Quote from: michkima on March 02, 2018, 10:57:30 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 02, 2018, 10:32:13 AM

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 05:13:45 AM

Quote from: nullius on March 02, 2018, 04:57:23 AM

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 04:31:29 AM

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 shouldnt worry about risking 1 BTC. ROI, yes? Youll 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? Huh

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.