Quote from: LoyceV on March 03, 2018, 08:30:58 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 01, 2018, 10:40:26 PM

It is also worth pointing out that 20 runs is statistical noise.

I set up a contigency table, played with the numbers and ran some chi-squared tests on them. I calculated for a p-value of 0.05 (This means that the results we achieve would be achieved by random chance 5% of the time i.e. we are 95% confident the script is working as advertised. This is a common minimum standard required across most fields of scientific.)

Even if the script could completely eliminate the house edge (which it can't), we would need around 6000 runs to obtain a p-value of <0.05. If the script could half the house edge from 1% to 0.5%, we would need around 23000 runs to obtain a p-value of <0.05.

5% still doesn't prove a script works: this would lead to the false result that 1 out of 20 gambling scripts is EV+. That can't be right.
It can be a good method to disprove 95% of the gambling scripts, but it doesn't prove that the remaining 5% works. Run the same test again, and another 95% will fail.

(Bold/red added.)

Wait. What is the controversy here? Alia already says that the script will lose over time. Insofar as I can tell, her claim is that it can quasi-magically succeed in its first few runsmost of the timebut will occasionally super-duper fail.

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.

Quote from: LoyceV on March 03, 2018, 08:30:58 PM

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

This is how (almost) all gamblers turn their profit into a loss, and then start "chasing losses", which is a great way to lose more money. Do you really think casinos would still exist if if would be possible to consistently beat them?

This intersects with my fixated gambler hypothesis as to Alias motives, stated on the first page of this thread. Obsession with discovering a secret way to win is not at all uncommon. Note: Historical experience with persons making extraordinary claims does show that such an obsession is not mutually exclusive with dishonesty toward others. A personal obsession with a winning script may or may not coincide with a scam. There have been many historical instances of such people who seemed to genuinely believe their own claims on some level, while actively performing what could not have been other than consciously calculated steps to fool others. The study of such phenomena is fascinating (and does intersect with much historical study of religion, cults, and superstitions generally).

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 03, 2018, 08:59:57 PM

You are absolutely correct, but we can change the p-value to anything we want. 0.05 (i.e. 5%) is a commonly used minimum standard as I said, but we could equally decide to be more rigorous by increasing the number of runs thereby resulting in a smaller p-value.

I am actually one of those people who is critical of how the p < .05 confidence level is oftentimes (usually?) usedjust because its commonly used. Of course, the reason stated by LoyceV (1/20 chance of a fluke being far too high) is part of the importance of repeatability of an experiment by independent parties. Thus, regardless of p-value:

If Alia wants to use empirical evidence to override the known laws of mathematics, then the experiment must be repeatable to be scientifically valid.