Proving that my gambling script works.

[RGBKey]

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 and all that mathematical nonsense. /s

[1714819357]

1714819357

[1714819357]

1714819357

[1714819357]

1714819357

[suchmoon]

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

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.

[nullius]

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 and all that mathematical nonsense. /s

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.

You are absolutely right. However, in my experience, there are sections of games that are clearly different from one another. Quoting myself...

"Based on preceding games, the script can indicate (to a mathematical extent) what kind of games are about to come consequently. It is naturally not foolproof; but it can purely indicate."

Being a pure indication, these are generally unreliable, but can prove to be helpful. It is true that each game is individual and its odds are calculated individually, but if you think of games as sets of games, you can definitely see some mathematical odds. For example, there are 1-2 games with a 1000+x multiplier, but there has never been a game with two such games in a row. While the odds for a single game getting 1000x are (0.99/1000), the odds for two consecutive games hitting that are ((0.99/1000)^2). In the same way, let's think of a set of 10 games. The odds of all ten games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^10 = ~35%. The odds of twenty games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^20 = 12%. Thus, if 10 games bust above 1.1x, it can be reasonably assumed (as per the "gambler's fallacy") that the next ten games will probably have a bust below 1.1x. Naturally - this is a mathematical fallacy, because the odds of the ten games are calculated in an isolated fashion and are not involved with each other. However, in my practice and experience (while playing and tweaking the script), it has worked near-flawlessly, and I continue to make profit this way. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.

Consider here the argument set forth in Alia’s negative trust feedback for RGBKey (2018-02-27):

Lying in my trust rating about a thread I made, spreading false information. Nothing can predict the future, and this was made clear in my thread - apparently it did not get into this person's head. I requested spam and questions to be directed to my PMs, this person clearly did not get the memo. Stay far away.

Proof of exactly what I said: https://gyazo.com/807f3e327ad66cfe191f6c7fd3dd0654?token=c07782fe2d0e87b3e786dfd42ba316ee

Further explanation:

You are absolutely right. However, in my experience, there are sections of games that are clearly different from one another. Quoting myself...

"Based on preceding games, the script can indicate (to a mathematical extent) what kind of games are about to come consequently. It is naturally not foolproof; but it can purely indicate."

Being a pure indication, these are generally unreliable, but can prove to be helpful. It is true that each game is individual and its odds are calculated individually, but if you think of games as sets of games, you can definitely see some mathematical odds. For example, there are 1-2 games with a 1000+x multiplier, but there has never been a game with two such games in a row. While the odds for a single game getting 1000x are (0.99/1000), the odds for two consecutive games hitting that are ((0.99/1000)^2). In the same way, let's think of a set of 10 games. The odds of all ten games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^10 = ~35%. The odds of twenty games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^20 = 12%. Thus, if 10 games bust above 1.1x, it can be reasonably assumed (as per the "gambler's fallacy") that the next ten games will probably have a bust below 1.1x. Naturally - this is a mathematical fallacy, because the odds of the ten games are calculated in an isolated fashion and are not involved with each other. However, in my practice and experience (while playing and tweaking the script), it has worked near-flawlessly, and I continue to make profit this way. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.


This user has no idea what he is talking about and remains a danger to the community if he continues to spread false trust ratings.

[JayJuanGee]

Negative trust feedback from RGBKey was my first alert that there may be something amiss with Alia.

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).

[Easternbloc]

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

...and the Earth is flat.

[nullius]

Negative trust feedback from RGBKey was my first alert that there may be something amiss with Alia.

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).

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

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

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

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

...and the Earth is flat.

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

[alia]

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)

[JayJuanGee]

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?

[suchmoon]

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)

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

[Quickseller]

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

[RGBKey]

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

I'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.

[nullius]

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

I'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:

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.

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.

[...]

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.

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:

My view: I am far from an expert on cryptography but I will say this, cryptocurrency depends on rock-solid, secure cryptography.  It is exactly where the trust is placed in an electronic money system.

It’s sad how few people understand this.  Bitcoin is not merely a new mechanism of transmitting money:  It is a radically (from radix = [at the] root) new and different kind of money.

This misundersanding also explains why so many people parrot “vires in numeris” who neither speak Latin, nor use PGP, OTR, etc., etc. to secure their communications.  Uptake of crypto in the cypherpunk sense is abysmal amongst people who talk about “cryptos” all day.

And apropos the topic, I think you’re right:  This lack of fundamental comprehension has serious consequences when people who do not get it set their hands to “cryptos”, whilst neither undersanding nor caring much for the crypto.  Bitcoin requires a new mindset.  To handle it, you must understand on a very deep level that mathematical algorithms rule as by divine right.  There is no higher court of appeal, no chargeback, no kill switch—nothing to help you if you muss the maths, lose your secret keys, etc.

If you get that, then you will pay careful attention to the quality of your code.  Also, you will much respect Core—because they get it, too.  And if you dare to make your own currency, you will not start by designing your own hash function as IOTA did!  That really wrecks any credibility they ever had.

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

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

[alia]

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.

[suchmoon]

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.

[alia]

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.

[nullius]

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.

[alia]

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

[nullius]

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.)

[nullius]

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.

I... just gave mathematical proof...

“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

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.)

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.

(And that’s “Mr. nully” to you.)

[MinerHQ]

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.

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.