- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 10:41 pm
You last visited
June 5, 2026, 12:00 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
I have developed a method to play Jackpot Games.Prev TopicNext Topic
-
Hi Igrok,
My first post here. Just bought the Kindle version of your book yesterday. Must compliment you on the quality of your work! I like the utterly mathematical approach. Such a relief to read a book that makes complete sense.
I do a fair bit of Excel VBA programming and it should be fun to implement your ideas. Hopefully in a few days time, I'll be able to post some results here.
Cheers,
PH
-
welcome aboard PH!!!... glad to hear that... thanks a lot... looking forward into an opportunity to see the results of your independent research on the issue... hope it will work for you just fine...
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
-
Quote: Originally posted by LA Igrok on Jun 5, 2018
hahaha... what a great news!!!... it seems you just won 500 bucks... I hope it's not a fluke and from now on you will be able to do it on a regular basis...)))
Bah. It looks like it was coincidence. The way I was selecting combinations to play, it was backing me into combinations that were very similar to the previous draw. The previous draw was 163 . . . and I played (and hit) 162.
-
Quote: Originally posted by mitachoo on Jun 5, 2018
Bah. It looks like it was coincidence. The way I was selecting combinations to play, it was backing me into combinations that were very similar to the previous draw. The previous draw was 163 . . . and I played (and hit) 162.
I'm very glad of your initial success!... congratulations!... but one time doesn't count... I would like you to be able to do just that on a daily basis one day...)))
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
-
Quote: Originally posted by mitachoo on Jun 5, 2018
Bah. It looks like it was coincidence. The way I was selecting combinations to play, it was backing me into combinations that were very similar to the previous draw. The previous draw was 163 . . . and I played (and hit) 162.
Oh, the irony . . . I played CT's Evening Pick 3 draw in the same "flawed" manner I played the midday draw, but despite that I ALMOST hit it (got 2 of 3 in position) because the evening draw, like the midday draw, had 2 of 3 numbers repeated, in position, from the previous draw! Weird . . .
-
Question for anyone who has knowledge of number cycling. The Ga mid is currently at 52 skips for completing the cycle,max is 53 for 100 draws, missing digit is 6 in P3. Is there a way to calc the odds?
-
Funny you said that. As far as I know, you won once and it was enough to right a book about it :)))
But, seriously, I bought the book as well, and reading it now. And it does make a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing it even in the book format.
However, what makes me wonder, is why, after the first win you do not test it further? Well, we all sort of testing it now, but it seams that we do it in a very weird way. It is like we collectively shot ourselves in the leg by testing it only with mere 10 lines a time. Wouldn't it make much more sense to do it differently? You told it yourself once: "
let's say in case of pick 5 out of 39 from the original odds of 1: 575.757 down to something like 1:3.000 with very high degree of probability that the actually played combination will be within those 3.000... it may vary though depending on the current situation... once I myself narrowed it down to about 1:200 and didn't win a jackpot just because I had to keep my money management principals of not spending more than 40 bucks per draw intact... so, I had a 1:5 chance to win it and didn't by hitting only a second prize instead...
If you, (or we, in our case) lost, it doesn't really matter if it was 1:5, or 1:575.757 chances. Bottom line, we do not win, but at the same time we didn't really tested the system as well. Because, at list in my view, testing the system would be generating those 200 numbers on paper, or even better, on this thread prior the draw, without actually buying the tickets. Well, no one could prevent you to stick to your principles and to buy 10 combinations, or 20, and try your luck with that reduced number of combinations. But with those 200 combinations pin pointed and published before the draw, (or 3000, if needed), we would have much better testing than with 10 lines a time.
Understandable, it might be a little bit difficult to publish 3000 combinations, but they can be in a file that anyone can download?
Is it just the time constrain to generate all of those 3000 combinations? But we have several forum members that already applied your principles in their software. Could it be done this way? Because, again, you yourself said once that you would love to automate the process in a software, that would do all of the analyzing, number counting and possibly even line generation for you. Again, understandably, software would generate and produce large number of combinations with high probabilities and it would be up to an end user to pick just few of them to play. So, it shouldn't be the case where users will necessary end up with the same combinations, possibly sharing the jack pot.
Again, 1:3.000 with very high degree of probability is still 3000 combinations, and I wouldn't expect someone to play 3000 lines at once. Nevermind 2 or even 3 people doing it at the same time. (Which would be required to win and share the JP)
Would love to hear your thoughts on it
-
I hope everybody understand that I was just kidding.
"Funny you said that. As far as I know, you won once and it was enough to right a book about it :)))"
I do know the difference between Pick 3 and Pick 5
Sorry, Igor, if it came out somewhat disrespectful. No disrespect intended
-
Quote: Originally posted by Cobra555 on Jun 6, 2018
Funny you said that. As far as I know, you won once and it was enough to right a book about it :)))
But, seriously, I bought the book as well, and reading it now. And it does make a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing it even in the book format.
However, what makes me wonder, is why, after the first win you do not test it further? Well, we all sort of testing it now, but it seams that we do it in a very weird way. It is like we collectively shot ourselves in the leg by testing it only with mere 10 lines a time. Wouldn't it make much more sense to do it differently? You told it yourself once: "
let's say in case of pick 5 out of 39 from the original odds of 1: 575.757 down to something like 1:3.000 with very high degree of probability that the actually played combination will be within those 3.000... it may vary though depending on the current situation... once I myself narrowed it down to about 1:200 and didn't win a jackpot just because I had to keep my money management principals of not spending more than 40 bucks per draw intact... so, I had a 1:5 chance to win it and didn't by hitting only a second prize instead...
If you, (or we, in our case) lost, it doesn't really matter if it was 1:5, or 1:575.757 chances. Bottom line, we do not win, but at the same time we didn't really tested the system as well. Because, at list in my view, testing the system would be generating those 200 numbers on paper, or even better, on this thread prior the draw, without actually buying the tickets. Well, no one could prevent you to stick to your principles and to buy 10 combinations, or 20, and try your luck with that reduced number of combinations. But with those 200 combinations pin pointed and published before the draw, (or 3000, if needed), we would have much better testing than with 10 lines a time.
Understandable, it might be a little bit difficult to publish 3000 combinations, but they can be in a file that anyone can download?
Is it just the time constrain to generate all of those 3000 combinations? But we have several forum members that already applied your principles in their software. Could it be done this way? Because, again, you yourself said once that you would love to automate the process in a software, that would do all of the analyzing, number counting and possibly even line generation for you. Again, understandably, software would generate and produce large number of combinations with high probabilities and it would be up to an end user to pick just few of them to play. So, it shouldn't be the case where users will necessary end up with the same combinations, possibly sharing the jack pot.
Again, 1:3.000 with very high degree of probability is still 3000 combinations, and I wouldn't expect someone to play 3000 lines at once. Nevermind 2 or even 3 people doing it at the same time. (Which would be required to win and share the JP)
Would love to hear your thoughts on it
I think your questions are quite legit and I will answer them in the same order you asked them...
- I couldn't apply the identical strategy to play and win next time as there was no identical situation in the game since then... similar - yes, but not identical... at the time of the win allowed me to narrow all the probabilities down to just about 30 combinations with almost 100% of the probability to win... but that was the best shot so far... the next best I described as well and you posted this quotation in red...
- the quote from the book that you reposted here in red is exactly what actually happened... in that case it was not a matter of defining the field of possibilities ( which I did correctly) but only the matter of discipline... I have been professionally gambling for a living for 25+ years... and that has been my only significant source of income for all those years... I would have been long out of business and broke in case I would have had allowed myself to violate my own safety rules for whatever reason and no matter how promising such a single bet looked like at any given moment... in this particular case I consciously had to cut the number of chosen combinations down in order to the fit my intended budget... that's it... there was no other reason to miss such a promising opportunity to win another JP... but listen, I already used to win and lose tens of millions of dollars and for me one time more or less doesn't matter much for as long as my overall balance stays positive... this is not the same like 99.99% of you guys play lotteries... for most of this forum members it's just a recreational activity but for me it's THE job and THE profession... sure, playing lotto is currently only a hobby of mine but it doesn't mean I have to lose my mind completely while doing something that I don't actually have to do...
- nobody prohibits you or anyone else from posting all the hundreds, thousands or millions of combinations here... get yourself a premium membership and enjoy your personal coocoo.. but what the point of doing that?... most of people don't like or understand math, some pinheads even think that it's not even necessary and the only legit science about numbers and in the game of numbers can be replaced with some sort of intuition or "guts feelings"... apparently they are out of their minds believing that the First Amendment provides quite a solid constitutional ground for such a behavior...)))) but being crazy or just stupid is not against the law either... besides, who is gonna read your posts containing thousands lines of combinations and for what reason people might be willing to do that?...
- there is a simpler way to let people here know about the number of possible combinations that you have come up with... just mention the structure you project for the next incoming draw in each particular case plus the additional filters applied and it becomes obvious for anyone interested in the info you're posting here... that's the easiest way to let other people know about the probability you are dealing with at any particular moment...
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
-
Quote: Originally posted by LA Igrok on Apr 19, 2018
File size 2620 KB... in printed version should be more than 130 pages... there I consider and suggest three different types of strategies calling them "proactive", "active" and "reactive"... in my opinion, the mathematical odds can be narrowed down by about 150 times in average... let's say in case of pick 5 out of 39 from the original odds of 1: 575.757 down to something like 1:3.000 with very high degree of probability that the actually played combination will be within those 3.000... it may vary though depending on the current situation... once I myself narrowed it down to about 1:200 and didn't win a jackpot just because I had to keep my money management principals of not spending more than 40 bucks per draw intact... so, I had a 1:5 chance to win it and didn't by hitting only a second prize instead...
Thank you for your detailed reply. In red was actually a quote from your post on page 2 of this thread, I didn't take it from your book.
However, many questions are still remain.
"the quote from the book that you reposted here in red is exactly what actually happened... in that case it was not a matter of defining the field of possibilities ( which I did correctly) but only the matter of discipline..."
How do you define that you did it correctly? (Again, I am not asking it to take you down, it just would help all of us to better understand it).
When you are saying that you brought the odds down to 1:200, in my understanding, that we could generate 200 combinations and winning combination should be inside of those 200? And again, we all understand that this was Unique situation, that might never occur again. Similar to it, might be, but not exact.
So, my question would be, those 200 combinations, is it because you narrowed down numbers in play from 39 to 10, for example, or 12? and i mean number of balls. And 200 combinations would be available total combination that we can compile with those 10 or 12 ball? Or you are in fact operate with combinations, and you had a list of 200 combinations that would contain much larger number of balls? 15, 20, or even 30? And I do understand that we work with twin and triple numbers, so your chosen combinations could revolve around those twins and triplets?
And "so, I had a 1:5 chance to win it and didn't by hitting only a second prize instead..." all we know that you missed one number. But we do not know if the number you missed was indeed within the numbers you anticipate?
While if, indeed, those 200 combinations would be published, it would be much easier to see that the system works.
As we say it it Russia: Paper will endure all.
"I would have been long out of business and broke in case I would have had allowed myself to violate my own safety rules for whatever reason and no matter how promising such a single bet looked like at any given moment..."
You become financially responsible for any bet only when you put your own money into it. And it is very easy to make your point without actually spending a dime
" besides, who is gonna read your posts containing thousands lines of combinations and for what reason people might be willing to do that?...
we all know what happened even in California, when gold was discovered in 1848. (or in Canada). People didn't come only form the rest of US, but from abroad as well. Spending months and vast amounts of money only for a chance to be involved.
And if you said it works and prove is here (Somewhere on this forum), reading thousands of lines of combinations would be much, much easier than to travel to California. (especially in those days.) And it would become a precious resource for many people for whom it would be much easier to understand your system with the example of combinations you've provided.
"there is a simpler way to let people here know about the number of possible combinations that you have come up with... just mention the structure you project for the next incoming draw "
As far as I can read in this thread, no one was able to pinpoint even a structure so far. Again, because we all bet with our own money to it. Publish what we actually paid for. And not extended version of what we think could be possible in terms of combinations and structures. Understandable, conditions of every draw is unique, and we shouldn't expect the odds of it to come down significantly that often. And it should be understandable also that narrowing the odds down to 1:3000 would be and could happen much more often, than narrowing them to 1:200.
This is from your book: Two days later, on July 10, 2017, I hit a jackpot!!!
We are in June of 2018 now. 11 months. Almost. More than 300 draws of Fantasy 5. And I do understand that we have very limited data so far. it is 11 month of you playing your system (Again, we can only assume that you played while writing your book), or you did not?
And your book become available to the public only on April 21, 2018. So very few people were able to understand and implement it so far. This is why the data is so limited. But my point is we are all rushing it, betting on it with our money, instead of conducting much larger test with bigger number of combinations and strictures. On Paper. Or, on this very forum. And again, we all hope to land to a JP at any moment, but with such limited combinations published/played/tested, how long it might actually take?
in your case, it's 300 opportunities that are lost. And time constrain is a time constrain, we all understand it. Whatever time is required to analyze previous number of draws. But this is mechanics. Analysing could be automated. Because it works with what happened already. And we are not speaking here about predicting the future. Mathematical analysis only shows us pre-conditions to every game/draw, (at list, at this point, every game we choose to participate in). To understand those pre-conditions further, and possibly narrow it down is completely another story. And here comes another question. Is it pure mathematics? (Which could be and should be automated) or " some sort of intuition or "guts feelings"... apparently they are out of their minds believing that the First Amendment provides quite a solid constitutional ground for such a behavior...)))) as you put it?
We are already month an a half in this thread, and how many people already automated previous draws analysis?
Again, collectively, I do not think that it should be too difficult to implement and automate it. Because deeper we all get in it, (1000 theoretical combinations vs 10 practical), more data we get, ideas implemented faster, and better we understand the process.
Hopefully, I do not offend anyone, starting with you, Igor
Thank you
-
Quote: Originally posted by Cobra555 on Jun 7, 2018
Thank you for your detailed reply. In red was actually a quote from your post on page 2 of this thread, I didn't take it from your book.
However, many questions are still remain.
"the quote from the book that you reposted here in red is exactly what actually happened... in that case it was not a matter of defining the field of possibilities ( which I did correctly) but only the matter of discipline..."
How do you define that you did it correctly? (Again, I am not asking it to take you down, it just would help all of us to better understand it).
When you are saying that you brought the odds down to 1:200, in my understanding, that we could generate 200 combinations and winning combination should be inside of those 200? And again, we all understand that this was Unique situation, that might never occur again. Similar to it, might be, but not exact.
So, my question would be, those 200 combinations, is it because you narrowed down numbers in play from 39 to 10, for example, or 12? and i mean number of balls. And 200 combinations would be available total combination that we can compile with those 10 or 12 ball? Or you are in fact operate with combinations, and you had a list of 200 combinations that would contain much larger number of balls? 15, 20, or even 30? And I do understand that we work with twin and triple numbers, so your chosen combinations could revolve around those twins and triplets?
And "so, I had a 1:5 chance to win it and didn't by hitting only a second prize instead..." all we know that you missed one number. But we do not know if the number you missed was indeed within the numbers you anticipate?
While if, indeed, those 200 combinations would be published, it would be much easier to see that the system works.
As we say it it Russia: Paper will endure all.
"I would have been long out of business and broke in case I would have had allowed myself to violate my own safety rules for whatever reason and no matter how promising such a single bet looked like at any given moment..."
You become financially responsible for any bet only when you put your own money into it. And it is very easy to make your point without actually spending a dime
" besides, who is gonna read your posts containing thousands lines of combinations and for what reason people might be willing to do that?...
we all know what happened even in California, when gold was discovered in 1848. (or in Canada). People didn't come only form the rest of US, but from abroad as well. Spending months and vast amounts of money only for a chance to be involved.
And if you said it works and prove is here (Somewhere on this forum), reading thousands of lines of combinations would be much, much easier than to travel to California. (especially in those days.) And it would become a precious resource for many people for whom it would be much easier to understand your system with the example of combinations you've provided.
"there is a simpler way to let people here know about the number of possible combinations that you have come up with... just mention the structure you project for the next incoming draw "
As far as I can read in this thread, no one was able to pinpoint even a structure so far. Again, because we all bet with our own money to it. Publish what we actually paid for. And not extended version of what we think could be possible in terms of combinations and structures. Understandable, conditions of every draw is unique, and we shouldn't expect the odds of it to come down significantly that often. And it should be understandable also that narrowing the odds down to 1:3000 would be and could happen much more often, than narrowing them to 1:200.
This is from your book: Two days later, on July 10, 2017, I hit a jackpot!!!
We are in June of 2018 now. 11 months. Almost. More than 300 draws of Fantasy 5. And I do understand that we have very limited data so far. it is 11 month of you playing your system (Again, we can only assume that you played while writing your book), or you did not?
And your book become available to the public only on April 21, 2018. So very few people were able to understand and implement it so far. This is why the data is so limited. But my point is we are all rushing it, betting on it with our money, instead of conducting much larger test with bigger number of combinations and strictures. On Paper. Or, on this very forum. And again, we all hope to land to a JP at any moment, but with such limited combinations published/played/tested, how long it might actually take?
in your case, it's 300 opportunities that are lost. And time constrain is a time constrain, we all understand it. Whatever time is required to analyze previous number of draws. But this is mechanics. Analysing could be automated. Because it works with what happened already. And we are not speaking here about predicting the future. Mathematical analysis only shows us pre-conditions to every game/draw, (at list, at this point, every game we choose to participate in). To understand those pre-conditions further, and possibly narrow it down is completely another story. And here comes another question. Is it pure mathematics? (Which could be and should be automated) or " some sort of intuition or "guts feelings"... apparently they are out of their minds believing that the First Amendment provides quite a solid constitutional ground for such a behavior...)))) as you put it?
We are already month an a half in this thread, and how many people already automated previous draws analysis?
Again, collectively, I do not think that it should be too difficult to implement and automate it. Because deeper we all get in it, (1000 theoretical combinations vs 10 practical), more data we get, ideas implemented faster, and better we understand the process.
Hopefully, I do not offend anyone, starting with you, Igor
Thank you
sorry comrade, I don't really have time for small talks about nothing and pushing some unimportant issues back and forth... though here are the answers:
- I knew that did everything correctly because at that time I had a list of about 260 combinations and the winning one was on that list though I didn't play it because didn't allow myself to spend more than $40 per draw...
- I have developed the method, which I later outlined in the book before I started to play in real lotto... then it took 14 days exactly to win a jackpot...
- the detailed explanation how and why I won JP also included in the book..
- the main problem we have to deal with in practice is not about generating all the possible combinations and to catch the winning one in this wide net of probabilities... the main problem is the budget that we have to fit this field into... in order to present my method to general public I had to keep my own budget within some reasonable limits thus making it affordable to the general gamers' population... for me it's ranging from $10 to $50 per draw... apparently this budget is not enough not cover all the possibilities in a particular draw on a regular basis... though I have won 15 smaller prizes on occasional 4/5 hits...
- theoretical math which I based my method on as well as all the lotto statistics are public domains... everyone can make own research... wanna argue with it? - just go and argue with math textbooks...
- I never claimed that the wining is guaranteed for anyone and over some foreseeable period of time... though it does the intended job or improving the odds quite significantly or a regular basis... the rest depends on a person who applies it...
- I'm quite sure that I made no mistakes in relation to the math theory... though if someone thinks otherwise I would encourage this person to come up with something mathematically legit that would prove my mistake...
- From my perspective it looks as the following: is there any other legit alternative to the method? - no; is there any way to improve it? - yes; what might be the best way to improve it? - deeper statistical research and more effective filters development, that would require from such a person above average math and programming skills; can it be practically implemented via some sort of computerized algorithm - yes, I think so and am currently working on it; is it going to be an easy job? - no, it is not an easy task from my view, as it is more than likely take lots of time, efforts and money as well;
- Since I already published the book with my method description do I have an obligation to support it further and to publish all the info about my practical work and its results in real time or even in advance? - no, I don't think so... I don't feel like having this sort of obligations towards the readers of the book... intellectual "breast feeding" was not and is not on the list of my priorities towards the general public for the future... lotto is a competitive game because the largest wins get split and therefore only the smartest deserve to win in this competition (or the luckiest ones as it has always been the case)... whatever info I choose to share with others is a courtesy of my own free will... I don't have to prove anything to anyone any further... what I wanted to share with others I already did... take it or leave it...
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
-
Here's my question to you LA Igrok: How come California stopped going ball drawn numbers and go to random number generators? Thank you for answering the question LA Igrok!
I hope that one $2 ticket is the only one that matches all 5 numbers plus the PB to win the largest PB jackpot in United States history of over $2 Billion Dollars! I hope that one $2 ticket is the only one that matches all 5 numbers plus the Mega Ball to win the largest Mega Millions jackpot in United States history of over $2 Billion Dollars!
-
Quote: Originally posted by ressuccess on Jun 7, 2018
Here's my question to you LA Igrok: How come California stopped going ball drawn numbers and go to random number generators? Thank you for answering the question LA Igrok!
I don't think they did...as far as I know Fantasy 5 and other smaller games have been using electronic PRNGs from the day one of their introduction... larger lottery such as SuperLotto Plus, that was known before 2000 under a different name, still uses drums and balls...
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
-
Speaking on behalf of 'idiots' who don't believe there is a valid mathematical solution to winning the lottery.
1. No man or machine knows exactly what the next winning combination will be.
2. If the generic you believes there is a mathematical solution then you have to believe that the winning numbers are chosen by some unobservable action other than random chance.
3. The fact that lottery balls have numbers doesn't mean that they are alive and can remember draw history, which is a necessary ingredient to any kind of statistical tracking scheme.
4. Lottery systems that analyze draw history using non-mathematical methods to choose numbers having the best chance of winning are as effective as any other method or strategy.
5. The Law of Averages suggests that any lottery analysis model will eventually produce a set of winning numbers.
6. A winning ticket is the proof that a particular lottery method really works.
Winning a lottery with any kind of consistency is a challenge as indicated by the millions spent on losing tickets.
You believe that you can win using a mathematical-based scheme that you claim provides a significant reduction in the odds, but requires a significant dollar investment.
Bravo! Hope you win big real soon. But, don't forget to post a copy of the winning ticket.
I have a personal system where the only mathematics involved is the ability to count to 16.
I win or lose with 5 sets of numbers, not 200, 300 or more.
The only exception is the big jackpot games where I have to play 9 sets.
Lottery Post use to be a place where folks could exchange positive and negative information without the insults that now seem to show up with just about every post.
I'm not being negative.
I'm just stating that you don't have to be a mathematical whiz kid to win a lottery prize.
Everyone deserves respect.
Thanks for your interest. -
Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Jun 7, 2018
Speaking on behalf of 'idiots' who don't believe there is a valid mathematical solution to winning the lottery.
1. No man or machine knows exactly what the next winning combination will be.
2. If the generic you believes there is a mathematical solution then you have to believe that the winning numbers are chosen by some unobservable action other than random chance.
3. The fact that lottery balls have numbers doesn't mean that they are alive and can remember draw history, which is a necessary ingredient to any kind of statistical tracking scheme.
4. Lottery systems that analyze draw history using non-mathematical methods to choose numbers having the best chance of winning are as effective as any other method or strategy.
5. The Law of Averages suggests that any lottery analysis model will eventually produce a set of winning numbers.
6. A winning ticket is the proof that a particular lottery method really works.
Winning a lottery with any kind of consistency is a challenge as indicated by the millions spent on losing tickets.
You believe that you can win using a mathematical-based scheme that you claim provides a significant reduction in the odds, but requires a significant dollar investment.
Bravo! Hope you win big real soon. But, don't forget to post a copy of the winning ticket.
I have a personal system where the only mathematics involved is the ability to count to 16.
I win or lose with 5 sets of numbers, not 200, 300 or more.
The only exception is the big jackpot games where I have to play 9 sets.
Lottery Post use to be a place where folks could exchange positive and negative information without the insults that now seem to show up with just about every post.
I'm not being negative.
I'm just stating that you don't have to be a mathematical whiz kid to win a lottery prize.
Everyone deserves respect.
Thanks for your interest.##1 - 3 are simply not true... the Probability Theory has become a legit part of the math only about a couple of hundred years ago... unlike any other math theories it was initially based almost entirely on centuries of practical observations and not on some sort of theoretical formulas... also worth noticing that all RNGs available to the mathematicians up to just recently were only the mechanical ones... nonetheless today it's a legit science, officially accepted and widely used everywhere... therefore words "random" and "unpredictable" are not synonyms...
# 4 is just an unsupported claim...
#5... "The Law of Averages" is not actually "a law" but rather an urban legend of some sort... it's also a direct way to the so called "gamblers fallacy"... Wiki has enough info on all those ##1-5 matters and everything posted there in regards to the issues in discussion do not support your claims....
#6 I totally agree with... this is exactly why I posted the scan of my winning ticket ( actually two of them) along with the scans of the checks from CA Lottery Commission in the introductory part of the book...
thank you very much for contributing and participating in this discussion...
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." Eleanor Rousevelt
