What Does It Take To Win (Mathematically Speaking?)

Reply #134

Stack47 — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:50:51 GMT

What it proved to me is if I'm going to use a wheel, I should use one with better coverage. I've never matched all 5 numbers using a 3 if 4 wheel but every time I matched 4 numbers I had a four number match. If you can consistently hit 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4, you can make a small profit or play a at greatly reduced cost playing a 5/39 game. I wouldn't recommend any wheel when the game doesn't pay for a 2 number match and only pays $5 for matching 3 and $150 for matching 4.... [ More ]

Reply #133

RJOh — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:13:33 GMT

Before I checked the tickets, I thought I was very successful when 5 of the 15 numbers I chose to play in a 3 if 5 abbreviated wheel were drawn. Disappointment doesn't describe what I felt when I found I only got the wheel guarantee and lost 3 bucks.

Affordable wheels are designed to guarantee a minimum prize if all 5 winning numbers are in them. While winning a $1-$10 prize may feel good, it's no fun knowing you have to spend a lot more than that to win it.

Unless you win a jackpot, whee... [ More ]

Reply #132

Stack47 — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:22:26 GMT

The only value in back testing a jackpot winning system would be to Pumpi who talks about hitting multiple jackpots and winning billions. Since we already know the system was successful once, there is no value in finding the system might have created other jackpot winners from back testing when we can't go back in time and use it.

For lotto and pick-5 games I have a program that shows how many 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 number hits any group of any 16 numbers had over whatever number of past drawings... [ More ]

Reply #131

Stack47 — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:00:01 GMT

No worries, Jimmy will be back as soon as he's done picketing the MM players waiting for their chance to buy a ticket that could be worth millions at his local 7/11. He'll be passing out pamphlets explaining ROI and yelling into a huge megaphone, don't you people understand the true expected value of those tickets? .

Reply #130

mayhem — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:05:39 GMT

Aww man! C'mon, not yet. What the hell am I gonna do with all this popcorn

Reply #129

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:00:33 GMT

Rather than risk the wrath of the boss,

I've decided it's time for me to exit this Thread.

It has ceased to provide any mathematical insights,

and is sinking into absurdity.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #128

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:48:00 GMT

Stack47 says,

What Jimmy knows about lottery players can be summed up by what he said on October 8, 2010.

My only concern is that if too many people have the fog lifted from their eyes as I have, given the parimutuel setup of many of the lotteries, *as jackpots dwindle, more and more people might stop playing, which could spell the end of the lotteries as we know them.

Since his prophetic statement, the MM jackpot has reached $300 million twice!

*emphasis mine

Jimmy4164 says,

Reply #127

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:36:23 GMT

(The quoted text above is my own, Jimmy4164.)

Dear garyo1954,

Well Gary, I have to say I'm sorry again. Sorry that, for some reason, I just don't seem to be able to get my meaning across to you. Now, either your reading comprehension is at a much lower level than I thought, or you are hoping that the others here can't read, because your obfuscation of my post to try to imply that MY lottery ideas were rejected by scholarly journals, is really quite LAME. Did you ever submit yours, or not... [ More ]

Reply #126

Stack47 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:10:32 GMT

Am I right?

Of course you're right and exactly why comparing how a system would do over the lifetime of a pick-3 game is useless. There is a 88 page plus discussion about a pick-3 straight system in the Systems Forum that involves using 4 digits in each digit position. That system evolved from another system discussed by many LP members. Jimmy wanted details so he could back test it using his 33 year PA pick-3 statistics even though the system or how to play it wasn't fully developed.

The... [ More ]

Reply #125

garyo1954 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:42:35 GMT

Jimboo-boo!!!!!!

Did some backtest on this post. If my numbers are right, the verdict is: Go to Systems fo and post a poll to find out what 'normal' systems players do. Pretty sound backtesting, huh?

This just in! You can't backtest Quick Picks! Details at your local lottery terminal. Now for the latest, let's use the 70/30 rule.

70 people have Quick Picks, 30 people have personal picks. A Quick Pick wins. So what do we have?

We have 30 people with personal picks who lost, and 69 peo... [ More ]

Reply #124

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:45:58 GMT

Regardless of what you believe about randomness, seeing into the future, or the relevance of dreams, the fact remains that when it comes to systems claiming to help you win more than Quick-Picks, The Proof Is In The Pudding. When will you face the fact that a proposed system that is not analyzed through back-test or simulation, or fails to do better than chance when it is, is a waste of time and money? I see your latest drivel is focused on your mantras of what true blooded players would and wou... [ More ]

Reply #123

Rick G — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:47:59 GMT

You are an astute one, Mr. J.

If you believe intuitive thinking is more important and is the how of it I'm willing to believe you.

For me personally, the jury is still out on that question. The reason I say that is I have devoted 95% of my effort to analysis and 5% to intuition for these many years. I am only now working with intuition so I haven't experimented enough to make a conclusion.

With that said, I'm very excited about the prospects of the 95% intuitive path. I am still lear... [ More ]

Reply #122

garyo1954 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:27:13 GMT

Stack,

You're right. There are people who do play 'their number' every night. But let's not give Magic Ju-Ju any ideas they are system players. Those people are just doing it for the 'feel good' money. Just a little something to perk up their life. We know it is not with a get rich expectation. We know those people are not sitting with a ledger tracking every penny they spend.

In a Pick3 game playing $500 for a straight hit on a $1 bet, how many tickets would you buy without a hit before... [ More ]

Reply #121

RJOh — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 GMT

I was simply pointing out that even a system after winning a jackpot, except for winning that jackpot would probably not look very impressive when back tested.

(As I posted in another thread)

By design states lotteries are designed so 45-50% of tickets sales is profits for the states. When you consider that 5% go to retailers for selling tickets and another 5-10% goes for advertising and operating cost, players as a group are lucky to get 40% of their money back. To attract more players 30... [ More ]

Reply #120

Stack47 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:00:54 GMT

In a Pick3 game paying $500 for a straight hit on a $1 bet, how many tickets would you buy without a hit before throwing in the towel and trying a different system?

It's questions like this that prove you have no idea of how people play pick-3 or understand the concept of gambling.

Over time every straight 3 digit number will be drawn and systems are designed to predict when the timing is right. There is no guarantee and that's why it's called gambling. Personally if I was going to active... [ More ]

Reply #119

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:41:18 GMT

Thanks Rick. Might not the intuitive side of human thinking, the 'whole brain' thinking be as usefully employed toward identifying the why and how mechanism provided such a thing exists as toward attempting to intuit the results of the next draw?

I agree with you that whole brain thinking is a neglected discipline. But whole brain thinking involves analysis as well as intuition. Can it be called whole brain thinking if a person abandons one in favor of the other? Or if a person favors one ove... [ More ]

Reply #118

Rick G — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:05:20 GMT

JosephusM, I agree that patterns from the past can predict 'rhyming' of the future. We see this happen in our own lives and in the world around us.

If a relationship exists at all between past draws and future draws the 'why' or 'how' mechanism bridging the two might be important as an avenue to better understanding. Otherwise the observer is on the outside attempting to diagnose symptoms, chasing them and attempting educated guesses as to what they might do.

That statement sums it up n... [ More ]

Reply #117

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:18:05 GMT

Good morning RJOH. I enjoy reading your posts.

Can a system that wins a jackpot once but doesn't apply to other past or future draws be called a system? If it predicted a jackpot and a ticket was bought it's a winner by definition. But is a system an animal of a different description

Reply #116

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:50:34 GMT

Hi RickG: Thanks for an interesting post. Drifting things back into the direction of physics seems a positive nudge.

Concentrating on the outcome of the draw seems to me to be what everyone is doing. The personal preference for concentrating on the outcome of the next draw or the outcomes of thousands or possibly millions of draws already past is just a matter of approach and where a person believes the best opportunity for understanding it all can be found. If a person believes there is a re... [ More ]

Reply #115

garyo1954 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:30:24 GMT

Jimbooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Here's a short reminder that discussion is give and take, opinion oriented, and you have not answered the questions asked of you either!!!!

Happy to hear you want to lead 'us' out of the shade, but who's going to lead you out?

IF you do get out of the 'shade,' trip over to Systems fo and see how people play Pick 3.

Most real 'people' use two, three or more systems and compare. You know why?

Oh, forgot you don't answer questions. HINT: It has nothing to do w... [ More ]

Reply #114

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:50:24 GMT

I like your short to the point posts that pack a lot into a few words, sometimes using innuendo.

I'll bet you'd like to agree with some of the things I say, but the peer pressure is too great!

Here's a short thread from 7 months ago. It doesn't deal directly with the question I've been

pushing Stack47 to answer, but it's related.

In subtle ways, it might help lead you from the shade into the sunshine!

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219511

Reply #113

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:33:25 GMT

Yawn!

Your response is not surprising. I've had a few students like you, usually in the back of the classroom. When they were clueless, they would yawn and/or fall asleep. Perhaps a shorter, simpler, question requiring a less precise answer is something you can deal with.

In a Pick3 game paying $500 for a straight hit on a $1 bet, how many tickets would you buy without a hit before throwing in the towel and trying a different system?

Given the countless times you've told me that you k... [ More ]

Reply #112

mayhem — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:00:46 GMT

Anything would work once given long enough.

Reply #111

Stack47 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:36:21 GMT

I've heard some strange and bizarre methods of playing jackpot games, but can't really knock them because as you say It only has to work once .

Reply #110

Stack47 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:27:09 GMT

Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanned it, and posted it here before last night's draw, announcing I selected the number with my new system.

Let's not; the children's make believe forum is on the other side of the Net. If you hurry they may give you a pretend magic wand or a flying carpet.

Then, I made a post in the Pick-3 Forum claiming that my new system is a great performer because I won $500 for an investment of only $1.

Yawn

Reply #109

Stack47 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:15:31 GMT

Did you notice when I mentioned had Jimmy not interrupted Rick's idea for a system it's possible that someone could have won thousands , Jimmy came back with some mumbo jumbo about posting and winning a pick-3 straight QP?

When you backtest something, do you go in with a predisposed outlook? i.e., looking for the failure of the sytem and not at possible tweaks that might make it viable?

Nobody but Jimmy cares if a system didn't work 20 years ago.

Do you use your super secret Magic Ju... [ More ]

Reply #108

RJOh — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:25:27 GMT

If you play the jackpot games and win a jackpot using your system, no amount of backing test is going to convince you that your system didn't work since winning a jackpot is a once in a life time experience for most players. A system that wins a jackpot game only have to work once and it's a winner.

Reply #107

garyo1954 — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:05:55 GMT

For everyone reading this, remember whatJimboo has been asked to do. All the way back on page 6 no less.

Certainly we should add to that and ask: What are your qualifications?

When you backtest something, do you go in with a predisposed outlook? i.e., looking for the failure of the sytem and not at possible tweaks that might make it viable?

Do you use your super secret Magic Ju-Ju on them?

Inquiring morons want to know

Reply #106

jimmy4164 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:43:48 GMT

Stack47,

Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands.

These two sentences reveal the totality of your incomprehension of variance, standard deviation, and probability.

Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanne... [ More ]

Reply #105

Rick G — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:30:54 GMT

Stack, I'll keep posting systems that I think are fun to play around with because I know that you and others will also have fun working with them. Every system I've ever posted has been improved upon. The fun is in the hunt, not the kill. Jimmy's backtesting is a necessary part of the process. One day his rigid backtesting may uncover a real winner. Consider Jimmy as the dose of reality that we all need to stay balanced in our expectations.

Everybody brings something to the table.... [ More ]

Reply #104

Rick G — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:32:00 GMT

Thank you, garyo1954. It's refreshing to see that others understand these concepts. You expressed it very well.

A thermometer has no 'hot' or 'cold' designation. Hot and cold are subjective to the observer and are varying degrees of the same thing, temperature.

This thread is like a discussion of whether it's warm outside or cold outside. An Eskimo may think 32 degrees is pretty balmy but a Floridian would disagree with him.

Reply #103

Stack47 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:27:20 GMT

I wish I could blame Jimmy on my losses, but I can't. I appreciate his efforts in backtesting to prove or disprove systems

Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands. He did the same analysis with a Tic Tac Toe workout suggesting players w... [ More ]

Reply #102

garyo1954 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:30:26 GMT

Great Post RickG! Very lucid.

Nothing is random. True!

One only need look at Fibronacci numbers and their ubiquitous presence in nature to understand that sometimes what we see, is not what we see at all! Pine cones, pineapples, and trees, even the generations of honey bees (I'm a poet, lol) are all testimony to the power of the order of randomness.

Timeis a construct of man which simply gives us a means to place events in some understandable order.

Yes, Mathematics should be a stro... [ More ]

Reply #101

Rick G — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:58:48 GMT

I wish I could blame Jimmy on my losses, but I can't. I appreciate his efforts in backtesting to prove or disprove systems. The last thing we want to do is lead other players astray. I have no probs with Jimmy whatsoever.

My two cents:

As someone wisely posted above, every effect has a cause. The cause is not only 'buying the ticket' but includes everything (e.g., the interaction of atoms on the bouncing balls, the position of the balls before they are scrambled, the timing of the person d... [ More ]

Reply #100

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:36 GMT

Jimmie: No, I'm not pointing to anything to demonstrate the efficacy of systems, no matter what color swans they might be. I'm pointing out that the two members on the top predictors list whom I've mentioned in my recent posts represent a body of evidence arguing there is a fly in the ointment worth unbiased examination as to what it implies.

My readings of your posts here gave me the impression your feet are set in the concrete of what you already believe you know and that your entire appro... [ More ]

Reply #99

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:22:08 GMT

Lotterybraker: Not to say whether I agree or disagree with you carries any weight in the matter of how lotteries and numbers work, because it shouldn't. I have no doubt if you and I knew one another better we'd find we don't agree more than we do.

But while my experience, research and testing certainly doesn't approach what you and others here have probably done, I believe there is a persuasive body of evidence to support your argument that time is of overwhelming importance in understanding... [ More ]

Reply #98

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:53:46 GMT

Hi true critic.

I can see this portion of my recent posts doesn't hold up under backtesting. My enjoyment of life would suffer if I didn't learn more being wrong than I do on those rare occasions when I'm right.

However, my original mention of those prediction statistics wasn't about Rick G. It was about RJOH. He's also at the pinnacle of the top predictor list and he posts on this forum. Rick G came to my notice when Jimmie mentioned him in his post and he seemed to illustrate my earlier... [ More ]

Reply #97

lotterybraker — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:48:09 GMT

I agree with Truecritic here...RickG is one of the good guys here at LP..I am not going to speculate on what system he uses or anyone uses..as a younger man ,,hahahhahaha..when I FIRST JOINED LP..I did a lot of reading and saw what most people were doing or trying to do and I made a VERY BOLD STATEMENT back them..I simplely came out and said..I think everyone of yall are going IN THE WRONG DIRECTION with your system....of course being new here I kinda got slammed...hahahaha

But I held my... [ More ]

Reply #96

truecritic — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:14:21 GMT

His win percent might well be no better than random, I was only pointing out that whatever Rick G used or uses, it most likely wasn't the one particular system that you back tested and didn't prove profitable. I wasn't making a judgment call on his predictions win percent.

Reply #95

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:36:49 GMT

truecritic@ Actually, most of what you said above was true. The fact that his big wins were in the past, and not since the rejection of the subject Pick-3 system, is where I disagreed. However, this was a VERY important point

Reply #94

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:00:37 GMT

Sorry truecritic. I have to disagree with your conclusion.

View the two links above again, the ones pointing to RickG's stats.

You will find that:

His large wins occured PRIOR TO 2010 and his stats for 2010 thru

today show that he is picking at the 50% rate, as expected

Reply #93

mayhem — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:59:16 GMT

JosephusMinimus says, But I concede in advance I'm wrong and you are right.

It's not clear to me what you're wrong about this time.

hahaha. This guy is a genius. You thought it was the right thing to say you were wrong....but even that was wrong! lol. I am very jealous at the level of subtle talent involved in this exchange.

Reply #92

truecritic — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:52:46 GMT

@JosephusMinimus

Apples and Oranges

Not taking sides here. Rick G is definitely one of the good guys. He posted a new system. One that jimmy4164 was able to back test. The results were not profitable.

I don't think Rick G would agree and then continue to use that particular system to mount up his wins in Predictions. I believe he must have used other methods. jimmy4164 didn't do workouts on every single method Rick G might have used, only the new one that was finally rejected by Rick G.... [ More ]

Reply #91

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:40:54 GMT

(Mentioning my work back-testing one of RickG's Pick-3 systems was in no way meant to criticize him.)

JosephusMinimus says, But I concede in advance I'm wrong and you are right.

It's not clear to me what you're wrong about this time.

My viewpoint is supported by the statistics of his prediction history.

Since you seem to be contending that I was wrong when I concluded that one of RickG's Pick-3 systems was not a winner using a 20+ year back-test, then you are WRONG again. BTW, he... [ More ]

Reply #90

JosephusMinimus — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:48:57 GMT

Jimmie: I gave you my word I wouldn't war with you. I conceded that and all future exchanges we might have to the correctness of whatever you might post when weighed against anything I might post.

I didn't say I wouldn't comment on your posts. I only conceded that whenever we disagree on anything I accept the inevitability that you are right and I am wrong.

Which is to say that I am absolutely wrong in my conviction that you have absolutely nothing to teach Rick G about lotteries, lottery... [ More ]

Reply #89

garyo1954 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:35:05 GMT

Jimboo-boo!!!!!!!!!!!

Now we're definitely making progress! You're not making claims, not disproving claims, not answering questions, not stating fact, not presenting evidence, not investigating possibilites, not offering opinion......SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Did I read this right? Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju talking.... I have not claimed...... and then....

What I HAVE done is rightfully claimed....

Can we all get some of this Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju? Must be good stuff if you can make sense of... [ More ]

Reply #88

mayhem — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:30:37 GMT

How many times? Never. If I'd started at the beginning of the universe (big bang) until now there would still be a several trillion year shortfall to give sufficient time.

I don't quite follow which theory you say I do or do not follow. I can tell you though that playing 60~120 predetermined combinations in the last 30 draws in Texas I would have had 5~7 straight wins just by playing the edges of the bell curve. Turn it upside down and it better represents the money pit that it is. By playin... [ More ]

Reply #87

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:55:33 GMT

Whether these prize ratios translate to a real world backtestable winning method remains to be seen.

It also appears this was NOT the result of winning Pick-3s.

https://www.lotterypost.com/predictions-statistics.asp?i=1675 r=3

I took you at your word when you said you had no more interest in what I had to say.

I'm fine with that.

Reply #86

JosephusMinimus — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:48:54 GMT

You must have left something intact. Rick G:

He has predicted 71,000+ draws and has a 2.06% hit ratio combined with 122.25% prize ratio.

Last year he had a 50.41% prize ratio. This year he has a 73.31% prize ratio.

Maybe you need to point out some other flaws in his methods. Whatever methods he was left with after you dismantled him through reasoning and logic.

Reply #85

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:34:31 GMT

P.S. I also helped RICKG determine that one of his CONJECTURES was false:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106/1765400

Reply #84

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:45:28 GMT

I'm really sorry for my apparent inability to transfer my meaning to your mind with my words. My proclamation that I have no way to beat the lottery is not new and is in no way an apology to RL-RANDOMLOGIC. I have nothing to apologise to him for.

In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims...

Sorry, WRONG again!

You may not be sure what you believe about randomness, but I had hoped you could at least be logical, o... [ More ]

Reply #83

JosephusMinimus — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:34:12 GMT

Mayhem: Thanks for the reply.

I didn't intend to suggest a random number of balls or numbers must be drawn within a random matrix for probability theory to be expected to apply if probability theory applies at all. If that were the case your post would reveal a basic flaw in all lottery systems overlooked when they were designing their systems.

The statement, even though the past isn't influencing future draws directly, it does help to view the past to see what is statistically relevant to... [ More ]

Reply #82

mayhem — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:21:43 GMT

Just because it's random doesn't mean that the likelihood of certain results can't be predicted. Since the lottery is a controlled system it has some finite parameters to work within and therefore output from. For instance we know that three numbers are going to be drawn each time. We know a certain percentage of numbers are going to fall into a certain category (HHL, OOE) over time, consistently. We know the lottery will follow a bell curve. There are many many things we know will happen in the... [ More ]

Reply #81

JosephusMinimus — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:25:30 GMT

Hi Gary. You didn't address that final question to me but I'd like to comment on it.

Lotterybreaker's posts step into territory that doesn't get much discussion here except in the form of tunnel vision assertions striking at the foundations of any justification for this forum, the lottery systems forum and all the other forums on this site not devoted to news, prize values and gossip about winners.

The lotteries are based on the premise no relationship exists between any draw results of th... [ More ]

Reply #80

garyo1954 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:47:45 GMT

Why Yes, Jimboo!!!!!

I am making NO claims. I CAN NOT beat the odds of the lotteries.

I will be more than happy to pass along your apology to RL. Being the gentlemen he is, he will understand your deep regrets, renunciation of floundering and obfusication and accept it with a smile.

I'm extremely pleased that we could clear this up in such a timely and easy manner. In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims and a... [ More ]

Reply #79

mayhem — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:19:31 GMT

You'd make more money giving the secret away than keeping it or selling it..lol.

Reply #78

lotterybraker — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:25:54 GMT

You are most welcome..I did want to mention or add one other thought..

This may come off wrong..maybe even sound egotistical..it is not my intention...I dont really share what I call classified knowledge..that 85 % knowledge that I have accumulated over the past 20 years..my code I use..how I design my numerical runs through the past...everything I have discovered that is of numerical sigificance I do not share ..its nothing personal to anyone here at LP and I have said that before..

Reply #77

JosephusMinimus — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:52:49 GMT

Hi Lotterybraker. No, I don't think you are full of anything. I plan to read your post carefully and consider whether anything in it gives me a better understanding about what interests me.

Thanks for the lengthy reply.

Reply #76

lotterybraker — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:20:40 GMT

No...you dont know much about RANDOMNESS..BUT I DO..I have been studying it over 20 years and believe me..I know random very well..In fact,I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM...the next 5 % will be all KNOWN VARIABLES that pertains to the event in question..no matter what it is..lottery, bank robberies, earthquakes YOU name it...the very LAST 10% OF FINITE RANDOM will be the NATURAL ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT of all the variables...because that will give you the exact TIME of everything!!!!!1

Reply #75

mayhem — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:49:26 GMT

I have a system that can easily beat the lottery. This whole week I haven't played one ticket.

Reply #74

jimmy4164 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:22:02 GMT

Gareeeee!!!!!

...you would take up the task of proving your theory with facts.

My Theory? Methinks you need to pay more attention to the details. If you note the context and my posts regarding nelson1's post, you'll discover I have made no claims that require any proof. It's widely known that random sequences have measurable properties that vary depending on the methods used to generate them. Cycle length of these sequences is an important one for lotteries. I am getting quite weary of b... [ More ]

Reply #73

Jordans121 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:45:45 GMT

Lottery Braker has stated this over and over and he is absolutely right. I look back in his long,long ago posts and he explains this well but you have to read it first. LB is one of the best predictors on LP in my opinion, I take him at his word and you should too. Besides, Ive tried almost every way that is possible other than LB's way because it is too time consuming and plus I have my own strategies.

Reply #72

RJOh — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:15:08 GMT

If you win or lose a lottery then it's 'cause you bought a ticket.

Reply #71

mayhem — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:11:41 GMT

I don't see how it is possible to have an outcome that had no cause.

Reply #70

JosephusMinimus — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:08:02 GMT

Lotterybraker: I don't think we know much about randomness at all. We know quite a lot about something we call probabilities and treat probabilities as though they intrude or exist in an environment we call randomness. The great majority of people who have advanced degrees in math or science agree randomness exists and many have attempted to quantify how it appears in the habitat that has been created for it.

But the underlying question of whether randomness actually exists goes a lot deeper... [ More ]

Reply #69

lotterybraker — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:20:53 GMT

oh trust me..I can do it more than JUST SOMETIME...that field I used for Illinois is my repeating field I designed, ie 089 twice..and when 1 starts ,one or more of them should repeat as well..I have briefly demonstrated this new run to my fellow LP members in the past several months..this is nothing new..but it is the best run I have ever designed and it works wonderful!!!! I see you are a new member..you have lots of reading to catch upon...!!!!!

and RANDOM IS NOT MATH..it is completely... [ More ]

Reply #68

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:35:06 GMT

Thanks for an interesting post lotterybreaker. It's news to me that anyone has discarded time as an element of any random issues. But I think you're right that it can probably be solved. I just doubt anyone will solve it using high school math.

But you are the one who predicted some pick 3 draws sometime. Congratulations.

Reply #67

Jordans121 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:12:15 GMT

Remarkable layout of thought. I've been saying this for a very long time. All numbers will eventually show so if you say 555 is coming out then you are right, it will make its way in the future . However, one needs to have a time frame in order to come away with a profit. You probability is better when you play a single number like 137. I wonder if you know what the hottest number in your Pick3 states history. Take that number and play it or play the pairs from it. You will be surprised.

Reply #66

lotterybraker — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:01:50 GMT

what does it take to win Mathematically SPEAKING?

and the answer is .....NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can not use Math for RANDOM..sorry if you and your friends are under some dilusion that you can..but you can not..and I would also like to say CONGRATULATIONS to any of you that have paid money at some University and acquired some knowledge in probability, statistics, law of large numbers..I think the list could go on for a little while..hopefully you will understand

here i... [ More ]

Reply #65

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:07:56 GMT

RL sprinkled with a little RNG seems to be the only thing going on here. I don't know enough about what RL was doing to run tests worth the trouble, but I'll admit to doing some testing on the basic concept splitting double digit numbers as they occur from the perspective of random and non random. I've only done it on two 5/39 games and I only tested for the numbers 4 through 9.

The results weren't earth-shaking and any apologists for statistical randomness wouldn't be impressed, but those nu... [ More ]

Reply #64

RJOh — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:01:13 GMT

I agree, in fact states walk a thin line when they release news about players winning multiple jackpots along with a warning that players should play responsible. They are saying players who spend a lot win more and losers who spend a lot lose more but their main mission is to increase sales and hopefully with folks who have more disposable income to waste.

My response to your comments about Gail Howard was to note that while she claims to have won some money playing lotteries she never claim... [ More ]

Reply #63

RJOh — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:52:13 GMT

That was done a few years back in the Virgina lottery when it was a 6/40 games and the cash value of its jackpot exceeded the odds of winning it. The group that did it took over terminals at 3 seven/eleven stores for three days and attempted to play all the possible combinations. They were the only jackpot winners and with other smaller prizes won, they made a nice profit.

After that most states changed their rules so no one person or group could control their lottery terminals more than 15 m... [ More ]

Reply #62

garyo1954 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:25:09 GMT

Jimbooo!!!!

Great concept.

How can you expect people to check out your most often worthless links to which you offer no background or opinion and yet, when someone points you to specific locations where you can get the necessary information and tools to answer your own questions, you have no time to do it?

Naturally, if you agree with nelson1, and assume there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods, you would take up the task of proving your theory with f... [ More ]

Reply #61

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:48:10 GMT

RJOH - The public motive behind government involvement in lotteries isn't out of step with the motives behind the people who exploit the fact it exists as an institution to make money from it indirectly. Government lottery operations are there to persuade the population to voluntarily contribute money to ultimately be spent by governments on government priorities. In order to do that the lottery administrations have to maintain enough of a level of security in their methods and operations to pro... [ More ]

Reply #60

Jordans121 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:13:44 GMT

You can win any lotto if you have hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even then there is no computer to compile all of these numbers and who in the Hell is going to type them out in a timely manner......NO ONE.

Reply #59

jimmy4164 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:08:10 GMT

Thanks for the tip garyo1954. If I have time, I'll check it out. I'm pretty busy these days and was hoping one of the experts here might take up the task of answering the question prompted by nelson1's earlier posting. I.E., he assumes there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods. I agree with him. Perhaps you can follow your references above, apply them to various results here at LP, and get back to us with your findings.

Sorry to hear about poor RL. I'm surpri... [ More ]

Reply #58

garyo1954 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 04:51:36 GMT

Jimbooooooo!!

The question was: On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means are another whether they are the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?

Seems to be a simple yes or no. Why the mish-mash of what you remember, and where data might be available and link to obfuscate the topic? Can't you just say 'No'without feeling inadequate?

You mentioned hints. Here's one: Search 'Statistical Rando... [ More ]

Reply #57

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:08:29 GMT

Thanks Jimmie. I accept the withdrawal of your apology. My imagination is involved in matters I judge to be worth the trouble.

You and I don't have enough in common to bother warring with one another. Neither of us has grounds for hostility. I concede the game to you and forfeit any future ones so we don't have to play them.

Reply #56

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:12:35 GMT

I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient. I don't place enough value on it to care.

Sometimes I make the mistake of skimming parts of a post that I ultimately reply to. I did that in this case. My second reading of the above forces me to retract my earlier apology to you. Use your imagination to think of what more I might add in the absense of moderation.

Reply #55

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:58:41 GMT

How would you know the difference even if the details of the computer program were known?

I remember reading papers describing methods to calculate a randomness score of sets of variables to determine which set was the most random. However, I just put measures of randomness into the Google search box, and got tired trying to find what I vaguely remember. Try it - maybe you can find something useful.

The data is available here at LP to enable one to compare the results of ball drops and co... [ More ]

Reply #54

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:56:01 GMT

I didn't feel attacked by your post. I just happen to think that new readers may have been mislead by your statement that no one was claiming big wins with system play. Why do you feel such a need to defend the person who left the empty space?

I happen to agree with you that the lotteries are sufficiently random for the number of objects they manipulate. But you must be aware that there are many here who believe the computerized draws are rigged in a way that they can be predicted. Not too fa... [ More ]

Reply #53

JosephusMinimus — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:38:53 GMT

Jimmie: I don't find what you believe to be truth inconvenient. I don't place enough value on it to care.

Nobody is attacking you. I didn't say anything about RL in my post. I didn't say anything about you in my post.

On to matters about lotteries and related subjects, are you able to examine a set of lottery draws and determine by one means or another whether they were the result of a pseudo-RNG, any RNG, or dropped balls?

I ask because you made a distinction and seemed to consider it... [ More ]

Reply #52

JosephusMinimus — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:27:17 GMT

RJOH: I might have misread the post. Or maybe the person who made the post misread what he or she thought was claimed. Thanks for correcting me. I didn't intend to convey belief or disbelief about the original claim, but I actually didn't believe it.

On the other hand, the Texas news has said a lot about the Ex-Texas woman with a PHD in math and her winnings in Texas. I don't doubt her wins and I haven't seen anything quoting her as saying she had a system.

Reply #51

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:24:27 GMT

You're probably right with your unoccupied space metaphor. However, I don't think I was being demeaning. I thought my references quoted above were appropriate, given your statement that such claims must be well hidden. If I'm guilty of anything, it's pointing out an Inconvenient Truth! The quotes above speak for themselves. They were, For the Record.

I don't desire warfare. If it appears that way, it's because I'm not a pacifist. When I'm attacked, I retaliate. My goal is to pursue truth, wh... [ More ]

Reply #50

JosephusMinimus — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:32:55 GMT

Jimmie: I don't know what RL did do nor what he didn't do. Neither do you. He hasn't posted in a while and from the time he quit a lot of others have made claims of their own about the systems they are working on. If you miss the daily warfare with RL you might consider one of those. Firing your ammunition at the space RL occupied can't damage him. Live targets are out there you can be unpleasant and demeaning toward.

Reply #49

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:04:54 GMT

During the time that I made 814 posts at this website, you made 9. Who's been hiding

Reply #48

Maryland — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:46:51 GMT

For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend. I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines. I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in one day. I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pays $1.00. RL-RANDOMLOGIC, February 25, 2011

Boy do you need a life, you don't give up. You like pushing buttons and then hide behind LP's Chief Bottle Washer Geesh, your poor soul.

Reply #47

jimmy4164 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:38:40 GMT

JosephusMinimus,

You said, From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players. If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden.

It must have slipped your mind, because fairly recently, it's been claimed and well publicized:

For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend. I play between 25 and 35 times a year... [ More ]

Reply #46

RJOh — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:18:39 GMT

Sometime back I also read about Gail Howard winning so many lotteries that she allowed her winning tickets to accumulate before cashing them so I reasoned that they must have been small wins. I've never read about her winning any jackpots.

I assume when lottery systems sellers like Gail Howard, Steve Players and others need to have a bunch of winning tickets to sell their systems, they can afford to buy a large group of tickets and write their loses off as a business expense. They obviously... [ More ]

Reply #45

garyo1954 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:46:16 GMT

Wouldn't overthink this since what we term 'true' random numbers are only 'true' random if they fit the expected perception of statistical randomness. Random ends whenever we determine something must pass a statistical analysis to be random.

That's not to say you can't take a set of random numbers and determine parameters, but you can't go in with the idea that random must fit the prameters you decide prior. It wouldn't be random if it did.

The curiosity of discussing pseudo-random and 'tr... [ More ]

Reply #44

JosephusMinimus — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:04:00 GMT

From a strictly practical perspective the lottery administration is doing a sufficient job if players can't predict the results of future draws to gain advantages over other players. If anyone anywhere is able to do that they've kept it well hidden. A few repeated jackpot winners are around and one of them has a PHD in math. If she has anything more than a a luckier streak than other players she doesn't admit to it and she hasn't been in the news lately. Some of her wins were high value scratche... [ More ]

Reply #43

RJOh — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:58:29 GMT

pseudo-random vs [attempted] truly-random

How would you know the difference even if the details of the computer program were known?

I looked at the last 598 MegaMillions drawings which used ball machines for five years and 600 MM combinations generated by the LP QP generator in a few seconds and both groups had numbers that had hitted 50% more than others and number distribution patterns that were more popular than others which were unique to each group.

According to Todd, https://www.... [ More ]

Reply #42

jimmy4164 — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:21:51 GMT

What about the question of pseudo-random vs [attempted] truly-random computerized drawings? The report-card page doesn't address that.

Reply #41

RJOh — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:56:01 GMT

I don't know what the breakdown across the country is as far as mechanical ball drop vs computerized draws goes.

That data is available at https://www.lotterypost.com/lottery-report-card.asp

but I suspect most players are only interested if it applies to the games they play. In my state of Ohio all games except keno use ball machines.

Reply #40

jimmy4164 — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:54:37 GMT

I don't know what the breakdown across the country is as far as mechanical ball drop vs computerized draws goes. Of the computerized draws, I've never read any mention by a lottery of whether they are using a pseudo-random number generator or an attempt at pure randomness. So, your decision to assume pseudo-random may make it hard to find a game to test your idea on, one where you can be assured of its RNG type. Regardless, it sounds like a good way to keep your programming skills honed.... [ More ]

Reply #39

nelson1 — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:04:09 GMT

Jimmy4164:

I've been reading your posts and am pleased. So, am going to share my thought: if we consider that the lottery is based on pseudo-random numbers, as opposed to pure random numbers, what short and long runs mean is zero; if the database is consistent, the predictions can become accurate. So, am very interested in the idea of the short run.

At present, I am testing my idea of stabilizing the database, so as to increase my level of accuracy. I know it sounds insane, but I'll keep... [ More ]

Reply #38

garyo1954 — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 04:05:34 GMT

Jimboooooooooo!!!!!

Got in a fight with a can opener. It almost cut my finger off! Good thing it wasn't the one I use for typing!!!

But have you ever thought when buying a lottery ticket, you are making a prediction, or letting the computer make the prediction for you?

Have you ever thought prediction is what probability is all about?

Prediction is what Monte Carlo simulations are all about.

I'd post a link, but there are still on the grill.

Reply #37

dr san — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:43:25 GMT

Hello, you're right in the study of repetitions, because they tend to have to find balance

Output the results, the problem is knowing when a pair and will return in a trio with whom

Because the cycles are repeated, if you get number 49 and put colors in a lottery of 49 / 6

Some colors come out more than others, just as if it had numbers, because there is a relationship of conflict between the balls depending on the size of the lottery, the size of the lottery

Determines the degree of... [ More ]

Reply #36

butch2030 — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:36:44 GMT

Hello Dr San,

If I recall, I just did a set of Combos Patterns for you on the Brazil Dupla Sena 1 2 this past week. I believe in the output I had 118 groups that made up approx 48% of the total drawings. Here again, it showed that past history does repeat itself. Certain groups of numbers do come in more often than others. This is a fact that I have proven time time again.

Good Luck Best Wishes

Reply #35

butch2030 — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:29:43 GMT

Just about all the combinations patterns I find in a given game have either been posted on PICK5 or Jackpot Games Forum. All my post begin with Combos Patterns. I have found combinations patterns in every game that I have looked at. I only look at PICK5 and Jackpot games.

Good Luck Best Wishes.