1994-04-18 - Re: Dirty Laundry…

Header Data

From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 300237fc6c1ce287d8a6333874891534dc863584fd001f3fa0d8d593701ada04
Message ID: <199404182023.OAA07105@bruno.cs.colorado.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-18 20:23:50 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 13:23:50 PDT

Raw message

From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 13:23:50 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry...
Message-ID: <199404182023.OAA07105@bruno.cs.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


  
  Peter Wayner says:
  > In 15 out 16 times, the progressive doubling system will work. 
  
  No, it will not. I invite Mr. Wayner to produce a single demonstration
  of this system working. A suitable test should be easy to set up.

Should be no trouble at all; I would do it myself except that I'm trying
to write a dissertation.  In the interest of "fairness," I suggest the
following (without looking at the numbers).

	Most major newspapers, including the WSJ, list the prices of
various sorts of futures.  I suggest someone simply check the closing
prices of a half dozen futures (gold, silver, oil, wheat, corn, and pick
two at your convenience) on the 1st of January, 1993.  Flip a coin for
whether person A or person B does the buying of $10,000 worth of futures,
then recheck the price on 1 Feb.  If B makes $500 or more, assume the
laundering has worked -- if not, double the investment and recheck on
1 Mar.  If the Martingale scheme works, at least 5 out of the 6 should
have successfully transferred the money by 1 Dec....

	- kitten





Thread