I think im missing something..They had all four tickets to the winning jackpot..obviously all the tickets had the same numbers, so why would they drive to 4 different stores?...especially if "he" has a formula..

Perhaps to eliminate the chances that the clerk would go "hmm..." and play those exact same numbers once the winners left?

I know I'm perceptive enough to recognize odd behavior...and playing a set of numbers multiple times would arouse my suspicions enough to prompt me to throw my own dollar down on the set as well.

I see what you are saying, but are you a clerk in a store that sells tickets?  Where I go, the people are too busy to bother.  I suppose if I told someone to run a number 4 times, it would be different.  Otherwise, a person would need to have a photographic memory to remember 6 numbers.

If I could find a total of 7 numbers (hence 21 combinations)  and knew for a fact three numbers will be drawn, I would only run all 21 combinations thru one store, and then drive to another store for my second purchase.  And so on.

First and foremost, I would not wish to draw attention to myself as having a "formula" that consistantly won.  Once word got out, I don't think my life would be worth a Zimbabwe dollar. 

This couple made a huge mistake.  I can see it now.  Some convict, about to get out on parole, has already made plans to kidnap this man, learn his "formula" and, to silence a potential witness, well.......you know what will happen next.

That's why I would drive to several different stores.  I have no idea why the man in the article did.

Of course, being paranoid helps.  Remeber, the question is not "Are you paranoid?"  The question is "Are you paranoid enough?"

I agree. Most store clerks probably see a hundreds of numbers and lines a day. Why would they pick out one person and take their numbers. Odds are they don't care what numbers you pick.

thats the thing with patents , they have to work before you can patent them.

When David Sneath of Livonia,Michigan won his $135M MegaMillion jackpot on his 60th birthday back in April, he picked his own numbers too, but from an old QP tickets and as far as I know he hasn't set a trend. 

 I doubt when I win my first MM jackpot using my system if anyone will be interested in using it even if I do it again.   Most lottery players are not convinced that any fore thought or planning will improve their odds of winning. 

I don't see what the buzz is about. The guy played the same numbers for the SAME drawing. If he won the jackpot from separate drawings, then he would have something to talk about. He didn't win the lottery 4 times.

1. Bear in mind their payout is fixed I think, always 350K or that multiplied by the Doubler (too bad no doubler huh?) up to a certain # of winners, so the store clerk copying their #s might not have mattered. Sometimes they ask "are you sure you meant to play the same set 4 times?" but it probably is he plays his set each time he visits a store for whatever reason that has Lottery.

2. My best algorithms so far have matched 3 of 6 on the same drawing. It could also have been an "optimized" set. A set of numbers that has a good chance to come out together "sometime" but not necessarily on the next drawing. I will run calculations to see if there was such a set. Such a combination can be played for months or years but will often match nothing. So far I don't see much special about half of the numbers in that set.

He did win in the past, smaller amounts, but the question being that until this jackpot was he making any profit or just waiting on a big jackpot. Could the same system win again? Could it win other than in WI?

The key again is BACKTEST everything!

The reason that I would buy the system is so I can have a better chance to figure out what the strategy was. Even if it was really a fluke and just coincidence I want to know how another person calculated numbers vs. how I do.

If you assume each winning combination could have been pick by an algorithm then you'll find 10-15% of them have enough similarities to have been picked by the same algorithm.  Then it's just a matter of reducing the possible combinations to an affordable amount because 10% of 300-400 past drawings are still 40 lines and there are probably another 10 thousands or so lines that could still have been picked.

Sorry but I have to ask something.. when did the format change to 39 numbers for SuperCash? I notice that the few highest numbers must have been added relatively recently. Was he aware of the extra numbers? Usually format changes can render the best system impotent until the new format is out for a while to build new data. This is especially so in ball drawings where there are now a few more flying around in the bin knocking around the original balls! Be very wary of a system that spans across a format change.

When I generated an "optimized set" it gave me this:

SUPERCASH

 10 27 31 35 38 39

it included the 38 and 39, but use at your own risk, as it used the entire database.

Other thing to consider: did he write a program? Not many of us are programmers, so if he did this by hand then the algorithm can't be that complicated, can it?

After hearing the Adamsons were "exploring patent protection" for their equation, Steven Post, a mathematics professor at Edgewood College in Madison, wasn't buying it. He said there is no way to devise a strategy for finding the winning numbers in a game that uses randomly generated numbers to determine the winning combination.

He said, the only strategy would be to "buy all the tickets". 

He said there is no way to devise a strategy for finding the winning numbers in a game that uses randomly generated numbers to determine the winning combination.

I agree... there are millions of gamblers over the years who have tried to devise a system to win the lottery.  If such a system were found we would have heard about it by now.

The lottery drawings are not mathematical equations that can be decoded.  

Believe me i wish they were.

RJOH, I am sure there would be tons of people from here that would be begging for your system if you won. Your inbox will be full of requests.

I just quoted the Professor words but I never said I believed them.  He wouldn't be first person of knowledge who stated what seems like a simple truth that was later proved wrong. 

Besides, if anyone ever devised such a system it wouldn't be talked about publicly , the lotteries would have to discover it and they would just change something in the game to make it harder for such a system to work.