Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2019, 07:19:31 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Proving that my gambling script works.  (Read 1527 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 4356


nanny of the forum


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
 #101

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

AKA gambler's fallacy.

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

Still astronomically small, so I will continue.

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

Do more than one bet per day. Easy.

1575573571
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575573571

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575573571
Reply with quote  #2

1575573571
Report to moderator
1575573571
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575573571

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575573571
Reply with quote  #2

1575573571
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1575573571
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575573571

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575573571
Reply with quote  #2

1575573571
Report to moderator
1575573571
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575573571

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575573571
Reply with quote  #2

1575573571
Report to moderator
RGBKey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 629


rgbkey.github.io/pgp.txt


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 05:43:18 PM
 #102

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.
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 783


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 06:02:33 PM
Merited by o_e_l_e_o (2)
 #103

Last-minute add-on:

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.

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?



[...]

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

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

Actually, I should have done that awhile ago.


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.

It is math, but it's bad math.

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


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.

You forgot Cloudflare:

The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at. They can't access the database arbitrarily, though: they can only see data that passes over the Internet.

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” (!):

This is why I think user education is important.  For a forum dealing with what is now colloquially called “crypto”, only an astonishly small proportion of users are crypto-savvy.

One of my first thoughts on seeing anything Bitcoin-related is, “Why isn’t public-key crypto used for all authentication?”  Of all places, the Bitcoin Forum should lead with that!  If you use Bitcoin, you should also use PGP, at the bare minimum; and the attention brought by Bitcoin makes for an opportunity to introduce more people to what old cypherpunks call “crypto”, resulting in more security all-around.

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

Anyway...

I would point out that alia threatened to release information about aTriz (source:
Quote from: alia
I will be forced to reveal certain things that he has done.
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.

The full extortion threat is here:

I would advise aTriz not to try and "wriggle out" of the contract, because it puts me in a position where I will be forced to reveal certain things that he has done. If he sticks to the terms of the contract, as stipulated, he is my friend, and he will not be my enemy. Being my enemy is not a very favourable position for anyone to be in. Roll Eyes

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):

That ship has long since sailed. I'm afraid nullius has only his soggy pillow left (unless, after someone Skypes me, he publicly apologizes for even beginning to doubt me after all the personal stuff I shared with him). Oh yes, he has shared his fair share of personal things, but I would never betray his trust and even speak of it here. I wonder if he would do the same

Interesting.  Testing the waters?

You shared very little of a personal nature with me; and most of that was generic.  Brief mention of your college majors, etc.  Nothing very personal (except a few sex bits you also give your clients), and certainly nothing which could be compromising to you.  Indeed, the one time I tried to press you for information (because I wanted to help—about your purported privacy breach, for which you got the username change), you firmly kept me at arm’s length; and you barely told me more about that than you stated in public forum postings.

Whereas I gave you a carefully measured amount of low-level private communication which I do desire to be kept confidential.  Nothing which could compromise me if leaked—nothing for which you could blackmail me—because I didn’t trust you yet.  I was trying to build trust with you; and the only way to do that is to give someone something real, bit by bit, and see over time if they can be trusted with it.  (Intelligence agencies have some similar methods.)

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.


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

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.

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.)


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.

Another idea:  Private audit.

Alia, you yourself made this an issue:

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)

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.)


[...good maths vs. bad maths...]

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.

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”:

Loading image...

marlboroza
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1688


Exchange Bitcoin quicky--https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 06:34:23 PM
 #104

Last-minute add-on:

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.

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.
~

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.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 637


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 06:39:16 PM
 #105

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.

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.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 4356


nanny of the forum


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 06:43:34 PM
 #106

Last-minute add-on:

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.

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.
~

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 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.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 783


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 07:10:41 PM
 #107

I'll offer to audit this script.

I myself will vouch for RGBKey’s technical competence for performing such an audit.

Why?

I'll offer to audit this script.

I mean, do we really need to?

Because:

Another idea:  Private audit.

Alia, you yourself made this an issue:

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)

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.

As for this quite reasonable question:

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

I already gave a reasonable answer:

...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.

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

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

I 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.

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 5295


ArtIst


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 08:30:58 PM
 #108

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.
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.

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
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?

o_e_l_e_o
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 3042


Decent


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 08:59:57 PM
 #109

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.
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.

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.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 783


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 09:43:19 PM
 #110

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.
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.

(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.

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.



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
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?

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


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.

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.

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 4356


nanny of the forum


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 09:59:59 PM
 #111

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.
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.

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.

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.

alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 12:38:25 AM
 #112

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

Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 783


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2018, 12:54:03 AM
 #113

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.

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.

alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:01:21 AM
 #114

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.

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


Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2164


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:04:13 AM
 #115

As I've said a billion times... my only aim is to make profit for myself and investors. That is the end goal.

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?

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:07:47 AM
 #116

As I've said a billion times... my only aim is to make profit for myself and investors. That is the end goal.

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

Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 2164


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:09:40 AM
 #117

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

This thread is returning to hilarious status...

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



Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 4356


nanny of the forum


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:38:58 AM
 #118

As I've said a billion times... my only aim is to make profit for myself and investors. That is the end goal.

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

Too long - like 5 bets?


alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 01:55:23 AM
 #119

As I've said a billion times... my only aim is to make profit for myself and investors. That is the end goal.

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

Too long - like 5 bets?



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

Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 4356


nanny of the forum


View Profile
March 04, 2018, 02:01:06 AM
 #120

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.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!