Eliminators - The workup hit men.

Reply #59

jimmy4164 — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:32:05 GMT

I'll assume you are joking here because your previous posts indicate you probably know the difference between beating the lottery and winning the lottery. Did I assume correctly

Reply #58

SkyLine69 — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:30:42 GMT

Wait a minute. If the lottery is not beatable then how do all those people win millions of dollars buying tickets ? Hmmm

Reply #57

SkyLine69 — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:19:04 GMT

Good explanation and I couldn't agree with you more

Reply #56

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:38:15 GMT

Good luck to you too Kola,

I'm looking forward to any tools you might eventually publish here, whether they involve intuition or not. There are many here who seem happiest when they believe they have an edge over the rest of us, and you do give them hope, definitely, maybe.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #55

Kola — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:26:44 GMT

Jimmy,

I am very interested in those multidisciplinary subjects under discussion, and really appreciate alerting me to the site's existence...

As far as highlighting 'intuitive feeling' and saying I understand ...You're too funny! But don't dismiss it so readily. You can look at it scientifically if you want. Its just a feedback loop being broadcast or being processed through you, and it has its own mechanisms that you may not understand. But thats another discussion for the another day.... [ More ]

Reply #54

djjimmyray2007 — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:24:48 GMT

I was wondering if you could explain your system in detail, so that I could undertand it...TRUST ME when I say this....Alot of people that come out with thier systems NEVER.....EEEEEVVVVER explain how they work...They just talk in riddles and riddles, and riddles, and riddles, and riddles....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!! S-P-E-A-K E-N-G-L-I-S-H.....and PLEASE!!!!!!BE SIMPLE ABOUT IT I WOULD SOO BE THANKFUL...I quit asking other people...because all I get is complete sarcasm!!! You could get lost a... [ More ]

Reply #53

LottoBoner — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:00:39 GMT

What is random

Reply #52

LottoBoner — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:00:55 GMT

Reply #51

jimmy4164 — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:48:41 GMT

Kola,

The first comment at Phys on Benford is my opinion as well. I thought you might have been interested in other issues under discussion there. http://phys.org/

You said, I always assert that when numbers are being incorporated in any form or fashion they are doing the best to give you a good idea of the processes involved in any endeavor from corner store transactions to stocks/bonds to even the lottery. Our tools will help tell the story. Tools could be a computer simulation, a Pick 3... [ More ]

Reply #50

Kola — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:06:26 GMT

Thanks for the link Jimmy. It was a good article and the comments at the end are noteworthy. The last comment given seems a bit simplistic on the face of it, but I'll give it a fair turnover. The article reminded me of member Thoths' good LP thread entitled Benford's Law and the Lottery . His thread was inspired by WIN D's posting about Benford's Law. The thread focused on analyzing skips and hits. Here it is: https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/148025

Traditional probability theory and comput... [ More ]

Reply #49

jimmy4164 — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:38:17 GMT

I'm sure a lot of people here would like to know how they might employ this philosophy in their number selection processes. However, I'm afraid the state of our 'limited tools' forces you into the mystical realm with this because I know of no way of applying them to it. I believe traditional probability theory and computer simulations and back-tests are sufficient for answering most of the questions people ask about lottery games.

Evolutionary theory does a good job of explaining most of the... [ More ]

Reply #48

Kola — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:33:22 GMT

Thanks Jimmy,

I read and understood it...As per your link, the focus of my comments were directed on those few 75 winners or rather on Uncle Craig, who represent the few who were able to maintain a winning percentage after five years. Yes, of course its the normal distribution of randomness...if one chooses randomly. You see, the simulations are accurate, but to me they are still lumbering giants that reduce the thing that is being analyzed to flat 2-dimensional quantities. We should be curio... [ More ]

Reply #47

jimmy4164 — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:45:38 GMT

Kola,

What motivated me to start a good-natured dialogue(or rather monologue as it turns out -lol) with you, is highlighted in my original post asking you what your criteria would be for having the kind of success in lottery games, such as the Pick 3, beyond what the odds would dictate.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2850041

What you perceive to be 'outside' is comprehended by the 'inside.'

--Jimmy4164

Reply #46

Kola — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:11:11 GMT

Jimmy4164,

As I anxiously watch the Sands of Time flow down the Hourglass of my Life, I'm gonna spend a little bit more time with this, especially because others may find it mildly interesting.

I mentioned above that nature did function within those odds. No false narrative here. But it also functions outside of them at the same time. I think you may not be able to reconcile how these two can exist in tandem, because it may be a new concept to you. We often use mathematical probabilities... [ More ]

Reply #45

adobea78 — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:04:02 GMT

The concept of randomness can not be discarded when you are predicting.

Reply #44

SergeM — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:30:33 GMT

With elimination it is very simple, you risk to eliminate a few numbers that will be drawn.

If you follow a system that is going forward on after number x, number y must follow, you narrowed your selection, nothing more than that.

Using principles of randomness, you might get problems with predicting. The number of possible combinations is very high and the payout low. Comparing some roulette machine with roulette tables, you just might see a difference where random math does not stick any... [ More ]

Reply #43

jimmy4164 — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:47:36 GMT

Kola,

I said Lottery Players, not Lottery.

Nature is not immune to those odds and yet has functioned with 'precision' for millions of years despite what the ODDS would suggest.

This is the core of your false narrative. Nature has been, and still is, functioning 'precisely' as the ODDS suggest.

People here have paid upwards of $300 for useless software because they believe it gives them a better chance to become rich than those who don't buy the software. I'm sure these pe... [ More ]

Reply #42

Kola — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:57:45 GMT

Jimmy4164,

Profits extracted from lottery... ? What are you talking about? Yes, its true you wouldn't know if my comments were sincere or otherwise, and so I appreciate that your're now a little less heavy-handed with your assumptions. Well just a wee little - lol. I do respect your response above though, but your conclusion is inaccurate. I would not deter people from what I too believe are the same mathematically sound principals you espouse. Those principals are iron clad. I just also bel... [ More ]

Reply #41

jimmy4164 — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:23:15 GMT

Kola,

I am not in a position to determine whether your remarks are motivated by sincere beliefs or a vested interest in profits extracted from lottery players. In either case, by encouraging people to doubt mathematically sound, proven principals, you nurture the environment which infects additional victims with the plague of innumeracy. To me, this is dangerous.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #40

Kola — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:34:45 GMT

Jimmy...Whoa...I don't know what to say to that. Though, thats actually a sweet compliment at the end there - thank you. Even though I've only posted one or twice in the mystical forum in all my time at the LP, I highly respect it. Its close to my heart and even though I'm not too fond of labels, being called a mystic is like calling me by name, and its where I've lived ever since I was a ittle boy. As I can tell by your compliment, my ideas and language can border on the mystical. And yet, I'm... [ More ]

Reply #39

jimmy4164 — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 06:02:11 GMT

Kola, JosephusMinimus, Conscienceless, Et Al,

Smooth. Very smooth. I'll pass.

Although it might be difficult for you to post there simultaneously, I think you would be welcomed with open arms in the Mystical Forum.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #38

Kola — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:34:30 GMT

Hello jimmy4164,

Thanks for responding to my post. I think that you may have me confused with someone else, and may have lumped me with all the people with whom you routinely have pointed vigorous exchanges. I think I've only communicated with JosephusMinimus twice. Once in a thread unrelated to you and once in a PM where we exchanged friendly pleasantries. The only time I ever communicated with you was in your Fooled By Randomness thread where we posted back and forth a few times. Our exchan... [ More ]

Reply #37

jimmy4164 — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:28:18 GMT

Kola,

You and JosephusMinimus make a good team. The two of you worked together to try to discredit me in the past, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would try again.

As for your question about how I would react to a revelation that the lottery is beatable, I'm surprised you would stoop to such conscienceless depths in your dishonest attempts to keep that glimmer of hope alive that the lottery is beatable. As you well know, the fact that the lottery is NOT beatable has been... [ More ]

Reply #36

Kola — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:02:23 GMT

Hello jimmy4164,

I appreciate that your posts generally provide good food for thought even though I don't agree with much of it...

Honestly and whimsically speaking, what if you and the others who share your beliefs found out that the lottery was in fact consistently 'beatable'? Could you readily accept the truism that one could regularly beat the games in such a way that it trumps what statistical mathematics says is possible? Could your rational mind really accept it, even if the plain t... [ More ]

Reply #35

asinglerose — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:10:30 GMT

Lakerben what is your seven day plan

Reply #34

jimmy4164 — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:04:29 GMT

When there is a sense that belief in the beatability of the lottery might be wavering, it's time to resurrect JosephusMinimus!

Here's something for him to nibble on...

Trying To Be Random in Selecting Numbers for Lotto

Reply #33

Momof6 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:03:48 GMT

Thanks for posting this thread JoesphusMinium! I have found this very useful being that I can NEVER pick the correct hit after the numbers are drawn they're staring me straight in my face in my workouts. Now just need to put this to use. Thank you again

Reply #32

adobea78 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:53:38 GMT

You just stay out of my thread if you don't have anything of value or can't hold a civil discussion on any topic.Do you have problem with prose or literature? Remember that the source of all the plus, minus, pi ...... that you inadvertenly abused started with assertions, conjectures and logics before formulated to that sector of mathematics. These reasoning is prose, is poem , is art. I Like civil discussions and debate , devoid of that stay on your thread.

Reply #31

lakerben — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:49:03 GMT

If anyone is seeking attention its you. You have made subtle remarks on why other systems don't work and randomness and your key system is the true way to go. This is why I respond. I never had said my systems were the only way to win. If anyone is immature its you with all this verbage. People are smart enough to choose on their own. I posted the wins because you stated 34 bets were laughable. Reading may help you understand better when you try and refute something. You are confused . I could c... [ More ]

Reply #30

adobea78 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:30:38 GMT

Self-serving and Ego-boasting, do you need to post your 'so called wins', I thought those who benefits from your so called plus/minus...... methods should be the testimonies: ATTENTION SEEKER nothing more or less, Post your Predictions for a week for DISTINCT STATES , that's all it takes. Do not start throwing tantrums like elementary school kid by riveting to only foul language you know,this that not augur well, is a sign immaturity. This a forum to share thoughts and ideals, so keep that in mi... [ More ]

Reply #29

lakerben — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:38:09 GMT

Whats laughable is reading about randomness till the break of dawn. Does it amount ot anything ? Nothing but bs.

And, 34 picks at 50 cents a ticket is $17 dollars. A straight is $500. So, $483 dollars profit is laughable? At $1 a pick its still $466 in profit. So, two straights from my selection in a row for the NJ posters who played them a net profit of $966. Thats not random. I don't care for accolades I'm here to help. No bs just numbers.

Reply #28

adobea78 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:08:16 GMT

Joseph:On my earlier comments, I alluded to 'subsetting' of the Pool(0-9) which is not different from the cycle of draw set towards or in favor certain digits. Some folks argued that, subsetting changes the odds and many digits of the pool is filtered out , but who says the odds should remain as established by the rules, nothing prevents me from creating my odds/probabilities in moments(Look at how probability is defined). Now lets take a step back to sequence formation : the next of sequence 0... [ More ]

Reply #27

adobea78 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:01:18 GMT

Wtg, so you won, who else won, Mr Helper?, hijacking someone's thread with your 'Methods'( I don't call it a system) of arithmetic tools 'plus, minus, pi , diagonal...... is lack of civility! . How many plus and minus methods you plan posting daily? Ego-boasting and self-serving completes you, I suppose, then channel it in a right way by posting PREDICTIONS FOR DISTINCT STATES on the BOARD and stay on your Thread. Playing 38 picks for so called win is laughable.

Reply #26

lakerben — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:32:52 GMT

Like I said I only posted once period. I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

This is from the NJ p3 forum. Lets see if you can read this.

Posted: Today, 1:15 pm - IP Logged ReplyFavorites

Quote: Originally posted by lakerben on March 4, 2013 683 - 138 - 227 - 872 - 221

168 - 838 - 332 - 736

183 - 638 - 727 - 372 - 721

668 - 338 - 832 - 236

633 - 188 - 277 - 822 - 271

118 - 888 - 382 - 786

688 - 133 - 222 - 877 - 226

163 - 833 - 337 - 731

Anoth... [ More ]

Reply #25

LottoBoner — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:51:05 GMT

lakerben: Statistics Summary

Summary

Statistic Current Month Last Month Current Year Last Year Lifetime

Picks 0 0 0 0 709

Hits 0 0 0 0 0

Hit Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Winnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Prize Ratio 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Reply #24

lakerben — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:29:24 GMT

Check the NJ p3 forum I just hit two straight in 2 days . . My systems hit all the time. I used the predictions board once since I've been a member.

However, I have yet to see any system of yours that is posted for people to use. All I see in other threads are weird cartoons full of rambling about nothing.

Reply #23

Kola — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:34:39 GMT

...with everything in your post, especially in the 3rd paragraph. Though I don't think people necessarily look in the wrong places, or take the wrong approaches. Its a little challenging to qualify wrong with this game. If one dives deep, straight, and long enough, which are the conditionals, even in the wrong places and with the wrong approaches, one could still end up 'off-center, which is infinitely better than way off-center. I somehow feel that all approaches are valid, but our vision tends... [ More ]

Reply #22

LottoBoner — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:56:30 GMT

Do you know what else also says nothing? Your prediction statistics.

Reply #21

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:43:10 GMT

JM

I agree that too many have given up looking because some basic math tool says were wasting our time.

There was a time that I thought I was well informed but that was many years ago. Some think they have

become enlightened but I guess they are far ahead of me. The more I learn seems to show me how little

I know.

RL

Reply #20

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:11:42 GMT

Whatever works best for you lakerben. For a dashboard savior you do have a nasty streak to you, don't you, Mr. Helperman? You and I have never exchanged words except on this thread, which you took the trouble to visit and sneer.

It ain't a problem for me. I've seen 'way too many of your kind this lifetime to satisfy my needs. I've no investment here. I give you the forum with my blessings.

Reply #19

lakerben — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:50:04 GMT

It's reckon, not reckons. Its funny you use slang in such a verbose lengthy paragraph that says nothing.

I'm here to help and the day I leave then everyone can read endless drivel that helps no one. If you are so intelligent show us more than just the art of copy/pasting numbers. I've have written many systems to help everyone that wants to use them . If you are jealous,oh well

Reply #18

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:15:49 GMT

adobea: Most of the points have been beaten to death because there haven't been obvious ways of demonstrating conclusively one was right, the other wrong. It all became just a not-quite dead horse to be beaten.

I've been fooling around with it a long time and rather than attempt prognosticating outcomes, I'm trying one out on the Prediction Board, 3/8/2013, all Pick 3 lotteries.

Every day, similarly to the individual lotteries experiencing an ebb and flow of particular numbers we each atte... [ More ]

Reply #17

adobea78 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:53:29 GMT

Thanks for this dialogue. Every dialogue has a missing point that needs to be re-visited

Reply #16

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:50:31 GMT

If you're feeling sleepy lakerben, you could try a mantra using the names of all the 'systems' below your signature, I reckons. Or you could attempt to memorize all of them so's not to have to keep them close at hand for reference.

Gotta wonder if you suppose there's only room on the forum for one person to post threads, everything else being extraneous and a waste of time. And that person happening to be the guy with the shout-it-from-rooftops- Hey everybody! Look at meeee! under his signatu... [ More ]

Reply #15

lakerben — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:43:04 GMT

Reply #14

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:40:03 GMT

Thanks for the reply adobea. You and I don't agree about randomness as it's defined, and the ways it manifests itself [How much elbow-room it's allowed with regard to cyclic behaviors and predictable repititions before it has to surrender the 'randomness' moniker].

I don't happen to believe there's anything random about it, though I'm still open to the possibility I'm wrong. But one of the tasks I've set for myself during what remains of this lifetime is proving to myself, yea, or nay, whethe... [ More ]

Reply #13

adobea78 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:09:14 GMT

I love this dance analogy, this depicts clearly the basic principle of a game of chance: Randomness

We can slice/dice all we can with math tools like arithmetic, randomness is still the 'elephant' in the Room. A close look at this concept shouldn't be negated and should be integral part of any system. I saw a lot of discussions at the 'math forum', between LP members, especially between Jimmy and RL, which was interesting, each member had a valid point, unfortunately, opportunity for dialogue... [ More ]

Reply #12

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:14:14 GMT

Thanks Coin Toss. Nice seeing you're still here with your star system icon. You've been on LP so long there'd be something disturbing about visiting LP without coming across it. Brings a warm red glow to me old heart.

But meanwhile, I'm posting this for the multitudes of devoted followers of the ELIMINATOR System.

Here are the dancing digits shared the floor with Carmen Miranda last night:

PR 2300 P3 Mar 4, 2013 8-3-4

Anyone working up picks for the following lotteries would be well... [ More ]

Reply #11

Coin Toss — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:30:51 GMT

I'm with RL, JosephusMinimus, good to see you posting again.

Reply #10

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:07:22 GMT

Thanks RL. I'm near-dumbfounded seeing you posting. Last I saw of you a guy named Jimmy Somethingorother was hectoring you something awful on the math forum and you were figuring on dropping off the end of the planet [at least as manifested at LP].

Maybe Jimmy carried the math forum away with him when he left, though. Nothing to speak of going on there, though Fibberwhatchallit still gets a bit of hat-tipping, Greenfox continues hammering the internal math and Jade's still working on the wave... [ More ]

Reply #9

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:20:29 GMT

JosephusMinimus

Good to see you posting again

RL

Reply #8

JosephusMinimus — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:22:12 GMT

Lottoboner: I'd be obliged if you'd refrain from using this thread for attacking wossname, lakerben. You can do it on your threads, his threads, or start a whole thread, or show a modicum of class and not do it at all.

If people want to believe lakerben it's nothing to you, nothing to me, nothing at all appropriate for discussion on a different sort of thread such as this one.

Reply #7

LottoBoner — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 12:12:05 GMT

Prove it on the boards! How can anybody believe all your You have a 0.00% hit ratio!!!!! Now thats really

Reply #6

helpmewin — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:34:12 GMT

thanks for posting

Reply #5

JosephusMinimus — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:21:56 GMT

If it works consistently, lakerben, sounds as though there's no need for you to devise another dozen systems to add to the pantheon you list on the bottoms of your posts. You can quit your day job and retire on your winnings, I reckons.

Heck, if you'd used the eliminator piggybacked to it you'd be a something-or-other-aire.

Meanwhile I'll plug along working things as best I can. I've seen hundreds of 'no-bs' systems come and go through here over the years. Haven't heard of most of them for... [ More ]

Reply #4

lakerben — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:31:28 GMT

On the contrary, my 7 days system has hit twice (843,129) since Tuesday and with tonight's draw yet to come. For a $10 bet that's $160 boxed and/or $1000 striaght. No bs just facts.

0 6 1 * 9 7 8

5 7 5 * 8 6 10

6 9 8 * 9 8 3

7 1 1 * 0 0 6

8 3 4 * 1 2 9

9 5 7 * 2 4 2

0 7 0 * 3 6 5

1 9 3 * 4 8 8

2 1 6 * 5 0 1

3 3 9 * 6 2 4

4 5 2 * 7 4 7

Reply #3

lakerben — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:17:17 GMT

If a player could find one state that continually followed another this would work but is it consistant? If not filtering through several states and betting is too expensive for me.

Reply #2

JosephusMinimus — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 01:06:16 GMT

I've never seen 'the' system, lakerben. When an actual system emerges this forum won't have an audience anymore.

I've seen a lot of people offering up methods of attacking a complex problem, generally with less than sublime success if measured in outcomes. This one has the advantage, at least, of plugging into the others to narrow down the possibilities.

Reply #1

lakerben — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:45:02 GMT

What is the system

Eliminators - The workup hit men.

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:33:01 GMT

Most lotteries do a single-digit dance with other preferred lotteries the

following day. Attempting to anticipate which digit will be shared is an

exercise in futility. But using those dancers as a means of eliminating

potential players from a workup is an entirely different matter.

As an example, PR Pick 3 is a prime previous day single-digit dancer with the

following games. It's a Carmen Miranda that won't provide a nickle-worth of

argument in favor of your possible picks.... [ More ]