Quote from: RGBKey on March 02, 2018, 09:00:21 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 02, 2018, 08:53:09 PM

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 gamblers 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; Ive been inolved with RGBKey in technical discussions sufficiently interesting to attract gmaxwell. RGBKey knows his maths and tech stuff.

Quote from: alia on February 27, 2018, 06:28:04 AM

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.

Quote from: nullius on March 01, 2018, 09:25:25 PM

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

Quote from: alia

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.