[BrickJames]

Classic case of a guy not knowing when to stop, in this thread and on that slot.

[RAIDER1223]

Classic case of a guy not knowing when to stop, in this thread and on that slot.

Actually, it's a classic case of a guy that apparently can't read well.

If I could have taken more out than the max $2,000 per week, that balance would already be in my hands. Can't help it when an online casino seizes your cash ad-hoc and disables your account. Make sense?

Why stop playing the slots (plural, like the posts have been stating all long...SLOTS...7-10 of them.....plural, not singular...) not a slot, when you are winning? No one would.

Read brother. It helps.

If you don't like the post, then don't read it and don't comment on it. Plenty of other posts for "Super Freak" to go dance in.

I know it's hard to stay away when it's the #1 post on SBR. You don't want to feel left out, huh?

Go win $210,000 on online slots, then come back and make an intelligent post.

Can you do it in 9-months on multiple slots? When you do, post the pictures of your balance like I have, and you may get some respect then. Until then, swim in another lane buddy. Don't get mad a winning Players. It's gambling. It works that way sometimes.

[Optional]

Probably is a good time to calm down and wait it out.

You've made your case and it's usually better to appear reasonable when trying to get a decision.

No need to argue with other posters really. It doesn't matter what the rest of us think.

[Mugsy777]

God Bless you Otional

[ace7550]

Probably is a good time to calm down and wait it out.

You've made your case and it's usually better to appear reasonable when trying to get a decision.

No need to argue with other posters really. It doesn't matter what the rest of us think.

[SportsBettor74]

[RAIDER1223]

[JoeCool20]

No. You're conflating different debate topics. Most of us can have separate ideas in our heads at the same time. I and many other posters here have been saying all along that we hope he gets paid. But just because I'm on the side of the player doesn't mean that I have to put forth arguments which defy real world mathematics.

You keep making fun of the fact that we're only focusing on ONE player. But if you had a rudimentary understanding of statistics, you'd realize that people like me and Ace are absolutely correct. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of spins here. It doesn't matter who played them...at all.

But I'm not sure why I continue to reply to you. Anyone who begins almost all of their posts with "LOL" most likely just enjoys trolling.

LOL the ONLY spins that you are talking about are this ONE PLAYER'S spins! You don't even know what the casino netted overall from these slots because all you know are the results of ONE player! EVERYTHING ELSE you are just assuming! You have no idea what the casino netted out of ALL the combined action from ALL the players of these slots! The casino may have netted out TOO much money out of ALL the combined play from these slots! Then you'd have to swap sides and start calling the casino a cheat and accusing THEM of playing a flawed game!

Dude what you are saying is no different from you being in a live casino and you see ONE PLAYER get on a hot streak and win a bunch of $$ on a certain slot machine, and then you immediately assume the slot is faulty, and you say: "Well, since I saw that ONE guy winning money, then I think that slot is flawed and it is losing money for the casino!" LOL Somebody may have just played that slot before you watched and lost their ass! That slot may have taken in TWICE the money that it paid out before you were there watching! You don't have any idea because you only have that ONE players results!
What you are actually saying on here about this poster's thread is: "I have NO results from these slots besides ONE certain player's results, and I have no idea whether ALL the total play from these slots made or lost money for the casino, but based on the results of this ONE player's spins, I'm going to assume the slot is flawed."

And I just can't believe you would say that and actually mean it when you have no idea what the total win/loss is for ALL the play on these slots! The other slot players may have lost more than this player won!
There are no words to describe why in the world you would make yourself look like this big of an imbecile on here except the words: "You MUST be doing it on purpose!"

[JoeCool20]

Actually, it's a classic case of a guy that apparently can't read well.

If I could have taken more out than the max $2,000 per week, that balance would already be in my hands. Can't help it when an online casino seizes your cash ad-hoc and disables your account. Make sense?

Why stop playing the slots (plural, like the posts have been stating all long...SLOTS...7-10 of them.....plural, not singular...) not a slot, when you are winning? No one would.

Read brother. It helps.

If you don't like the post, then don't read it and don't comment on it. Plenty of other posts for "Super Freak" to go dance in.

I know it's hard to stay away when it's the #1 post on SBR. You don't want to feel left out, huh?

Go win $210,000 on online slots, then come back and make an intelligent post.

Can you do it in 9-months on multiple slots? When you do, post the pictures of your balance like I have, and you may get some respect then. Until then, swim in another lane buddy. Don't get mad a winning Players. It's gambling. It works that way sometimes.

Let's put it this way. If the casino proves that these certain slots were paying out way too much in those 9 months, then that means there was something wrong with them. But of course to do that, they will have to show the win/loss payout figures were badly favoring the players for the aggregate TOTAL of ALL the players who played these slots during this time period.
As far as we know, a lot of other players were losing their ass on these slots at the same time you were winning, and thus the slots returned exactly what they were supposed to return for the casino during this time period.

We have no idea yet, but let's say that MyBookie DOES show proof that these certain slots were "flawed" during these 9 months, and they were paying out way too much OVERALL to the people playing them, then does that mean that they aren't going to pay you the rest? Can they really do that? I sure hope they have to show proof! Then you can claim you won $80 grand on a defective slot before they caught on to it! But until they show proof then this is all just conjecture!
And so as of right now there is NO proof of any "flaw" or "glitch" in these slot games and they owe you the money.

[DontTailMe]

LOL the ONLY spins that you are talking about are this ONE PLAYER'S spins! You don't even know what the casino netted overall from these slots because all you know are the results of ONE player! EVERYTHING ELSE you are just assuming! You have no idea what the casino netted out of ALL the combined action from ALL the players of these slots! The casino may have netted out TOO much money out of ALL the combined play from these slots! Then you'd have to swap sides and start calling the casino a cheat and accusing THEM of playing a flawed game!

Dude what you are saying is no different from you being in a live casino and you see ONE PLAYER get on a hot streak and win a bunch of $$ on a certain slot machine, and then you immediately assume the slot is faulty, and you say: "Well, since I saw that ONE guy winning money, then I think that slot is flawed and it is losing money for the casino!" LOL Somebody may have just played that slot before you watched and lost their ass! That slot may have taken in TWICE the money that it paid out before you were there watching! You don't have any idea because you only have that ONE players results!
What you are actually saying on here about this poster's thread is: "I have NO results from these slots besides ONE certain player's results, and I have no idea whether ALL the total play from these slots made or lost money for the casino, but based on the results of this ONE player's spins, I'm going to assume the slot is flawed."

And I just can't believe you would say that and actually mean it when you have no idea what the total win/loss is for ALL the play on these slots! The other slot players may have lost more than this player won!
There are no words to describe why in the world you would make yourself look like this big of an imbecile on here except the words: "You MUST be doing it on purpose!"

You'd think that you would have done some research after so many people told you you were wrong. Anyone who understands mathematical statistics is rolling their eyes at your posts. Your example of a single player in a casino going on a hot streak is not relevant because in that case the sample size would be way too small. So, yes, in that case you'd have to expand to many other players to get a large enough sample to draw conclusions with a reasonable confidence level.

In this case we have a HUGE sample. Knowledge about other players is unnecessary because the sample is large enough, many times over.

[SportsBettor74]

You'd think that you would have done some research after so many people told you you were wrong. Anyone who understands mathematical statistics is rolling their eyes at your posts. Your example of a single player in a casino going on a hot streak is not relevant because in that case the sample size would be way too small. So, yes, in that case you'd have to expand to many other players to get a large enough sample to draw conclusions with a reasonable confidence level.

In this case we have a HUGE sample. Knowledge about other players is unnecessary because the sample is large enough, many times over.

DonTailMe / Ace7550 - sorry to say that your time is wasted attempting to explain the fundamentals of gambling / probability / stats / mathematics to this poster. You should be aware that you have the agreement of all the key posters here with knowledge in this area and that should be enough. If this poster wants to hold onto his erroneous beliefs then this is not a problem for those who hold correct beliefs in this area. I only vaguely gloss over the ramblings of this poster now as I know it will just be the same inaccurate, illogical drivel written in a different word order.

I have a general interest in this thread for the reasons stated previously - amongst which is the morality of knowingly exploiting a flaw and whether or not the bookie should pay. This is of interest to me.

I have yet to see any arguments addressing this specific issue: Given that the player knows there is a flaw and deliberately exploits it - what are the specific arguments in favour of the bookie having to pay? I have seen none presented so far.

On the side of "the bookie should not pay" we have:

- The parallel to a palpable error - where it is industry standard not to pay
- The fact that there are specific t&c that explicitly state they will not pay if there is a "software error" or similar

I can think of other arguments on this side too - including the idea of general industry sustainability (what would happen to the industry if bookmakers did not have the security of knowing they are covered for palps and software errors). There should be other arguments / ideas on this side too.

Curious to hear your thoughts DontTailMe and Ace7550.

[lonnie55]

@JoeCool20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.[1]

The LLN is important because it guarantees stable long-term results for the averages of some random events.[1][2] For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the law only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).

[ace7550]

DonTailMe / Ace7550 - sorry to say that your time is wasted attempting to explain the fundamentals of gambling / probability / stats / mathematics to this poster. You should be aware that you have the agreement of all the key posters here with knowledge in this area and that should be enough. If this poster wants to hold onto his erroneous beliefs then this is not a problem for those who hold correct beliefs in this area. I only vaguely gloss over the ramblings of this poster now as I know it will just be the same inaccurate, illogical drivel written in a different word order.

I have a general interest in this thread for the reasons stated previously - amongst which is the morality of knowingly exploiting a flaw and whether or not the bookie should pay. This is of interest to me.

I have yet to see any arguments addressing this specific issue: Given that the player knows there is a flaw and deliberately exploits it - what are the specific arguments in favour of the bookie having to pay? I have seen none presented so far.

On the side of "the bookie should not pay" we have:

- The parallel to a palpable error - where it is industry standard not to pay
- The fact that there are specific t&c that explicitly state they will not pay if there is a "software error" or similar

I can think of other arguments on this side too - including the idea of general industry sustainability (what would happen to the industry if bookmakers did not have the security of knowing they are covered for palps and software errors). There should be other arguments / ideas on this side too.

Curious to hear your thoughts DontTailMe and Ace7550.

I stopped reading OP's posts two or three pages ago.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but to play devil's advocate here are my arguments for the player:
1. Book a bet, pay a bet. I tend to agree with this statement. If a book is getting beat on bad lines or poor software then they need to fix it or upgrade. If OP won almost 300k without them realizing what was going on then they are not paying very close attention. It's on the book, not the player, to make sure software is working well.
2. A simple question: Would the book have refunded the player if the glitch was the other way around?
Thanks for the conversation SportsBettor. It's an interesting topic

[RAIDER1223]

I stopped reading OP's posts two or three pages ago.

Cool.

It's all good. No offense taken from anyone whom has taken an opposing side. Makes for a spirited chat conversation.

We'll see the update from SBR once they have communicated with My Bookie.

[Thunderground]

Why didn't the book kick him out when he was up 40 or 60K? You guys who think he was cheating can probably figure that out.

The book was well aware of what he was doing, but they expected him to give it back. So they made sure he wouldn't leave (limited payouts), and, sure enough, he gave back 126K.

All the high rolling math geniuses still on board? The book was betting that the player would give it back. It's not rocket science.

But then he went on another roll. Oops ...

Of course, then they went to option number two. "He must be cheating." See how that works?

In short, the book is clearly wiling to cheat the player. One way or another. Slow pay, free roll, no pay. But the player is not allowed to find any edge? He's just supposed to blindly lose against a program that is programmed to win?

it's not a sports game, or blackjack, or a horse race. It's a program ...

You can't win against a program, that is programmed to win, unless you find a weakness in the program. But if you find such a weakness, then they say you're cheating.

Pay him his money. Fix your program if it doesn't produce enough easy profits.

[RAIDER1223]

Why didn't the book kick him out when he was up 40 or 60K? You guys who think he was cheating can probably figure that out.

The book was well aware of what he was doing, but they expected him to give it back. So they made sure he wouldn't leave (limited payouts), and, sure enough, he gave back 126K.

All the high rolling math geniuses still on board? The book was betting that the player would give it back. It's not rocket science.

But then he went on another roll. Oops ...

Of course, then they went to option number two. "He must be cheating." See how that works?

In short, the book is clearly wiling to cheat the player. One way or another. Slow pay, free roll, no pay. But the player is not allowed to find any edge? He's just supposed to blindly lose against a program that is programmed to win?

it's not a sports game, or blackjack, or a horse race. It's a program ...

You can't win against a program, that is programmed to win, unless you find a weakness in the program. But if you find such a weakness, then they say you're cheating.

Pay him his money. Fix your program if it doesn't produce enough easy profits.

I love it! Great post. Thank you kindly, Mr. Thunderground!

[JoeCool20]

You'd think that you would have done some research after so many people told you you were wrong. Anyone who understands mathematical statistics is rolling their eyes at your posts. Your example of a single player in a casino going on a hot streak is not relevant because in that case the sample size would be way too small. So, yes, in that case you'd have to expand to many other players to get a large enough sample to draw conclusions with a reasonable confidence level.

In this case we have a HUGE sample. Knowledge about other players is unnecessary because the sample is large enough, many times over.

LOL Dude you are making the most terrible mistake you can make in math and statistics! You think that all the results should fall into some made up "range" that you have concocted! You think that there can't EVER be radical and extreme results! Like the fact that every once in a while there will be certain players who will have unusually extreme results on certain games (extreme wins AND extreme losses!) But If you knew anything about statistics then you'd know that statistics PLAINLY tell you and prove to you that these extreme results, while very rare, are DEFINITELY possible! But you will NEVER say "yes Joecool you are right." so hell, lets just forget it!

So like I said you have taken this guy's personal slot results, and without any knowledge of any of the other player's results, you have claimed that these slots are "flawed" because you think "statistically speaking" nobody could win like that unless the game was flawed!! LOL But statistics PROVE that however rare the occasion, somebody COULD have those extreme results! Dude do you think nobody has ever went on a streak HOTTER and LONGER than this guys streak without the game being "flawed?" LOL there are PLENTY of people who went on hotter streaks and have won MORE than he did! Do you think all those people were playing a "flawed" game too because your made up "statistics" say they shouldn't have won that much? LOL Surely not!

Besides that, he didn't just go straight up with wins! He told you that he LOST over $100 grand right in the middle before he started winning again! So all your dumbass fake "Statistics" immediately become moot! Anybody with any knowledge of statistics would immediately tell you that it IS statistically possible for this guy to have went on this hot streak, AND even more of one! My question still stands unanswered by you about: "How much do you think is the limit that a person can win before your 'made up statistics' show that the game must be flawed?" $10 grand? 50 grand? And does your "made up" win limit reset itself to zero after he goes on a $100 grand losing streak like he described? What is your made up "win limit" that your made up statistics say is the max hot streak that somebody can go on before you assume the game is flawed? $50 grand? More? Less? Come on man give an answer so we can laugh like hell.

@JoeCool20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.[1]

The LLN is important because it guarantees stable long-term results for the averages of some random events.[1][2] For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the law only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).

Thank you so much buddy! I have been trying to show the guy this EXACT premise for about a week now! If I didn't say it exactly like you just did, then I should have!..... The "expected earnings" of a particular casino game will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins!

The guy is trying to take ONE PERSON'S extreme winning slot results and assume the whole game is "flawed" without even knowing if the slot game actually hit or missed its "expected earnings" during this time period! It is truly hard to believe he is serious! But I give up because the dude is incorrigible.

If some goofball thinks that the results of all the spins will stay in some kind of "made up range" that he picked out of his ass, and that there won't be huge wins and losses to unusual extremes within those results, or he thinks the game must be "flawed" then that person is either joking or retarded! LOL Who made up this "range of wins and losses" that he is using? Didn't statistics tell this goofball that while very rare, somebody could win (or lose) even MORE than this player did?! And nothing has to be "flawed" about the game for it to happen?
If not then just forget it! He can't be reached!

[JoeCool20]

Why didn't the book kick him out when he was up 40 or 60K? You guys who think he was cheating can probably figure that out.

The book was well aware of what he was doing, but they expected him to give it back. So they made sure he wouldn't leave (limited payouts), and, sure enough, he gave back 126K.

All the high rolling math geniuses still on board? The book was betting that the player would give it back. It's not rocket science.

But then he went on another roll. Oops ...

EXACTLY right buddy!

Right in the middle of his slot play, he had a losing streak that was almost as extreme and massive as his extremely massive winning streak! That immediately moots ANY type of argument that there was "something wrong" with the slot! Because he is winning AND losing like any other player would!
Any dumbass goofball who would say that "statistics" show that the game had to be "flawed" in order for him to win that much money AFTER they have plainly seen that he almost gave it all back on a massive losing streak, is being beyond obtuse and absurd!

[Mugsy777]

EXACTLY right buddy!

Right in the middle of his slot play, he had a losing streak that was almost as extreme and massive as his extremely massive winning streak! That immediately moots ANY type of argument that there was "something wrong" with the slot! Because he is winning AND losing like any other player would!
Any dumbass goofball who would say that "statistics" show that the game had to be "flawed" in order for him to win that much money AFTER they have plainly seen that he almost gave it all back on a massive losing streak, is being beyond obtuse and absurd!

100% WRONG!!!! Anyone with a brain would show a streak of losing knowing it does not matter as they know of a flaw in the system and will win it back plus much more , losing some makes it more legit , wise up

[pablo222]

Agree this is an interesting debate. If I was a juror I would think there good arguments both ways.
How does the book not notice the flaw for that long?

Also when there is a poster that is unreasonable, long winded, and repetitive, you can click on their name and click ignore.
Great option to declutter a good thread like this.

[ace7550]

Agree this is an interesting debate. If I was a juror I would think there good arguments both ways.
How does the book not notice the flaw for that long?

Also when there is a poster that is unreasonable, long winded, and repetitive, you can click on their name and click ignore.
Great option to declutter a good thread like this.

Nice! Thanks Pablo I didn't know that trick.

[Microphone]

2. A simple question: Would the book have refunded the player if the glitch was the other way around?
Thanks for the conversation SportsBettor. It's an interesting topic

[Thunderground]

You cannot beat a program that is programmed to win. Compare to roulette. You can't beat it. Unless you find a biased wheel. If you beat such a wheel the casino will not refuse to pay. But that wheel will be replaced the next day. If not, they shouldn't be in the casino business.

At least in the casino the other customers will be cheering the winning player.

[DontTailMe]

LOL Dude you are making the most terrible mistake you can make in math and statistics! You think that all the results should fall into some made up "range" that you have concocted! You think that there can't EVER be radical and extreme results!

Wrong. It's not a mistake. Of course there can be outliers. But the probability of this occurring, given the sample size involved, is infinitesimal. It's also possible that a meteor will land on your head within the next 24 hours. But if you reply saying that it actually happened, no one will believe you because it's so improbable.

[JoeCool20]

Agree this is an interesting debate. If I was a juror I would think there good arguments both ways.
How does the book not notice the flaw for that long?

Also when there is a poster that is unreasonable, long winded, and repetitive, you can click on their name and click ignore.
Great option to declutter a good thread like this.

Well I'm actually glad this Pablo guy is making some sense. At least in this post anyway, the next one maybe the exact opposite, you never know. The guy is a Jekyll and Hyde type poster where some of his posts are nice and congenial and then some of them are maniacally rude and ugly, and they only clutter up good threads. The guy is flat out bipolar and unless you want to sift through his insane posts just to get to his sane ones then he is a perfect candidate for the ignore button, just like he said he was, I commend him for being honest and admitting that. Next step, stop being a bipolar maniac and cluttering up threads with the half of your posts that are rude and abusive and pointless!

[JoeCool20]

Wrong. It's not a mistake. Of course there can be outliers. But the probability of this occurring, given the sample size involved, is infinitesimal. It's also possible that a meteor will land on your head within the next 24 hours. But if you reply saying that it actually happened, no one will believe you because it's so improbable.

Well bro, I hope you ain't mad or ill at me! It ain't our money so who cares? I'm just kinda giggling at some of your reasoning. So here goes a little more!
We ain't talking about meteors or coin flips, we are talking about one player's extreme hot streak on a slot game that also had an extreme losing streak right in the middle of it! I just don't understand why you think it is so "improbable" or why you think the slot is "flawed" because one single player made a ton of spins and he won huge, then he lost huge, then he won huge again! What is "improbable" or "flawed" about that to you?
Hell if they hadn't cut him off then how do you know that the next thing that was coming wasn't another huge losing streak to damn near balance out his overall results?!

[pologq]

i am just here reading the thread. interesting points and conversation.

[ace7550]

You cannot beat a program that is programmed to win. Compare to roulette. You can't beat it. Unless you find a biased wheel. If you beat such a wheel the casino will not refuse to pay. But that wheel will be replaced the next day. If not, they shouldn't be in the casino business.

At least in the casino the other customers will be cheering the winning player.

This is a good point. The difference is that in a casino you get your winnings immediately, and online you have to request your winnings and the casino gets more time to review what happened.
I do want the player to get paid. I might sound indifferent about it at this point because he has such a distaste for mathematical concepts. It's tough to root for someone who isn't telling the whole truth.

[ace7550]

BTW just for fun, if you flip a coin 100 times what do you think the odds are that you'll get 80+ heads/tails?
Answer: About 1 in 2 billion. You'd have to run the test 2 billion times to get 80+ heads/tails once.
The odds of the OP doing what he did on a negative -ev slot are far FAR worse.
This is fun to play around with: https://www.omnicalculator.com/stati...ip-probability

[RAIDER1223]

Great popcorn for this show.

Maybe a group of us should gather-up and have a bipolar med party, while throwing down some brew along the way.

Hopefully, SBR is communicating with My Bookie. I'm reading other posts where additional Players are not getting paid either. What a mess!

[lonnie55]

BTW just for fun, if you flip a coin 100 times what do you think the odds are that you'll get 80+ heads/tails?
Answer: About 1 in 2 billion. You'd have to run the test 2 billion times to get 80+ heads/tails once.
The odds of the OP doing what he did on a negative -ev slot are far FAR worse.
This is fun to play around with: https://www.omnicalculator.com/stati...ip-probability

If you increase the sample size to 1,000, it's even more impressive and counter-intuitive:

The chance of at least 500 heads in 1,000 flips is unsurprisingly a little more than 51%

BUT: The chance of at least 550 heads in 1,000 flips is already less than 0.1%

The chance of at least 625 heads in 1,000 flips is 1 in 1 quadrillion

[ace7550]

If you increase the sample size to 1,000, it's even more impressive and counter-intuitive:

The chance of at least 500 heads in 1,000 flips is unsurprisingly a little more than 51%

BUT: The chance of at least 550 heads in 1,000 flips is already less than 0.1%

The chance of at least 625 heads in 1,000 flips is 1 in 1 quadrillion

This is why I love standard deviation and it's so important in my models. It's counter intuitive. If you asked me what the odds are of getting 625 in 1000 flips I would would never have thought it was that unlikely.
When running tests it's the best way to know if your ev is positive or negative.

BTW, if OP won $100 on every spin he would have had to play the slot 3000 times to get up 300k. Imagine how much time he spent playing these slot/s...

[JoeCool20]

BTW just for fun, if you flip a coin 100 times what do you think the odds are that you'll get 80+ heads/tails?
Answer: About 1 in 2 billion. You'd have to run the test 2 billion times to get 80+ heads/tails once.
The odds of the OP doing what he did on a negative -ev slot are far FAR worse.
This is fun to play around with: https://www.omnicalculator.com/stati...ip-probability

Well my gosh man! Thank you for admitting that it IS possible to win that much (or more) on a slot machine
Without it being "flawed"! It is also no where near as high odds to have a big winning streak, then a big losing streak, then another big winning streak from the TOTAL overall play on SEVERAL machines like the poster here did!!
If they hadn't stopped him from playing then he might have had another giant losing streak and lost it all.


However this statement by you is totally wrong:

You'd have to run the test 2 billion times to get 80+ heads/tails once.

Dead wrong there bro! It might take 10 billion runs of the test to get "80+ heads" in 100 flips! Or it might happen
on the VERY first time you run the test! Statistics plainly show us that the odds are exactly the SAME on EVERY flip
for 80+ heads to come up in 100 flips! But you have no idea on WHAT run of the test that you'd get ANY
of the possible results! So you might get 80+ heads in 100 flips the VERY first time you flipped 100 flips!
Then you might get 80+ heads AGAIN on the next 100 flips! Astronomical odds, but clearly possible odds!
Now, since the odds are "high" against this happening, then if you saw these extreme results happen,
instead of accepting them as possible, even though you KNEW they were possible,
you'd try to say that there must be a "flaw" in the coin or the coin flipper! LOL

Now back to the Original posters thread here about SLOTS not coin flips!

BTW, if OP won $100 on every spin he would have had to play the slot 3000 times to get up 300k. Imagine how much time he spent playing these slot/s...

This is what destroys and moots EVERYTHING you are saying! THIS SLOT PLAYER DID NOT "WIN $100 ON EVERY SPIN"!! IN FACT HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD AN EXTREME LOSING STREAK RIGHT AFTER HE HAD AN EXTREME WINNING STREAK! Then he started another big winning streak and they cut off his play! This makes your "Statistical models" about his play totally moot and useless. If he HAD simply won this amount by ONLY winning and going straight up to $200K, then the odds of that ARE astronomical (but still possible!) But he did not do that! He won a bunch, then hit a losing streak & lost a bunch, then went on another winning streak!

If he had just ran his balance straight up to $200K with non-stop wins from the start of his play until they stopped him, then 99% of us would say there was something "wrong"!!!! But The fact is that he didn't just start winning from the first spin and go STRAIGHT UP to $200K on these slots, and then get stopped from playing!!! He had a huge winning streak, then huge losses, then another huge winning streak again from the total overall play of several slots!

Those facts totally quash and invalidate your "theories" and "models" about how improbable it is to win that much!
In other words, his huge ups and downs of winning & losing, put a major "flaw" in your assessment! LOL ("Flaw" get it?)

[pablo222]

[lonnie55]

Those facts

What facts are you talking about? Nobody except OP, MYB and maybe SBR knows what really happened.