Quick Picks can't match the power of Self PicksPrevious TopicNext Topic

I thought "random creep" was someone on Jerry Springer.

Random Creep?

Hey, That's me!

Pretty much random and I am a Creep.

Random creep. I hear it is one of the warning signs for needing Depends.

I think you're confusing that with Random Seep.

Self picks vs Quick picks.  The numbers are random.  Any patterns that you believe you are seeing are a mirage.   Quick picks that group in the number range are no worse or better than any other number combination.  There is only one place that self picks have an advantage to quick picks, and that is to take advantage of other players' selection anomolies.  Specifically, when the pot is large it will draw a lot of players.  In these cases the probability of multiple winners begins to increase.  This is when a a self pick makes sense, to minimize the chance of multiple player wins and isolate the pot for yourself.  A selection of a set of numbers at the high end of the number range will have a better chance of reducing the probability of multiple wins if that number combination hits (which has the same probability as any other combination).  This is because there are enough people that play birthdays and lower numbers to skew the distribution of numbers being played to the low side.  This is the only place where self picks have legitimacy in a statistical sense.  (Unless you believe the random number generators are flawed--a dubious claim--except in Tennessee).

Sorry Rehoboth,

I got a little side tracked on some other projects. I'm going to respond to each of your statements as they were typed. Some of them will have details, some won't.

Self picks vs Quick picks.

    Opening statement.

The numbers are random.

    Open ended statement.

Any patterns that you believe you are seeing are a mirage.

    This statement I'd have to disagree with. Every lottery is based in some form finite combinatorial or permutational selection. That finite set of numbers follows a pattern that can be described mathematically, logically, structurally, numerically, and quantumly; all of which are well known patterns of the Universe. Quantum Lottery Mechanics, a new field of Combinatorics, says that if you randomly sample from a known finite set of combinatorial or permutational items, you must have within that sample set a pattern or sub-pattern of combinations or permutations that are fractally similar to the whole set of finite combinations or permutations. This is closely related to the Combinatorial Farctalization I've posted before. Simply put, no matter how random something may appear to be, there will always be some kind of pattern in the Chaos. Order is a subset of Chaos. Anytime you create a subset of Chaos, you in essence create Order; it can not be avoided. There will some pattern even when you select seemingly at random from that Order until the Order is released back into Chaos. Keep in mind that Quantum Lottery Mechanics does not say precisely what the pattern is, it just accurately describes what it should be like.

Quick picks that group in the number range are no worse or better than any other number combination.

    The relevant issue of whether Quick Picks had a combinatorial advantage or not over Self Picks is not in contention here.

There is only one place that self picks have an advantage to quick picks, and that is to take advantage of other players' selection anomolies.

    I'll agree partially here.

Specifically, when the pot is large it will draw a lot of players.

    Factual statement.

In these cases the probability of multiple winners begins to increase.

    Again, factual.

This is when a a self pick makes sense, to minimize the chance of multiple player wins and isolate the pot for yourself.

    Yes and no, the only true way to prevent someone from having your winning combination is to prevent anyone from playing it. However, since that is very unlikely, probability suggests it still can happen and even more so when more people are playing.

A selection of a set of numbers at the high end of the number range will have a better chance of reducing the probability of multiple wins if that number combination hits (which has the same probability as any other combination).

    Possible, but I don't have the statistical information to argue that point. I'm sure there is some study out there that can help, but for now I'll say, possibly yes.

This is because there are enough people that play birthdays and lower numbers to skew the distribution of numbers being played to the low side.

    Again, possibly yes.

This is the only place where self picks have legitimacy in a statistical sense.

    Seems logical, but again, statistical information would help.

(Unless you believe the random number generators are flawed--a dubious claim--except in Tennessee).

    Well, the proof is in the pudding and I've been tasting some pretty bitter samples lately. More to come on this one in another topic to be posted.

hey Ky Floyd

Well said.

I have alwys known that any given set of numbers are just as likely to occur as any other. 

I'm posting this information because some of the matching numbers are falling below the Lottery Post's Prediction Statistic Radar.

The wheel I'm using to post my Self Picks is as follows.

Next are the up-to-date matches for each day's drawn numbers and the corresponding wheel line matches.

What is falling below the Lottery Post's Prediction Radar are the Match 2 instances.

Doing fairly well, but I have yet to see the Quick Pickers try and challange.

Update

Here are the matches for 2007-11-18 to 2007-11-30

Challenge update

I see that in another posted topic someone is taking credit for someone else's effort and trying to pass it off as their Quick Pick challenge. That's a really sad attempt to try and convince others that somehow another person's time, money and effort is a means of proving their point. Also, I have yet to see anyone truly put forth any effort on a dollar for dollar basis, one-on-one, YOUR OWN QUICK PICKS to MY SELF PICKS challenge. Well, since we don't have anyone with any bawls, I guess I have to do this my self. I picked up $50.00 bucks of Quick Picks for my state's Badger 5, it's a 5/31 lottery. Since I'm already using my Lottery Post predictions for Badger 5 on another project, I'll post these numbers here. Below are the listed numbers and their associated ticket numbers. After that are the scanned pictures of the tickets themselves.

Quick Pick scanned pictures.

Extra update note - The A, B, C, D and E across the top in the Table does not correspond to the A, B, C, D and E in the Scanned pictures.

Ok, here's the results from this sample. The Quick Picks covered all 31 numbers and got the following matches. The Total amount won by Quick Pick 7 - $1.00, 2 - $2.00 for a grand total of $11.00.

My self picks only matched 3 of the 5 numbers and was potentially played in a 12 number wheel. Here are the matches for my Self Picks. The Total possible won by Self Pick 20 - $1.00, 1 - $2.00 for a grand total of $22.00.

Just think the Quick Picks covered all the numbers and matched 5 of 5 and only got a $11.00 win.

On the other hand my Self Picks only matched 3 of 5 and got a possible $22.00 win.

My Self Picks are optimized to produce the most number of wins with the least amount of effort.

Fact proven!

That was fun. I think I'll try it again for this Sunday. I will post the Crappy Picks.. uh, I mean Quick Picks later in the day.

JADE Lottery

"I see that in another posted topic someone is taking credit for someone else's effort and trying to pass it off as their Quick Pick challenge. That's a really sad attempt to try and convince others that somehow another person's time, money and effort is a means of proving their point. "

If it's my thread you're talking about you assume much. I'm not taking credit for anything. If you read the OP to my thread the specific numbers aren't what it's about, it's QP jackpots vs chosen number jackpots, not the numbers.   

The point of it is tracking jackpots and breaking them down into QPs or chosen numbers.

In this thread you've mentioned $11 and $22 dollar payouts (QPs and your wheels), which, let's face it, only go to buy more tickets.  The lopttery knows this all too well and doesn't give a hoot how many $22 winners you book.

You also don't mention total spent vs winnings, I think you need to introdice the term realtive to the buy in here.  

Someone who plays $1 and hits 4 of 5 for $100 is certainly better off than someone who plays $35 and wins $10.  

Anyway, here's the thread, pick a jackpot game and track the jackpots broken down ointo QPs or not and let's see what we have come Dec 31st.

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/166765/938592 

Of course, I'm making the assumption that people play to try and won a jackpot, silly me.  

IRL I would offer you this bet, you pick a jackpot game, and  I'll pay you $10 for every non QP jackpot winner, but you have yo pay me $10 for every QP jackpot winner? Would you take that bet?

You forgot this part -

"Also, I have yet to see anyone truly put forth any effort on a dollar for dollar basis, one-on-one, YOUR OWN QUICK PICKS to MY SELF PICKS challenge. Well, since we don't have anyone with any bawls, I guess I have to do this my self."

For one thing, my average play is $1 a draw, maybe $2 or more if the jackpot is up (Little Lotto had been over $1,000,000, not bad for a Pick 5 game), so I'm not about to go dollar-for-dollar with anyone who wheels numbers. 

In your post with the scanned tickets, if I'm reading it right, you're showing $50 worth of play for one day. You talk of winning $22. I don't see any winnng in that whatsoever. I do see a bookie's wet dream.

I'll also venture that if you're playing $50 a pop all $22 went on the next drawing.

 If one is playing quick picks, is there really such a thing as "your own quick pikcs"?  Think about that one.