Another muppet enters equation, i know you you are one of those 'shrewdys' who bets in £2 and backs 6/4 shots and has his little £2 on at 500/1 hoping someone is gonna lay it and push the 500/1 shot by mistake and waits there all day investing his £2 dreaming like a lottery player. Years down the line and befair is still full of saddos

Banks, you prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that these machines are random and £1k will wing its way to your bank account, please dont tell me this crap about you have seen data, that means nothing, it is the data thats flawed and if all you pricks who think they know it all, well let me inform you i am lunching next week with a Maths professor from Bangor university who knows more about these machines and the software that operates them then any of you dreamers, i have only just realised what muppets and how many there are on BF, so Mr Bank see if you can bank something for yourself and get proving.

Its so funny all the big mouths especially Muppett who thinks i am 66K in ' the whole' i challenge you that you probabl;y have not even seen 6k in your life, i will tell you, LODGE 20K with a UK Solicitor to prove yopu can lay your hands on it and i personally guarantee to another 5K because you my friend are on eo fthe potless loudmouths that think they know it all, so 'PUT UP OR SHUT UP

GD

Erm Sorry, just to clarify its MR BIG K, Big at what? apart from shooting his mouth, its certainly not a 'BIG' bank balance, I dont know you, dont wanna know you but can you take me for 5K, you aint gotta do much, just pull up 20K within 7 days.
Cant Wait

GD

Do you know when this data is compiled, it is done with 'CREDITS' on the machine and not REAL CASH' Dont you know the software acts differntly with 'credits' ie playing for fun' than when real money is inserted and then data is compiled from that. So you tell meif data is wrong? I dont think it is purposely manipulated, NO' but it is not compiled correctly thus giving false data, only telling you whats Maths Prof who i am meeting next week is telling me, are you aware there is an investigation going on about how data has been obtained in the last 5 years by the department of trade and industry, DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?
OVER TO YOU, WHAT DATA ARE YOU GONNA SHOW ME?

I have seen data from many millions of real spins and I am afraid that they do not support your theory.

You seem to be a little confrontational however I am no apologist for these machines and have no vested interest either way in this matter.

I can assure you that the machines do produce the expected theoretical margins over many millions of spins.

BANKS, PREVIOUS PAGE 8TH DEC 20.20 PLEASE LOOK AT MY REPLY TO MR BIG K AND ANSWER THAT AND ALSO CHECK OUT THE DEFINING OF THE WORD RANDOM AS WRIITEN IN THE OXFORD DICTIONARY WHICH I ALSO POSTED ON PREVIOUS PAGE SOMEWHERE

THATS ME REALLY DONE FOR TONITE

GD

PPS YOU KEEP MENTIONING SPINS, MY WHOLE CASE ARGUEMENT IS NOT ABOUT REEL FRUIT MACHINRES IT IS THE SELECTION OF CARDS AND APPLIES TO BLACKJACK AND BLACJACK ONLY AND NO OTHER GAME WHICH I HAVE NO INTEREST IN AND PREDOMINANTLY THESE ARE THE MACHINES MADE BY 'GLOBAL DRAW' AND SUPPLY LADBROKES AND HILLS, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT REEL TO REEL FRUIT MACHIUNES

Greedydog as I said earlier I have no interest in proving the case one way or another I just thought ot might be useful to mark your card for you.

I am pretty sure that I will have seen way more data for blackjack,roulette etc than all your sources combined and based on this I know that you are 1.01 to end up getting nowhere.

I advise that you find a current or ex senior contact ie director level from either one of the large machine manufacturers or top 3 bookmaker who is prepared to show you figures and I guarantee you will discover that you are wrong.

No worries. As I said I`m not fussed either way it`s just that I have probably more knowledge of this subject than anyone else on here and try and help if I can.

I wish you well but advise you to keep your expectations low because you are barking up the wrong tree. If I did not value my anonymity on here I could show you definitive proof that would end your campaign in one fell swoop.

I don`t like seeing people waste their time but can`t see how to help you anymore without revealing who I am.

Best of luck.

WALOFS

We all know what happened to Mr Big K

"Do you know when this data is compiled, it is done with 'CREDITS' on the machine and not REAL CASH' Dont you know the software acts differntly with 'credits' ie playing for fun' than when real money is inserted and then data is compiled from that."

There's no difference between fun mode and real mode. In fact, fun mode- if it doesn't run off the casino software but off your PC's RNG - is liable to be less random than the more advanced casino RNG. However, casino or PC RNG, the results would be in no material way different. And of course, most fun modes also run off the casino software RNG, so there is absolutely no difference.

Greedydog they are random. You just want conspiracy theories to explain your losses.

You are playing a game with a negative outcome expectation and then appear surprised when you lose.

Again I will reiterate that I have absolute proof that they are completely random. There are quite a few people like you who feel that they are on the brink of exposing a collosal fraud and all who have progressed with their campaigns have proven to be wrong.

You may not like it but the odds are that you are a problem gambler but just don`t want to admit it. It is easier to blame machines than yourself. No different to people who blame "cheating" jockeys.

Everyone needs an excuse and this is yours.

I think those bookie machines work on the UK fruit machine mechanism, and not from a RNG, and are payout-based.

That is not true and would in fact be illegal.

Banks: "Again I will reiterate that I have absolute proof that they are completely random."

What is that proof? I've never heard of such a thing.

As I have explained in multiple threads I am not prepared to divulge who I am but suffice to say that I have had access to collosal amounts of data and can categorically say that they are not **** in any way.

I am not trying to defend these machines however I do try and offer advice here where possible although I realise most of it is ignored.

People should feel free to continue their campaigns however if/when they get hold of the data they will see that they are 100% wrong.

It's not illegal for the fruities.

The law is completely different for the fruities. They are compensating machines not random.

Are you saying the roulette / blackjack (or whatever) bookie terminals are not based on the fruit circuit board mechanism, but an RNG comparable to the RNG online casinos use for their virtual equivalents?

Yes.

I wasn't asking who you were, simply the basis for the suggestion that their may be proof available that online software XYZ is random.

Sorry. My comments were more aimed at others on this and other threads who kept asking who I was.

I do have access to data that proves that the software is random however I can`t publish it on here as it is of course commercially sensitive. I wish I could as reading the many conspiracy theories frustrates me as people are wasting their time on crackpot ideas that the games are ****.

*their*

I do have access to data that proves that the software is random however I can`t publish it on here as it is of course commercially sensitive. I wish I could as reading the many conspiracy theories frustrates me as people are wasting their time on crackpot ideas that the games are ****.

I understand the argument, but I'm sure in your turn you appreciate that a claim with no backing doesn't have substance. If casinos have the capacity to prove their software random, but decline, that if anything gives more fuel to the fire, because if they can prove it, why do they not?

There is no need to fix a game with negative expectations for punters.

There is certainly no need. But that hasn't stopped them in the past, and the cases, such as Casino Bar and Odds On, are documented.

Banks,
      yet again you continue to say you have this 'absolute proof' then you are worried about reavealing yourself, now i am a problem gambler, yet whenever someone puts a serious challenge to you, you either divert the debate or come up with some lame excuse that you have all this info which 100% dispels my reasoning but there is yet another reason why you cant divulge it.

I told you to go to hotmail register a new email address which will still ensure you remain 100% anonymous and then email this stuff, incidentally when i put this to you last week, you chose to ignore it.

I also offered you 1k if you could prove beyond any doubt that these machines were 100% Random, 100% of the time after seemingly very quick to respond to my offer, when i probed you further, you then all of a sudden were 'not interested in my money. I then made an offer to you after you said 'noone credible in the industry would ever agree with my points, so i made you another offer that i would show you a sworn affidavit from a software developer who has now left the industry and he has said these machines are NOT random 100%, 100% of the time and when i challenged you to pay ME £1k if i could show you this, again you fail to mention and again you run for cover.

Yoks then enters the debate and again he challenges you and again you 'run for cover' Your data means NOTHING Banks, i have repeatedly told you that, i also told you that the Depoartment of Trade aND iNDUSTRY ANRE INVESTIGATING how data has been compiled over the last few years, for reasons that i have given earlier, again you fail to aknowledge the fact.

Banks i am sorry but your credibility has gone South quicker than a lead balloon,I have made you financial offers, have challenged you prove to me 100% about this statement' These machines are random' and so on and so forth and all you do is come up with excuse after excuse. You can prove nothing Banks, oh i suppose you will come back and accuse me of being confrontational. Banks believe me you are making yourself look stupid. I will show you a signed letter from a Maths professor at Bangor University who has stated. ' The Data compiled on RNG's over the last decade needs reassesssing as in his opinion 'it is unsafe'. I am compiling all this stuff when i eventually go for Ladbrokes, Your words were no one in the industry would say anything detramental to current rules and Legislation, well i will pay you again £1.000 if i cant show this letter and you pay me £1000 if i can show you this statement which was produced last week, what are you gonna say now 'I dont want your money greedydog'

Yoks has challenged you and again you say you have all this data which will make me stop my 'campaign'instantly and you don't want me to waste my time, Dont worrry about my time Banks, THE TIME HAS COME FOR YOU bANKS TO EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

BANKS,
      I HAVE PUT THE TRUE DEFINITION OF 100% RANDOM HERE FOR YOU BECAUSE I AM NOW CONVINCED YOU HAVE NO IDEA TO THE TRUE DEFINING EXPLANATION OF THE WORD RANDOM, RERAD IT AGAIN BANKS:


NO DEFINITE PLAN, OR ORDER,HAS NO SPECIFIC PATTERN, PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE.

GD

IGNORE LAST POSTING BANKS, THESE WERE NOT YOUR WORDS, MY MISTAKE