You last visited December 3, 2008, 5:39 pm
|
What is the best system that wins more often ?
CT United States Member #61881 May 21, 2008 467 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 6, 2008, 3:31 pm - IP Logged |
|
...unless your systems are flexible (dynamic)...
|
|
|
Everyday I am Hustling Atlanta United States Member #60771 April 12, 2008 391 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 6, 2008, 11:06 pm - IP Logged |
|
Never buy any system unless they provide proof of large winnings, 2nd prize to jackpot or the jackpot itself. There are a lot of free systems out there that you can adopt and continue to develop. You can test on multiple systems and various combinations within one. This will take some investment on time and money, for millions.
|
|
|
RALEIGH, North Carolina United States Member #63753 July 24, 2008 129 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 8, 2008, 8:35 pm - IP Logged |
|
Please define what you have 'won'.
If it was just $1, or $7, or even $100, I don't count that as 'won'. A hit to me is something over $2,000.
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9269 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 12, 2008, 1:09 pm - IP Logged |
|
Systems don't work. Methods work.
Methods change the way they deal with numbers after every drawing.
Systems keep doing the same thing over and over again, and you end up losing at the end. If you're using a different method to pick your combinations for every drawing then you can't evaluate if your methods are improving or worsting your chances of a win.
Systems don't have to be static and most aren't. If you have a set of lucky numbers that you play every drawings then that's not a system.
Systems may have static rules for picking numbers and combinations but their results can be dynamic. For example, a system I once used to pick numbers for MegaMillions included numbers that had hit 7-12 times during the previous 100 drawings. While the group usually had 3 or more of the winning numbers 85% of the time and all the winning numbers 22% of the time, the groups varied from 32-47 numbers and covered more combinations than I wanted to play.
I'm still looking for a system that does as well but cover a smaller group of combinations.
* Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9269 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 12, 2008, 1:31 pm - IP Logged |
|
A hit to me is something over $2,000. For lottery games other than MegaMillions and PowerBall, the only prize over $2000 is the jackpot. * Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
United States Member #37515 April 10, 2006 53 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 14, 2008, 1:01 pm - IP Logged |
|
If you're using a different method to pick your combinations for every drawing then you can't evaluate if your methods are improving or worsting your chances of a win.
Systems don't have to be static and most aren't. If you have a set of lucky numbers that you play every drawings then that's not a system.
Systems may have static rules for picking numbers and combinations but their results can be dynamic. For example, a system I once used to pick numbers for MegaMillions included numbers that had hit 7-12 times during the previous 100 drawings. While the group usually had 3 or more of the winning numbers 85% of the time and all the winning numbers 22% of the time, the groups varied from 32-47 numbers and covered more combinations than I wanted to play.
I'm still looking for a system that does as well but cover a smaller group of combinations.
RJOh
What system were you using that had that kind of a percentage? Would you lead me to it?
Doc
|
|
|
CT United States Member #61881 May 21, 2008 467 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 14, 2008, 1:31 pm - IP Logged |
|
I believe it is his own system 
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9269 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 14, 2008, 3:20 pm - IP Logged |
|
RJOh
What system were you using that had that kind of a percentage? Would you lead me to it?
Doc It was my own system but there's nothing spectacular about a group of 32-47 numbers having all the winning number 22% of the time, after all that's covering 6,444,032 to 70,561,194 possible combinations.
When I mentioned that the number pool were numbers that had hit 7-12 times during the previous 100 drawings, that was the system. If you can afford to play all the possible combinations, you're going to have a big winner 22% of the time.
I obviously mentioned that system as an example because it's not practical, a good system IMO would have the potential to hit the jackpot 20% of the time and be practical to play. If such a system exists, I wouldn't expect it to be posted at LP. * Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
Antoine Professional Illinois United States Member #47157 September 23, 2006 3673 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 14, 2008, 3:29 pm - IP Logged |
|
Whatever system you use I would suggest the 1 up 1 down method
Lucky and BobP can elaborate, you'll be surprised how many times you just miss
|
|
|
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 9269 Posts Offline |
| Posted: August 14, 2008, 4:14 pm - IP Logged |
|
Whatever system you use I would suggest the 1 up 1 down method
Lucky and BobP can elaborate, you'll be surprised how many times you just miss ....I would suggest the 1 up 1 down method......, you'll be surprised how many times you just miss
That is one of the many reasons I don't pay an attention to what others suggest when it comes to me playing the lotteries. * Trying is the first step toward failure *
homer J. Simpson
|
|
|
|
