it appear she is actually running any kind of script, she is explicitly saying she will not put her money where her mouth is and wont use her own money to bet, all of her bets are 'all in' bets that most gamblers will not incorporate into their betting strategy (for reasons such as superstition, but also more legitimate reasons, such as to save on tx fees -- also gambling is supposed to be fun, and betting all your money at once reduces the amount of time players can be having fun), and her gambling account is making a very small number of bets. All of this ignores the fact that the legitimacy of the script has been debunked, and the legitimacy of any positive results has been debunked.

If you operate under the assumption that alia is not using a script in this thread, then the only reasonable explanation as to what the point of this thread is would be to expose aTriz for giving fake vouches. 

As a counterpoint to the above, it is possible that alia is trying to frame aTriz into it looking like he was giving a fake vouch. However I don't think this is the case because when their relationship was scrutinized, the vouch did not appear legitimate even when ignoring all of the above. This is a script that was being sold for $10,000, however the basis for aTriz's vouch was that he made bets totaling well under of penny and had winnings of well under a penny (he said he used faucet money to test the script) -- think about that for a minute and let that sink in. think about just how ridiculous that sounds. 

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.

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

Yeah well, I gave aTriz the script, he ran it, it worked, he vouched. I thereafter deleted the script from the chat. Pretty simple to get, right?

If this is not math to you, then I feel very sorry for you (for being you) and for myself for having to read through your nonsense.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

AKA gambler's fallacy.


Do more than one bet per day. Easy.

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.

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] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2965530.0) 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”:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

(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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31351462#msg31351462) 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.

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.

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

So, as you ready to take RGBKey up on his offer of an independent audit?

I do seriously think that if your claims be true, then you could be a candidate for a Fields Medal.  (Not a Nobel Prize.  There is no such thing as a Nobel Prize for mathematics.  The Fields Medal is for maths, and is even more elite.  It is given but once every four years.)  History would be made!  Maths textbooks around the world would need to be rewritten!  But you will never get to claim the Fields Medal, plus the money and glory thereto attendant, if you never let others discover your paradigm-shifting work of genius.  For the secrets locked up in a proprietary script, an independent private audit would be a good start.

Jeez... you don't get it do you? Auditing means giving the script for free. Not interested.

Also, all of my major investors have withdrawn from the script program and I'm in a really bad state financially. I'm requesting those who made profit from my script to donate a portion of the profit to me. @nullius you made 0.01 btc profit from me, so sending a little piece back in my time of need would be really appreciated. If you don't want to do it that is okay too

You also asserted that you were attempting to regain/salvage your credibility/reputation.  Maybe you made the credibility/reputation statement less than a billion times, so if we add up how many times you said one thing versus another thing, then we should attempt to go with the majority, correct?

The aim of this thread is to prove everyone wrong and thus salvaging my reputation

The aim of the script is to make profit for investors and myself. I have not done mathematical audits and I know for a fact the script will fail if you run it for too long. But in the short term is is very profitable. Plain and simple

This thread is returning to hilarious status...

Hang on boys (& girl, if any?).


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OPdbdjctx2I/maxresdefault.jpg

Too long - like 5 bets?

https://i.snag.gy/ao4dn2.jpg

Wait and fucking watch, you braindead scumbag. I will make 21,000,000 BTC within the next 24 hours.

You sound unhappy. Maybe you should take a break from gambling.

No. I will win all the bitcoins in existence. Even satoshi's coins. You will ALL SEE

Keeping focus on the top-line and bottom-line issue:  No, an audit does not mean “giving the script for free”.

Multi-billion-dollar software companies entrust their proprietary source code to independent auditors.  Do you really think your precious script is more valuable than that?

Now, I repeat:  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.

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, by claiming that secret knowledge overrides the known laws of mathematics, refusing to let anybody else examine it, and then claiming to “prove” that your script works based on statistically, scientifically invalid experimentation performed in an unverifiable manner.

Really, this secret knowledge is beginning to take on a quasi-mystical edge.

---

The precise amount of total Bitcoin which will ever exist is 20,999,999.9769 BTC, the final satoshi of which will be mined with block 6,929,999.  Thus, that must be some magical script you’ve got if you will win 21,000,000 BTC within the next 24 hours, including Satoshi’s coins.  It involves time travel, and also cryptographic breakage of all private keys required to release all UTXOs, including those controlled by burn addresses.  Magic!

That said, I agree with suchmoon.  And I am leaning back toward the theory that you sincerely believe in, and are obsessed with your script.  Take a break.  Please.

---

You will not be able to prove everyone else wrong, because you are wrong and they are right.  You would do much better for your reputation if you were to admit you’re wrong, and learn something.  I admit when I’m wrong—which is exceedingly rare, but it happens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg31096663#msg31096663).


Wait.  I thought you weren’t selling it now—right?

Please do realize, nobody here is personally concerned with proving you wrong.  The motive of people arguing with you in this thread is to make sure that nobody else loses money by buying or investing in a mathematical impossibility.  If you were claiming something wacky which could not foreseeably cost others money (as Jude Austin with his alleged address collision (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31351462#msg31351462)), then I would have shrugged and gone away by about midway through page 2 of this thread.  For my part, I don’t have time for more than casual debunking of such things.

---

I’ve already offered to give the equivalent amount (in local fiat⁰) to a dear friend of mine IRL who was abandoned by her husband, and has struggled with multiple jobs to feed her young children while trying to somehow also take care of them.  Much though I’ve been able to console her loneliness some nights, I am in no financial position to really help her the way she really needs it—even if she’d let me.  I’ve been waiting to hear back.  She’s busy; and from prior experience trying to slip her enough cash for some groceries, I know that she is prickly about being treated as if a charity case.  If she refuses it, then I will probably donate it to the GPG project or similar.  I don’t want to profit from this affair.

---

0. Nobody IRL knows that I do Bitcoin.

---

Also, I did not want to discuss the details of our transaction; but since you raise it:

You told me that you initially lost all my money.  You said you covered it with your own funds, then recovered, won, and split the profit with me.  Beforehand, when you told me that you would not set a stop-loss as I requested, you said (of your own initiative) that you would instead insure my funds; but you did not say that insurance included continued gambling with a split of profits.

FWIW / at face value:

That is bullshit.  You really could not believe that there is any level of sincerity left in alia about this financial poverty story.. a script that supposedly can make you rich, but you are employing such script while being in a state of desperation.  S/he/it already shown enough sophistication in thread posts and does not believe that crap.   

S/he/it is only blowing smoke about some fictional script, and if s/he/it gambles using such supposedly existing script, then s/he/it deserves to lose whatever remaining finances that s/he/it is betting on these kinds of nonsensical plays.

We are getting past any kind of empathy stage and into the absurd, no?  Sure, some of the alia claims are funny, but you really cannot be taking any of them seriously, at this point, right?

Lmao I was clearly being sarcasting about the 21m btc thing.

Fine, if nullius donates exactly 0.00673625 of the profit that I gave him to 3HcEB6bi4TFPdvk31Pwz77DwAzfAZz2fMn (the Pirate Bay donation address) then I'll state that I am a loon, I was wrong and stupid to thing I had a profitable script, and I will admit defeat to all my haters.

Edit:  Fix typo (s/to/by/); post archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180304043503/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31526121#msg31526121

---

Done.  (Before I started writing this post.)  And if my friend takes me up on my offer, then this is money out of my pocket.

I’m not you, Alia.

txid:
b1f07dc051f2f34c2c2c0bb458e5a865d1b6e7c3c888fda8a0740200682c2d76

LockTime: Block 511907

Confirmed: Block 511908

I far overpaid the fee in hope of a fast confirmation in hopes that without undue delay, I could post this as confirmed.

The txids of our transactions were disclosed by me before, so people can trace this throught the blockchain:


I took about a zillion archives from that thread, so that may already be up on archive.org somewhere; and I will promptly archive this.  Also, I request that somebody please quote me here.

The only reason why I let you pick the charity was that I had already intended to donate to TPB after LoyceV pointed out their “BCH: Bcash. LOL” stance.  I only didn’t do it before, because I really don’t have the money to spare.

---

Empathy?  I’m on record as being so strongly in principle against empathy [see midway through post] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2876160.msg30031564#msg30031564) that I’ve been accused of psychopathy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2876160.msg30261447#msg30261447).  I replied by dropping Nietzsche (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2876160.msg30280286#msg30280286) on all the bleeding hearts.  You may rest assured that I am not motivated by “empathy” for Alia.

(I also have another polemic in my drafts box against empathy.  Too much forum drama.  Too much distraction.)

---

Now, again:  How about that audit?

Excellent. Thank you!

I hereby state that I am a dumbass, I was wrong about the script. It may have made money but I'm sure that was just dumb luck. I shall exit this thread and this account with my head bowed down in shame! Well, at least I could help tpb

This is exactly what I meant here:
The long list of positive returns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2966705.msg30479531#msg30479531) seemed very unlikely to happen, and this makes it a lot more likely.
What alia is doing is basically Martingale: if you lose, you do the same with a much higher bankroll. You can keep doing that, until you run out of bankroll.

I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or you really mean it, but I'm confident it's the right decision. I've seen many gamblers bust large amounts of money thinking they're invincible.

I don't think she was sarcastic.
Something everyone said happened:

https://i.imgur.com/drlzYwa.png

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo................

I don't mean it, but I'm sure I will some day. i'm just deluded right now. Only reason I said that was because I promised I would. Props to nully for the donation

Was that before or after she asked nullius to donate to TPB? Not that it matters much though.

Edit: it looks like alia requested the donation and 10 minutes later started betting; nullius' post was made after alia's losing streak. Not quite a scam but sneaky as shit.

This degen thing explains some aspects of alia's increasingly desperate scam attempts and the belligerent rants after getting caught.

Still at it:

https://i.snag.gy/JNHQWI.jpg

Edit: busted at 1x:

https://i.snag.gy/8t97gd.jpg

Was that a question about the mystical judgment of the cosmos, as expressed through random events?  I am a certified cult leader (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2665019.0); thus, I am qualified to speak on such matters.


Alia, you have told me privately of some studies in psychology.  Therefrom, you should realize that you are not immune to the vagaries of human nature; and if you’re smart enough to master the difficult task of truly objective introspection, then you will realize that this is a textbook example of a gambler obsessed with discovering a secret way to win.

You’re far from the first or the last; and the result is always the same:


Whereupon I think this is a good step in the right direction:


Whereas this is not—and it is inevitable over the course of time:


OUCH!  No, I’m not enjoying that.  Get out now!

I think you have sufficient intelligence to understand what is happening here, if only you will be sufficiently objective in your examination of your own actions.  I do realize that true objectivity toward oneself, objectivity from within, is a rare ability and impossible for most people (as well as being almost a tautological contradiction).  But you have been repeatedly shown, by people who do not hate you personally, that you are indeed “deluded” (at least in the colloquial sense).  Now, those charts really drive home the point.


Props to you for a tentative indication that you might actually admit you’re wrong here.  Admit it first to yourself—that’s oftentimes the hardest part.  Yes, I’m also sure you “will some day”.  But it would be better now—rather than someday after you’ve irreparably ruined yourself financially and in other ways, such as with reputational (and worse) consequences somewhere other than an Internet forum.  You could totally wreck yourself with this stuff, IRL, all around.  And you know it.

P.S., on a personal note:

One reason why I’m fascinated with recursive compressor cases is that I myself once invented a lossless recursive compressor which would work on any data, even random data.

I was dumbfounded at my own brilliance!  I knew that what I had just done was mathematically impossible.

Since I knew that it was mathematically impossible, I painstakingly double-checked myself before telling anyone else.  Of course, I found that I had made a severe error in logic.  My invention would not work, could not be made to work, would never work.  It was actually quite stupid, albeit in a seductive “gotcha” way similar to those comedic paradoxical “proofs” that 1=2.

Oops.  So much for my dreams of backing up the entire Internet on a 5.25" floppy.  There goes my Fields Medal.  I chucked it into /dev/null, and life went on.  (I also resolved to triple-check any other brilliant ideas I conceived late at night, while more than slightly drunk.)

For the record, I have also invented a perpetual motion machine.  But for that, I have the excuse that it happened when I was about four years old.

See my edit:


It looks like by the time you sent the donation alia might have already lost more than 9 out of 10 thus proving the script doesn't work.

This is the losing streak around that time:

https://www.bustabit.com/game/137112
https://www.bustabit.com/game/137114
https://www.bustabit.com/game/137115
https://www.bustabit.com/game/137116
https://www.bustabit.com/game/137129

Whoa your trust though OP, how come you gained so much?

Well, I'm sure it's pretty obvious that I stopped using the script after nully made the donation... I was just making random yolo bets from the faucet.

Of course. I mean why would you use a winning script if you can gamble away money that you don't have (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31520776#msg31520776). Makes perfect sense.

Weren't you supposed to exit this thread and this account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31526197#msg31526197)?

Clearly hyperbole. And I'm gambling faucet money like I said 6 times

If the script really works you should be ready to gamble real money instead of playing with faucets.
I have to say that red trust from theymos is a rare thing. It makes you special ;D

Back when I was new to the markets and trading I took a look at the various trading bots and such.

They were mostly Forex oriented and they had great past gains. However the gains were usually followed by huge busts thereafter.

Basically they worked good in certain markets but with irrational markets they didn't work at all.

So you could start with $1000 and make $5000 and then lose everything.

This thread kind of reminds me of those bots. People were trying to make it work, but couldn't.

Perhaps indirectly I may have been suggesting something about your level of empathy; however, it seems that my main point remains that alia has devolved into such an outrageous status of incredulity that would be difficult for any reasonable person to believe much if anything that she is saying, even if you had continued to grant a large amount of benefit of the doubt.  At some point, the benefit of the doubt granting becomes too much because there remains almost no redemption avenue for alia and her extraordinary claims on several fronts.

Come on, the 21m btc thing was obviously a joke. And I don't need empathy, tyvm

Of course, anyone could recognize one claim of winning back all of the bitcoins, including Satoshi's, as an exaggerated joke.

But you are not just one exaggerated joke but instead, seeming to be unfolding as a walking bag of contradictions.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.59914345.0420/stf,small,600x600-c,0,0,1000,1000.jpg

If I am a "scammer" as so many claim (even though I kept my side of the contract when aTriz didn't), then why are you wasting time on me?

1) Huh?  If there was a contractual reason for a refund to aTriz, and you lived up to your contractual obligation to make that refund, then that reflects well upon you, but it does not in any way prove that aTriz was either in breach of his side of that contract or otherwise non-compliant with his obligations in that contract.  You are making a ridiculous conclusion to assert merely because you decided to give the refund in compliance with contractual obligations that you had, and therefore your seemingly compliant acts somehow help to establish in any way that aTriz was in breach of the contract or that there were any other facts to establish that aTriz was in breach of that particular contract.

2) you are correct that currently communicating with you regarding these various subjects of your not so stellar reputation and the gambling script does seem to be a bit of a waste of time; however, sometimes even trolls leave loose ends in threads (and on forums) that need to be cleaned up, and sometimes, it can still be in the public interest to respond to some of the disingenuous points, even when being made by a troll.  In your case, even if you might not be a troll exactly, we are seeming to run into a lot of repetition here in this thread, and there does not seem to be too many more points to address with you.  Maybe at some point mods will force close this thread, because the level of information being shared herein seems to be devolving into confusion and perhaps disinformation, rather than any kind of information that would be helpful to anyone.

I did not refund him because of a tingling in my vag. He stated that he will no longer continue payments (thus breaking the contract) and I refunded him out of goodwill.

Already answered this.  We are going in circles.

---

@JayJuanGee, I wished to reply to something you said above—perhaps later.

In a nutshell:  Specifically in this thread, as to motives, I am genuinely puzzled as to whether Alia is scamming, blinded by a gambler’s obsession with discovering the magic trick to winning, or some mix of both.  This question of mens rea (“guilty mind”) is totally irrelevant to my treatment of a mathematically impossible script, which could cause others to lose money if Alia were to commit the actus reus (“guilty act”) of again trying to sell it or take “investors”.  But culpability is relevant to how I treat Alia herself.

(And just in case you were thinking something else re “empathy”:  I assure you that even if against the odds, it be true that Alia is a girl, I find “mathematical mumbo jumbo” and “stupid equations” sneering somewhat less attractive than an active outbreak of genital herpes.)

---

Oh, my Bitcoin.  I wrote the foregoing before the following post appeared, then was suddenly interrupted by a little IRL incident.  I will take this as empirical evidence of my psychic powers, or cosmic influence over random events, or something of that nature.  And now, I will use this power to win at provably fair gambling!

It does not work like that, alia.  Let's assume, for hypothetical sake, that aTriz said that he intended not to pay you anymore, yet he had already paid you for five months in advance.   I doubt that you can call intention to breach as the same as an actual breach, so if you are asserting that his assertion that he was not going to pay you anymore, 4 months down the road rises to a breach, then you are going to be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to agree with you that there would be any breach until 4 months down the road, assuming that he did not pay you at that time... anyhow, you should understand that if there were going to be a breach from aTriz, then such breach would have begun upon non-payment 4 months down the road rather than his statement of such intention.   

I don't know if we need to say anything more, there were some arguments asserting that you should pay him back, and you agreed to do so, while bitching about it the whole time as you sent your 1 satoshi per byte payment that ended up still going through pretty quickly.  What else we need to be saying on that topic, except that you seem to be arguing non-existent facts, or alternatively some pie in the sky breach of contract theory based on statement of intention rather than any actual breach.

Statement of intention yes, but he stated he wouldn't pay me anymore. A 3 year contract would've ended in 5 months. It is definitely breaking the contract. Ask aTriz yourself. He's lucky I chose to refund him

I made a script that made me profit. I attempted to sell it to make some more risk-free profit (as opposed to using my own funds on the script which is relatively far more risky). I stopped selling the script after people pointed out the obvious (a script can never be long-term profitable, a fact I had stated many times). I scammed nobody, in fact aTriz scammed be and I refunded him for it. Sums it up pretty good

It cannot be reasonably concluded that any betting strategy, including those done with a script can be reliably profitable in the short term


I would dispute this.

If I'm not mistaken, it was one of my very first replies where I stated it to be EV-

"one of" being the key words in that statement...

Title of the thread '' proving my gambling script WORKS''
First reply of aria: it doesn't work it's EV-
A few replies later: I will prove everyone wrong
And so on and so on, quite contradictory statements throughout the whole thread.

EV-, in the long run, holy shit. It is always profitable at the beginning.

The expected value is negative on all bets, whether you win or lose doesn't matter for this.

There is no such thing as expected positive value in the beginning that turns into an expected negative value in the long term, it's either positive or negative all the way otherwise how does the script even know it's the beginning? No matter how many millions of bets you have done the next bet is literally like the first one, you don't have more or less chances of anything, it's the same.

No, not how it works. For example, say you're tossing a coin and counting the number of heads and tails appear.

At the beginning, you may get something like 2 Heads and 3 Tails. It may go to 4 Heads and 8 Tails, maybe even 10 Heads and 20 Tails. Does this mean that tails will always be more than heads? No. The more flips you do, the more likely it is that the numbers will regress to the mean (50/50). You may start with 10 H and 20 T and end up with 4050 H and 4100 T. With infinite flips, you will hit a 50/50 ratio every time.

In the same way, the more bets you make, the more likely you are to lose money. With a fixed BR, the beginning can be profitable, but given infinite time and infinite money, you will lose all of it. That's just how it works.

This is correct¹, but inapplicable to your script (or any other gambling method, for that matter).

In an infinite sequence of fair coins flips, the proportion of heads or tails will tend towards 50% with a probability of 1. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping the first 10 flips being all heads or all tails, even if an infinitie number of flips would be 50/50. Taking a gambling script, there is absolutely nothing stopping the first 10 runs being all wins or all loses.

---

1. Technically, when talking about infinite sets, having a probability of 1 is the not the same as saying something will surely happen. Instead, we use the term almost surely (http://Almost surely). Although interesting, irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, I don't know why this thread is still here, it's clear that op does not understand basic math. The beginning can be profitable just like it can be not profitable.

Imagine it this way. There are nine green balls, and one red ball in a bag. Every time you pick a green ball, you win a dollar. Every time you pick a red ball, you lose ten dollars. At the beginning of the game, there is a pretty good likelihood that you will make a couple dollars, maybe 3-4 (or 5-6 if you're ballsy). But, if you play for too long, you are guaranteed to go bankrupt. In the long run, you will have a balance of negative infinity dollars. Does it make more sense now?

No it doesn't because it doesn't matter. You always have a 90% and a 10% chance of getting a green or a red ball respectively no matter if it's the beginning or not. What if I play 10 bets and they are all wins and I stop playing for 1 day and comeback, is that a new beginning now? Can I use the method again? What determines the ''beginning''?

Ah, there's a point I can't refute. You are totally right. But in my empirical evidence, if I gamble a bit with customer deposits and stop at 20-30-40% profit, it works out well. I don't really know why, but hey, it works! Maybe I just got lucky. Good thing I stopped using/selling the script eh

TL:DR for the last 9 pages:

Thanks for putting up with me. Guess you were right all along!

I'll still keep trying to win my way to bankruptcy getting 21 million BTC

Yet you insisted - and you still do! - that it's profitable in short term, once a day, math doesn't apply to it, and other bullshit like that. Nice backpedaling, not going to work though. You're a genuine, honest-to-God, bona fide scammer.

Do you mean bona fide as in "geniune" or "without intention to deceive"? Because only one is true

edit: just read the rest of the sentence. well no, if I wanted to scam, I would've 1) taken customer deposits and 2) kept aTriz's 2k but whatever!

Yes, you could have done a bigger scam. Fortunately you got caught, unfortunately that seems to be due to your gambling addiction. I hope you get better.

Yes. Your whole account is just a scam waiting to happen. 1000+ BTC exit scam. Right? Right?

Stop making baseless allegations made from thin air, loser. Your stupidity makes me want to go to bed... goodnight

YOU are completely wrong, suchmoon.


Since math "mumbo" jumpo does not apply to alia, s/he/it is 110% scammer...   more than genuine and more than bona fide.  Just MOAR than more.   :o

You can't use the example as coin toss because in coin toss game, there is only 2 possibilities either head or tail but in dice games it has too many possibilities, like xx.xx which is different one number is already much difference with it

And btw you already know that it is not profitable in the end, I am not saying about dice games yet which is having some house edge but you said that about 50/50 chance games and you still want to prove to everyone that you are going to profit with your script? This is unreasonable thing that you are saying

Well I give you props for admitting it and you probably should be locking this thread, it's getting repetitive.