Quote from: MICRO on August 19, 2014, 10:09:34 AM

Quote from: dooglus on August 19, 2014, 05:54:59 AM

Quote from: BusyBeaverHP on August 19, 2014, 04:15:28 AM

Quote from: dooglus on August 19, 2014, 03:32:56 AM

Are you some kind of a crazy person?

I'm glad you asked.

Random.org is a True Random Number Generator that I use under certain conditions as a Hi/Low decider to ensure that I don't have any cyclical betting patterns that may turn into a weakness under exposure to a large number of rolls.

I actually SHA-256 hash my seeds and truncate a part of it to fit into the PD3 client seed. Like I said in another thread: OCD about entropy.

Notice the Excel sheet, I keep record of the periodicity of 7+ streak failures to investigate my strategy with a series of value derivations versus the mathematical expectations. The mathematical expected odds of running into a 7+ streak failure given 49.5% odds is about 1 in 119, my strategy in practice after 20,000 rolls is about 1 in 220 currently.

I have a similar 20,000 roll record of PD2 that also reflected this trend (at 1 in 238, exactly 2x). One day when I have met my set BTC quota, I may just share the details my findings with the world...

So that's a "yes"? Tongue

I recently turned 0.018 BTC into 1.444 BTC on prcdice using a stupid bunch of 49.5% and 45% martingales and a bunch of 90% all-ins. That's an increase of over 80 times. Then I turned it into 0 BTC using the same strategy.

I'm willing to share my findings with the world: It's just the way she goes; sometimes she goes, sometimes she doesn't go.

Lol i would say , definitely yes ! Cheesy

.

I don't think that any of that has any effect.

Few days ago zsmo managed to turn 1 btc into 69 btc and then lose it all in 5 bets , he did not have strategy at all , just random betting on 2x and bunch of RLY lucky all ins Cheesy

. Then couple of max bets , and bye bye.

He managed to wager 2200+ btc in just like 30 mins with only 1btc Cheesy

.

I intuitively think my betting method shouldn't have any effect on the statistics whatsoever, but both of my datasets across two different betting environments says otherwise. In science, we have falsifiable tests to dispel crackpot theories, and I'm going to test my crackpot theory

Suppose that I flip a coin 100 times, and it turned up heads 60 times, you could say with good confidence that it is within acceptable standard deviation of the norm.

Suppose that I flip a coin 40,000 times and it turned up heads 24,000 times, that is so many standard deviations out there that additional questions about underlying fundamentals need to be asked.

You can guess where I'm going with this.

As the last word, it seems like some people with angry-little-man syndrome is attacking me for putting my honest idea idea out there without considering the content of my dataset... I should be used to it as putting new ideas out there is considered threatening to those who do not think critically... much like Galileo and the Church.