A CHALLENGE to Cipher and Bethug (merged with Seanjohn's "apology" thread)

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by bethug

I was showing to you haters you can bet the casino over and over,I also say call me out. Everytime someone call me out i perform.

If you dont think my system work, put your money up, i am done with all you players haters for now. have a nice turkey day

Bethug, please don't call someone a 'hater' for no reason, whether it's a national holiday for you or not. I've got no personal animosity towards you & I'm happy if anyone wins at casinos. I even put up a defense for you against the original poster! Your flat betting comment was besides the point (& you knew it), that's all.

If you're claiming now you can only beat rigged on-line casinos, then as I've said before - there's a chance you can. In the past though you've always claimed your system works just as well at land-based casinos.

[Petunia]

**And this has gone from a dirt-slinging, insulting challenge to a full blown ego-trip combined with a bit of arrogance .... and all this while the fire-starter is not even here to see the success!! Well done. **

[seanjohn]

First of all, I would like to thank the Casinomeister for extending the courtesy of letting me make one post before my suspension. I hereby take this oppurtunity to apologize to Cipher and Bethug for calling them chickens and whoever else whom I offended.

Allow me to continue my inquiry in a more civilized manner with more openmindedness, and I urge other smarter posters (Clayman, Caruso, Grandmaster, Got2bet, Jetset, etc) to share their valuable thoughts.

First, I have to admit that in attempt to set up a challenge to Cipher, I face a difficulty as his system gains success based on 'all-in' bets, which means challenging him for a few shortrun sessions is meaningless. He could have gone all in and won his first hand and grind out the rest of the session using minimum bets, nothing positive or negative about his system could be proven. To setup a fair test I would have to emulate or at least make the rules very close to those employed in the test set up by The Wizard, and from the thread 'Phonecian strand and scroll':

Originally Posted by cipher

In such an instance as the Wiz' challenge there would be no ALL IN WAGERS and of that you can be certain.

However, immediately, he said:

Originally Posted by cipher

The ALL IN WAGER is absolutely reserved for recreational purposes only and rarely if ever exceeds $500.00.

So it seems the no 'all-in' rule isn't a problem afterall!! However, Cipher has never made it clear (beside the all-in thing) as to why he didn't take up that challenge. Unless there are any other compelling reasons as to why Cipher don't take up The Wiz challenge, I would gladly lay a $500 bet that says Cipher would lose if he takes up the Wiz's challenge.

.....

From time to time we see some people come in here offering to sell their winning systems and books or whatever and most members make fun of them and bash them like dogs. However, I myself could find no difference between these people and Cipher. He made quite a lot of posts (i.e. strands) but they are only advertisement in disguise. Under the same thread, in response to 'universexf6''s interest to the system, Cipher wrote:

Originally Posted by Cipher

Yes, Japan is certainly O.K. by me, as 30 of my 48 active clients reside in Japan. If you like you can email me with an email address and I'll get back to you..

Yet he finds another target and takes him in private...now how many times have we seen that, both here and WOL? Why does Cipher gamble with other people's money with his close-to-perfect system and earn a COMMISSION (my assumption) but NOT gamble with his AND ONLY his own funds given his time contraints???

We all know what happens there in private with universexf6...Cipher is trying to make a sales! He is but a salesman, and all salesmen has only one agenda. If I had 100 clients and blindly tell half to buy stock A and half stock B, I do it often enough eventually a few of them will treat me like God.

Of course, again, Cipher is not obliged to answer anything; he has a right to remain silent. However I don't understand why he would continually exercise that right when only a few words could enlighten an ignorant like me and reject all my accusations.

I will go 'do' my 90-day time now.

[bethug]

sean john, If you want cipher to help u, u going about it the wrong way, why would cipher care about the wiz test, if he making money, dont matter if it his money or someone else. In real estate investing, you try to use other people money so you can invest your money else where, so you can make more money.

The only test counts in the end is neteller giving me my winning in my bank account on time

If the casinos think they can win , why do they kick people out, why do they miss with people.

I am in vegas right now, can to the table with 3000 , won 500 got up and move on , that pit boss was mad, They act like my 3000 they own it soon as i lay it on the table, i am not trying to give them crap.

If the casinos are so sure why do they have limits like 15 to 500, You now why cause people like me.

The haters keep popping up.

[bethug]

forgot something, cipher program works, I know a few people making money off it.

Keep point making money. If cipher was robbing people , they would have spilled the beans by now.

[grus]

Hi seanjohn & others,

The debate here is meaningless. The outcome completely depends on if the RNGs in casino software are mathematically random. If they are random, as all casinos claim, Cipher & BetHug have to be wrong; otherwise, They definitely can be right.

The reason why the "wizardofodds" guy dare to face any challenge is because in his simulations, RNGs are random, which could or could not be the case in online casino software.

[eek]

That basically sums it up.
If they're not random you can let the software beat you up on the smaller bets.
Then once the 'randomness' reaches the edge of its flight envelope, (as I would say) you start upping your bets a bit, and push the statistical probability of the session even further into a corner.

Its at that point that you up your bets even further.
The software has nowhere to go, unless it wants to start cranking out 4 and 5 SD stuff in a 100/200 hand session.

You can write your own stuff on a spreadsheet using macros that encompass dozens of tests.(dealing seconds etc)

Here's one the wiz did.
http://wizardofodds.com/casinos/casinobar.html

If it was random, you couldn't do this.

[eek]

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein

[caruso]

If they're not random you can let the software beat you up on the smaller bets. Then once the 'randomness' reaches the edge of its flight envelope, (as I would say) you start upping your bets a bit, and push the statistical probability of the session even further into a corner. Its at that point that you up your bets even further. The software has nowhere to go, unless it wants to start cranking out 4 and 5 SD stuff in a 100/200 hand session.

I'm sorry Eek, this is piffle. Cards do not have memory. That you can somehow "force" the software into dealing you good cards, having received bad cards previously, on the basis that continued bad cards "push the statistical probability of the session even further into a corner" is absolute nonsense.

Betting systems, online or terrestrial, cannot turn a negative expectation game into a positive one. This subject doesn't require discussion, it is a long, long established and proven fact.

If you believe you can change the odds with a betting system, short term or long term, you are a fool.

[eek]

Its not a betting system Caruso.
Its probability, randomness (or a lack of it), and the SD limits of the software you are playing on.

Once you get to the 3.5sd mark on some software you can actually get quite a decent game.

Other stuff:
If you hit/hit/hit/hit/hit on 16 v 10 then suddenly decide to stay you get that 'pause' as the software is forced to make a new decision that affects the dealer...not the player.

If RNGs were random, they would have certified RNG standards.
But they don't.

I know its usless in a true random scenario.
(not exactly rocket science there 'Russo)

-----------------------
BTW, on the subject of randomness.
I notice my local B&M is using auto shuffling machines now.