Proving that my gambling script works.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[michkima]

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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?

[michkima]

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.

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

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 !!

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

[alia]

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 !!

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

Wait wait wait wait wait
The scrips fails 9 out of 10 times  
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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[alia]

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!

[Astargath]

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?

[alia]

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.

[Astargath]

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.

[alia]

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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!

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

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

[Luxo42]

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.

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.

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

You are totally right. My bad.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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


Edit:

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

[JayJuanGee]

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 !!

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.

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

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

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

[marlboroza]

~
Follow the progress here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/makealiagreatagain
~
Day 1 - 24% ROI

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

[HiDevin]

~
Follow the progress here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/makealiagreatagain
~
Day 1 - 24% ROI

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

[marlboroza]

~
Follow the progress here: https://www.bustabit.com/user/makealiagreatagain
~
Day 1 - 24% ROI

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

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.