mine either. . . I'm starting to believe we are not dealing with the real Dyksexlic here. Wich is not very hard to solve.
D, you and I talked (via pm) about another mathematical principle on the VLS forum, wich one were we talking about?
This post I rescued from the Recycle Bin since there is a new member claiming to be the real Dyksexlic.
In order to give Dyksexlic followers a chance, I have brought this back to test the claims of the new Dyksexlic.
QuoteWich is not very hard to solve.
So the deal is, your first post is you answer what you talked with KA2 or you are out since you are a Fake. Simple.
No flamboyant posts, no "why can't I post anything else before answering KA2", no nothing else.
Sorry it has to be like this, but you would understand given all the controversy under the name.
So KA2, that's it you as a Dyksexlic follower can now DIRECTLY weed-out the field so to speak.
Thanks Victor,
I spoke to Ilan (Ka2) a number of times about several mathematical concepts on VLS. I'm uncertain which one he is referring to. Perhaps he could be more specific?
As you can imagine, I received many pm messages from several members.
While I keep all previous posts, I do not have a facility for saving personal messages.
However, there is a far easier way to prove my identity, if you remember you published my IP address on the old VLS ?
An IP address is a more accurate means of online identity.
I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples. Again, this would be hard for a 'fake' to replicate.
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 11, 08:24 AM 2010
Perhaps he could be more specific?
Kindly don't mention them in public dear KA2.
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 11, 08:24 AM 2010
Thanks Victor,
You are welcome.
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 11, 08:24 AM 2010
there is a far easier way to prove my identity, if you remember you published my IP address on the old VLS ?
An IP address is a more accurate means of online identity.
This time and age an IP address means nothing. Even the same IP changes for the same computer on the same house when turning the modem off and on.
Better for you because the
IP addresses DO NOT MATCH...
In this post:
link:://vlsroulette.com/general-board/dyksexlic's-rng-roulette-demo-hate-free-zone-!! (link:://vlsroulette.com/general-board/dyksexlic's-rng-roulette-demo-hate-free-zone-!!)
I can see the following:
[attachthumb=#]
(Click here to enlarge and view in full (link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/t2884/?action=dlattach;attach=3064;image) - IP address @ lower-right corner)
link:://whois.domaintools.com/149.254.56.165 (link:://whois.domaintools.com/149.254.56.165)
The provider is
T-MOBILE.
...In your message here 94.5.24.228
link:://whois.domaintools.com/94.5.24.228 (link:://whois.domaintools.com/94.5.24.228)
[attachthumb=#]
(Click here to enlarge and view in full (link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/t2884/?action=dlattach;attach=3066;image) - IP address @ lower-right corner)
The provider is
Sky.
Not even the Internet Providers Match, so let's keep IP verification out,
for your own "benefit of the doubt".
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 11, 08:24 AM 2010
I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples.
By all means.
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 11, 08:24 AM 2010Again, this would be hard for a 'fake' to replicate.
Wikipedia already did!
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle)
Oke Dyksexlic, once more I give you the benefit of the doubt.
We spoke a couple of weeks ago at the VLS forum. I asked a few questions. The one about maths you don't seem to remember. But that's not all I asked, at that time you seemed to have some sort of problem, which I could probably solve for you. But unfortunately you got banned again before we could discuss it. What was your problem?
Second question:
You had a couple of aliases on the vls and other forums. What were they?
Last question:
On the old VLS forum you once spoke of giving a second demonstration in a real B&M casino which B&M casino where you talking about?
(If you dont want to answer my questions here, you can p. m. ) And I'll be honest If they were true or not. )
OK, there you go.
No beating around the bush.
Here is your opportunity to prove you are the real deal. Go straight to the point, check excuses at the door.
If you next post is an excuse, consider yourself banned.
I think I speak for the whole forum when saying I'm tired of these time-wasting schemes.
We only want a Roulette debate Forum with no silly games.
I love this stuff.
Ken
Quote from: VLS link=topic=2884. msg26340#msg26340 date=1292081894
OK, there you go.
Here is your opportunity to prove you are the real deal. I think I speak for the whole forum when saying I'm tired of these time-wasting schemes.
We only want a Roulette debate Forum with no silly games.
I agree Victor, I'm sick of people stealing my hard work then dragging my name through the dirt.
This is insane. . I'm Dyksexlic. . !
I have sent Ka2 a pm which FULLY answers all his questions.
Only the real ME (Dyksexlic) would know this information.
Ka2 will post his verdict.
Oke D has answered me, and indeed he gave me the correct answer. So that means he was the last "Alias" (HughdeMann) I spoke to on the old VLS forum.
He doesnt seem to remember about which casino I was revering to. However I have to admit that it was a long time ago.
So if we assume that HughdeMann was in indeed D, then there is nothing to worry about. However I still want to WARN everyone that if you still get a pm from D or someone else who has the bet, and they want to "sell" it to you in one way or another. Don't ever take the bait!!! (Just take a quick look at the W3M scam)
The original D never wanted to sell ANYTHING that was his very first post he made, and he always sticked by that rule.
Quote from: Ka2 on Dec 12, 06:56 AM 2010
Oke D has answered me, and indeed he gave me the correct answer.
So, you are positive this is the original Dyksexlic.
I cant be 100% sure ofcourse, if the VLS alias was a fake, so would be this one. That's why I gave the warning. But the alias on VLS seemed the genuine D to me.
Oh well, then the account without the (!) mark remains locked.
Anyway, if this is the original one his further posts should show for itself.
Case closed, at least from my side. All I have to ask Dyksexlic is not to "stir the pot". Come, talk, debate and have fun.
He has indeed an audience eager to continue to debate with him and know more about what he has to say. Out of respect to Dyksexlic's readers we should all relax and remember it's about HAVING FUN & ENJOYING AROUND! :)
Regards.
Quote from: Ka2 on Dec 12, 06:56 AM 2010
He doesn't seem to remember about which casino I was revering to. However I have to admit that it was a long time ago.
Hello Ka2,
I had little to do with Dyksexlic on VLS, but can clearly remember Melbourne's Crown Casino in Australia being named as the demonstration venue.
If I am correct, then my recall of such a fleeting fact puts the member claiming to be Dyksexlic in very poor light, especially because he claims to keep ALL past posts.
So it's either not Dyksexlic, or it is Dyksexlic but he's full of sh*t! Meaning he never intended to go to Crown Casino, and when dishonest people weave a web of lies they invariably get caught out down the track.
To be honest, I don't know why people persist with him. He's been the catalyst for far too much conflict on virtually every roulette forum to merit any more chances (in my opinion).
I'm sorry but that was not the casino he was talking about! He lives in the UK so going to Australia doesn't make any sense either.
As well I clearly remembered that you were one of the pesky naysayers on the VLS forum. Luckily on this forum that kind of behaviour is not allowed!
Ok, sorry, my bad.
But I am neither pesky nor a naysayer.
Happy life to you friend. :)
WARNING @KA2
You wrote: "As well I clearly remembered that you were one of the pesky naysayers on the VLS forum. Luckily on this forum that kind of behaviour is not allowed!"
May I remind you that bad-mouthing and insulting other members is ALSO NOT ALLOWED!
Do it again and your posting priviledges will be at risk.
A sincere apology to Skakus would go a long way towards redemption...
No apology necessary.
Ka2 is right, I did briefly get offside with Dyksexlic on the VLS forum, though not because Iââ,¬â,,¢m a naysayer, more because I like others felt he was leading members up the garden path and on a merry dance (still seems we were right).
Some of his followers became irate over the events that unfolded back then and notwithstanding the apparent vindication I guess I played my small part.
So it is I who will apologize to Ka2 and the others.
Sorry guys I should never have become involved in the Dyksexlic saga.
I hope he carries you all forward to great success. :)
Quote from: esoito link=topic=2884. msg26680#msg26680 date=1292197855
WARNING @KA2
May I remind you that bad-mouthing and insulting other members is ALSO NOT ALLOWED!
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Am I bad-mouthing? I'm sorry I did not know pesky was a bad word! Tssssssss
Pesky is ok till its directed at someone.
Direct it at something, and you should be alright, but just not at member/fellow.
That is what the Global mods mean by the warning.
(Just my advice I hope you don't mind) :-X
Edit- I think the naysayer didn't particularly sit well with a few either.
Just no need to be personal here, keep it to the task in hand- increase knowledge on the subject of Rugby............ sorry Roulette (forgot which brain I was usin then!)
Exactly so, chrisbis. :thumbsup:
Pesky is an ill-considered adjective to apply to a fellow forum member.
If members avoid making personal remarks or criticisms of others then peace and harmony will prevail.
We do NOT want this forum to degenerate into a battlefield as has happened elsewhere...
Moderators expect members to play the ball -- not the man, in other words.
Who Do Men Say That I Am. . ?
@Skakus
I bear no grudges to those who persecuted me.
The weak minded can never forgive.
Forgiveness is an attribute of a strong mind.
Hey D,
Are you still here to help? I think it would be very helpful for everyone if you could answer my last question I asked you (pm.)
If you play your system. And the rng always choose the bet with the least amount of payment (or none) And I mean always (we are playing the rng from hell here) Would you still win?
Quote from: Ka2 link=topic=2884. msg26985#msg26985 date=1292334210
Hey D,
Are you still here to help? I think it would be very helpful for everyone if you could answer my last question I asked you (pm. )
If you play your system. And the rng always choose the bet with the least amount of payment (or none) And I mean always (we are playing the rng from hell here) Would you still win?
Sorry, I missed your original question.
I have NEVER witnessed an RNG which played 100% against the player in that manner.
I challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise.
Even rogue casinos are mathematically beatable.
However, don't expect a cash payout from Costa Rica anytime soon!
Its all too easy to blame a failing system on 'rigged' RNG software.
The 'secret' is that ALL gambling systems produce winning spins (EVENTually),
Just as ALL gambling systems produce losing spins (EVENTually).
Simple.
Thats not really the point. You said your system is 100% mathematical fail proof, no matter what sequence of numbers!
You never witnessed it, but apparently (you just admitted it) you are still dependent on some wins, if they come or may not come, that's open for debate.
Don't get me wrong you still have my up-most respect, but like I told you before, I'm always playing the session from HELL. And playing that session I can NEVER win (neither can you), yes I created many systems that do win when I play a "fair" distribution of numbers, but that was not what I was looking for.
So in Essence you are still waiting for some sort event/frequency to happen. And your system is based on the Fact that you assume the RNG is not going to cheat that much...
So basically I don't have to search that hard any more ???
Hey D, nice to see you posting again
You said earlier,
"I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples."
Are you still planning to do so?
@Ka2
What. . ???
No, that wasn't what I meant Ka2.
You said you understood the system?
I'm not waiting for ANYTHING!!!
Now you sound more confused than ever!
If you want me to lie and tell you that a 100% winning system isn't possible,
And that the Pigeonhole Principle is somehow wrong. .
Then I'm sorry Ka2, but I wont do that.
You need to go back to basics.
Quote from: redhot link=topic=2884. msg26993#msg26993 date=1292340931
Hey D, nice to see you posting again
You said earlier,
"I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples. "
Are you still planning to do so?
Hey redhot, that's an excellent idea.
Maybe that would help members see 'the bigger picture'.
I think it's time to come clean about the pigeonhole principle, and set the record straight.
The PP states that if there are X pigeons and Z pigeonholes, and X is bigger than Z, then there must be at least 2 pigeons in some pigeonhole.
That's really all there is to it; it's so simple and obvious you might wonder why it even has a name.
Well it turns out that there are a lot of mathematical applications where it comes in handy, mainly in working out the number of possibilities in various scenarios (an area of maths called "Combinatorics"). For example, to use a "practical" example (well, practical for a mathematician ;)) the PP can guarantee that the following assertion is true:
In New York City, there are two non-bald people who have the same number of hairs on their head.
Why? because The human head can contain up to several hundred thousand hairs, with a maximum of about 500,000. In comparison there are millions of people in New York City. Consequently, at least two of them must share the same number of hairs. Simple logic.
So what does all this have to do with roulette?
Well, it turns out, not a lot. It's a bit of red herring, because in no way can using the PP help you to win. Yes, it means that in 38 spins there must be at least 1 number which hits twice. Well whoopy-doo! it should be obvious that this isn't any kind of breakthrough. For starters, the probability is billions to 1 that every number will hit in a cycle, so the PP will likely never get the chance of employment :'(.
Secondly, even if such a stupendously unlikely event were to happen, then what? you have just seen 37 numbers hit in 37 spins. Which number is going to hit next? Your guess is as good as mine. ???
No matter how authoritative they may sound, don't let anyone tell you that the PP is the gateway to roulette riches - it isn't. Use your common sense.
Quote from: Bayes link=topic=2884. msg27047#msg27047 date=1292358951
in no way can using the PP help you to win.
No matter how authoritative they may sound, don't let anyone tell you that the PP is the gateway to roulette riches - it isn't.
I beg to differ Bayes.
Interesting post tho'.
Albeit a little misleading. .
Yes, the Pigeonhole Principle is somewhat intuitive, but do NOT underestimate its power!!!
Put simply, the Principle states that if more than n pigeons are placed into n pigeonholes, some pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon.
Big deal.
So, what does that have to do with winning roulette. . ?
EVERYTHING!!!!
While the Principle itself is evident, its implications are astounding.
The reason is that the Principle
proves the existence (or impossibility) of a particular phenomenon.
Another version states -
"the maximum value is at least the average value, for any non-empty finite bag of real numbers. . "
Hmmmmmmmm. . the plot thickens.
For typical data sets, the average is the ââ,¬Å"middleââ,¬Â value, so clearly the maximum should be at least as big.
Incidently, many forum members have asked me why I called myself
'Dyksexlic'Simple.
It was out of respect and admiration of the man who opened my eyes to the possibility of a 100% winning roulette bet.
His name was Professor
Dijkstra. Go ahead.
Google it. .
Is it this one?:
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Dijkstra (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Dijkstra)
Thanks!
Victor, I am pretty sure that Dyksexlic is referring to Edsger Djikstra.
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra)
The one in the IT field, Structured programming. Right?
I'm sorry I simply meant that in some order to secure a win, you are basically dependent on some other mathematical principles, call it the law of the third / average what ever.
We all know that the RNG will not cheat that much. (that's why I think you called it subtle) But like you I was looking for 100% I think I fully understand the concepts behind your idea. I mean they were obvious in your previous posts.
But lets assume, the RNG DOES cheat that way, just for the sake of argument, it is impossible for us to win. So what I meant is that basically your still are dependent (percentage wise) on how much the RNG is going to cheat.
Quote from: Dyksexlic! on Dec 14, 01:31 PM 2010
I have NEVER witnessed an RNG which played 100% against the player in that manner.
But if it did, you loose, correct?
(In a way it's a relief you say it's not going to cheat that much, because I was looking for the impossible, and I could not find the solution.)
@ Dyksexlic!
Since you are the one making claims (albeit vague ones), the ball is in your court. It's not MY responsibility to "prove" that the PP can not be used to guarantee a win (which would be impossible anyway), but I think it's pretty obvious that it can't.
Just a reminder that "hinting" is not tolerated in this forum; we've had enough of members being led a merry dance by those who seem to derive some pleasure in watching it. You've said that you don't intend to reveal your method, and that's fine, but if we start hearing the strains of dance music, the mods will be over you like a rash.
One more thing: you state that the previous "Dyksexlic" was not you, but an imposter. I find it odd that you didn't register a complaint at the time; are we to believe that during this time when the "imposter" was in residence, you weren't reading the forum? or if you were, you just didn't care? neither scenario seems likely to me.
I'll leave members to come to their own conclusions.
@flukey luke and VLS
Yes, I was referring to Professor Edsger Djikstra. A beautiful mind.
@Bayes
There is NO conspiracy at work.
Your perverse virtue of humility is intoxicating.
For the record, I had no prior knowledge of this Dyksexlic 'imposter' chappie, as verified by several independant sources. Victor and Ka2 will attest.
So, why do you seek to persecute me? Your crass cynicism amounts to intellectual treason..!
I make NO errant claim. Mathematics is the lost key to all of roulette's hidden treasures.
As far as I am concerned, there is NO need to to discuss either my 100% winning bet selection method or the mysterious Pigeonhole Principle.
Be that as it may, certain forum members have expressed an desire to debate this maths topic. I was therefore prepared to engage in an open discussion.
Discerning minds need only a hint, as understatement leaves the imagination free to build its own elaborations.
Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!
Permanent success cannot be achieved except by incessant intellectual labour, always inspired by the ideal.
Where better than here, on an OPEN roulette forum..?
But, if you believe my prescence will somehow antagonise the power-drunk moderators, then I'll consign this intellectual debate to history..!
Good day to you Sir.
@Ka2
Yes, the foundation of the bet is the Pigeonhole Principle.
You're correct, all roulette systems are subject to the maths of the game.
This is actually a GOOD thing as the casino is ALSO subject to the same maths of the game.
No 38 spin sequence can therefore cause the Pigeonhole Principle to fail.
The Principle 'underwrites' the system's 100% win guarantee.
So, if a rogue RNG played 100% against the system, it would STILL win.
100% Guaranteed. No 'luck' involved.
Yes, I know exactly what you're thinking..
"odds of 35:1"
"negative expection"
"rigged RNG"
blah, blah, blah
LOL
"Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!"
...he said, modestly. (With his tongue in his cheek?)
Quote from: esoito on Dec 15, 07:22 AM 2010
LoL
"Make no mistake. Roulette needs ME..!"
...he said, modestly. (With his tongue in his cheek?)
All right then! So it's oke for you to ridicule someone, but if I make a tiny remark I almost get banned! You know this is starting to look al lot like the old VLS forum, the mods could say whatever they want whenever they wanted.
You know D is only here to help, He helped me a LOT! That you guys cant see the truth, I'm sorry, but please if its helpful for someone else, let him continue!
It seem that I am the moderator of this thread and I can remove posts. FROM NOW ON I will remove every post, that's insulting or not contributing to this thread!
D? are you still willing to share hints?
@ Dyksexlic!
I've said my piece, and you've said yours. Time to move on I think.
QuoteBe that as it may, certain forum members have expressed an desire to debate this maths topic. I was therefore prepared to engage in an open discussion.
Go ahead. Feel free to start a new thread on the PP and its applications (as you said you would like to do earlier in this thread).
This thread though, is now locked.