Quote from: nullius on March 03, 2018, 02:12:17 AM

Quote from: alia on March 01, 2018, 11:24:03 PM

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...

Quote from: alia on March 01, 2018, 11:24:03 PM

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

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 10:59:09 PM

not everything has to be 100% math based.

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 10:59:09 PM

stupid equations

Quote from: alia on March 03, 2018, 12:44:29 AM

"but muh math"

Quote from: alia on March 03, 2018, 12:44:29 AM

your math does not apply to my script.

I hope you realize that given the nature of our prior relationship, your patent disrespect for maths is more embarrassing to me than any other part of this sordid affair.

It is worse than your being publicly caught by me in a lie, when I was searching for some means to prove your innocence and corroborate your identity. (Whereas you claimed you knew were close IRL friends with Dave from the best wallet recovery service, Dave doesnt know youso says Dave.)

It is even worse than the evidence that you are actually a boy, as presented by credible people such as theymos, ibminer, and NLNico (i.e. not forum you = satoshi = aliens!! wackjobs).

It is just that bad.

If you had some deeper mathematical understanding than your critics, then you would shred their arguments in mathematical terms. Thats what I do to idiots who wander into Dev & Tech. If you claim that your critics arguments are

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 10:59:09 PM

not even relevant since you don't know the intricacies of how my script works

...then you would use your own superior knowledge of the script to explain with mathematical arguments where your critics are wrong. Actual mathematical arguments, not the cock-eyed handwaving plus statistically invalid empiricism which you just presented as mathematical proof!

I hang my head in shame that I ever associated with someone who sneers at muh math.

Quote from: alia on March 03, 2018, 12:44:29 AM

I'll put it simply so you half-wits can understand.

Such pathetic unintentional comedy belongs in certain Off-Topic threads.

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.

Quote

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.