You last visited June 19, 2013, 12:19 pm All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00) | Mathematics and the LotteryCan a winning lottery system be created with existing math formulas? Pennsylvania United States Member #93975 July 10, 2010 1908 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 11, 2011, 1:40 am - IP Logged | |
RL, On another thread in this forum a new member outlined a MM method and three long time members responded positive. A fourth member, Jimmy said "The results of your strategy will probably be proportional to what is summarized here" and gave a link to a simulation he ran using a 20 year-old program. Jimmy gave some details hoping nobody would notice his simulation was 50,000 players each playing in 50,000 different drawings. While most system players are looking for methods to use in the 100 to 200 drawings, Jimmy tries to distract them by claiming his 250,000,000 drawings are some how comparable. I've never seen one post by him encouraging anyone attempting to create a system and most of his posts are useless links and distractions like the one I just mentioned. Maybe it is time for the system players to just ignore his posts. "I am just making a concession that probability is not good for the player." Most of the filters are probability and the past results can easily be tested against probable results. But you don't need the past results to determine the even/odd, high/low, consecutive numbers, last digit, or decades probability because it's easy enough to get the percentage of distribution. Math can be used to find the probability of any number repeating or how many different numbers will or will not be drawn in the next 25 drawings. The actually drawing results may vary but the average will be very close to what is expected. What is the probability of 25 different numbers being drawn in the next five 5/39 drawings, all 10 digits in one digit position, or all 10 being drawn in all three digit positions in the next 10 pick-3 drawings? "The problem with mathematical confirmation of my system is that every bit of information changes the selection of many others which are not math based but more of a guess." Poker players make their decisions to bet, call, raise, or fold base on their chances of making the best hand. When they win, some will say they made a lucky guess while others more knowledgeable will saw it was because the percentages and probabilities or even the pot odds favored them. "Maybe all systems should be moved out of the Math forum and moved to a Pseudo-Pseudomathematics forum." I've already reached my "waste of time" limit trying to explain to Jimmy why it's common to see only 27 to 30 PB bonus numbers drawn in 50 drawings because he doesn't understand cause and effect. Besides we can only get $3 for $1 odds picking bonus numbers so it makes no sense betting on 10 of them to guarantee a minimum loss of $7. Stack47 said, "On another thread in this forum a new member outlined a MM method and three long time members responded positive. A fourth member, Jimmy said 'The results of your strategy will probably be proportional to what is summarized here' and gave a link to a simulation he ran using a 20 year-old program." It really is pathetic when you must resort to lies when you can't deal with the hard questions. Here is the post you refer to. I think everyone will see that the link provided was NOT to a simuation at all, but to a summary of betting results of LP members over one year, and very "proportional" to the expected results of the proposed system. -------------------- http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/234653/2154556
| | |
bgonçalves Brasil Member #92592 June 9, 2010 1205 Posts Online | | Posted: August 11, 2011, 10:01 am - IP Logged | |
Hello, kjing, this weekend, if you could test this system to loteri 39/5 So pick up the list of results, and make wheels by snapping pieces of past results example see pairs and trios and quarters, then the ultimate results and see a color d in tourist spots in the casdastrados of the sweepstakes, and with the ultimate raffle the macro a color see where she went in all sweepstakes that has passedYou'll have lotteries with a music number Two or three, the idea is to join pieces (pairs. Trios of sweepstakes that is still not out) and add A system of docking or wheels will be putting pieces of a results with other results example one paratrasado with trio that more out, etc. ..has the positions to see > thanks | | |
Kentucky United States Member #33045 February 14, 2006 4297 Posts Online | | Posted: August 11, 2011, 6:59 pm - IP Logged | |
Apples and oranges, Jimmy because the link (probably unopened) you provided was not even close to anything concerning MathJunkie's method. You were clueless how people play the lottery the day you joined LP and haven't learned a thing. The responses on your Kelly Criteria thread sums up your credibility and popularity. | | |
United States Member #5700 July 13, 2004 1126 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 11, 2011, 11:47 pm - IP Logged | |
Hello, kjing, this weekend, if you could test this system to loteri 39/5 So pick up the list of results, and make wheels by snapping pieces of past results example see pairs and trios and quarters, then the ultimate results and see a color d in tourist spots in the casdastrados of the sweepstakes, and with the ultimate raffle the macro a color see where she went in all sweepstakes that has passedYou'll have lotteries with a music number Two or three, the idea is to join pieces (pairs. Trios of sweepstakes that is still not out) and add A system of docking or wheels will be putting pieces of a results with other results example one paratrasado with trio that more out, etc. ..has the positions to see > thanks Hi, Even though I really enjoy your posts, I have my own agenda of concepts and ideas to be verified by backtesting. The reason I enjoy your posts so much is that you bring alot of new ideas or a reminder of some of the older ideas with a new twist. And even though they are not all my cup of tea, I'm sure they have value to other members at the LP. The only questions that always seem to come to mind when I read your posts are....How well did it work for you? or Did you spend the time to see if the idea actually worked out well when applied against a real lottery. Like I said, there is a lot on my plate rightnow. It will probably be sometime in September before I can even think about developemental testing again. In addition, I believe the "the devil is in the detail". So, I do things in a very detailed and methodical way. Jimmy, How is trying to beat in your views on the lottery into other LP members working for you? ...deaf ears? It kind of reminds me of the boy who cried wolf..then nobody listened when the wolf actually appeared. I can only assume that you are getting some sort of personnal payoff by being so persistent (no matter how ineffective it is). Everyone is going to pursue the path that makes sense to them. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. People with follow thier personnal preference. So, put your ideas out there (once is just fine). Either they will buy into it or they won't...end of story. Best of luck to all. Don't stop posting the great ideas that some of you have been so gracious to submit. The goal for all of us is the same even though we may agree how to get there. *s* You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk | | |
United States
Member #75870
June 1, 2009
5350 Posts
Offline
| | Posted: August 12, 2011, 12:38 am - IP Logged | |
When I was teenager I religiously watched "Heavy Metal" at the theaters on the weekends with my friends tripping on acid. Hanover Fiste was one of my favorite parts. The courtroom scene.....
| | |
United States Member #59839 March 13, 2008 1820 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 8:37 am - IP Logged | |
When I was teenager I religiously watched "Heavy Metal" at the theaters on the weekends with my friends tripping on acid. Hanover Fiste was one of my favorite parts. The courtroom scene.....
joker17 You lost me, how does this fit in here? Maybe you should lay off the acid and the booze for awhile, just saying. 
RL Working on my Ph.D. "University of hard Knocks" 
| | |
bgonçalves Brasil Member #92592 June 9, 2010 1205 Posts Online | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 9:40 am - IP Logged | |
Hello, kjing, it seems that the principle will work best if you by each individual example in Lotus position 39/5 Make vertical position of each position = 5 are taking, because when it comes to predict a number in the position The pareto principle 80/20, works more accurate, than the whole (the 5 taking together) or 20% of the numbers are In 80% on their positions. The big advantage is that for the 1st position decreases, the number of dozens of goes from 01 to 18 In the 1st position while at all goes from 01 to 39 (in a lottery for 39/5) | | Copiar | |
| | |
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 16129 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 9:51 am - IP Logged | |
Hi, Even though I really enjoy your posts, I have my own agenda of concepts and ideas to be verified by backtesting. The reason I enjoy your posts so much is that you bring alot of new ideas or a reminder of some of the older ideas with a new twist. And even though they are not all my cup of tea, I'm sure they have value to other members at the LP. The only questions that always seem to come to mind when I read your posts are....How well did it work for you? or Did you spend the time to see if the idea actually worked out well when applied against a real lottery. Like I said, there is a lot on my plate rightnow. It will probably be sometime in September before I can even think about developemental testing again. In addition, I believe the "the devil is in the detail". So, I do things in a very detailed and methodical way. Jimmy, How is trying to beat in your views on the lottery into other LP members working for you? ...deaf ears? It kind of reminds me of the boy who cried wolf..then nobody listened when the wolf actually appeared. I can only assume that you are getting some sort of personnal payoff by being so persistent (no matter how ineffective it is). Everyone is going to pursue the path that makes sense to them. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. People with follow thier personnal preference. So, put your ideas out there (once is just fine). Either they will buy into it or they won't...end of story. Best of luck to all. Don't stop posting the great ideas that some of you have been so gracious to submit. The goal for all of us is the same even though we may agree how to get there. *s* Sounds like your thoughts are similar to mine when someone suggests I try one of their ideas. I'm not interested in trying someone else's ideas, I've got too many of my own to try. If they haven't spent any of their own time testing it then it probably not worth trying. If they have tested it and it didn't work for them, why would it work any differently for me? Now if someone lays out an idea and shows how it worked for them with some proof of winnings to back up their claim then that's different, that's sharing an idea that worked and that might get me interested. * The fundamentals of winning a lottery jackpot *
* play a lottery you can win *
| | |
Pennsylvania United States Member #93975 July 10, 2010 1908 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 1:30 pm - IP Logged | |
Hi, Even though I really enjoy your posts, I have my own agenda of concepts and ideas to be verified by backtesting. The reason I enjoy your posts so much is that you bring alot of new ideas or a reminder of some of the older ideas with a new twist. And even though they are not all my cup of tea, I'm sure they have value to other members at the LP. The only questions that always seem to come to mind when I read your posts are....How well did it work for you? or Did you spend the time to see if the idea actually worked out well when applied against a real lottery. Like I said, there is a lot on my plate rightnow. It will probably be sometime in September before I can even think about developemental testing again. In addition, I believe the "the devil is in the detail". So, I do things in a very detailed and methodical way. Jimmy, How is trying to beat in your views on the lottery into other LP members working for you? ...deaf ears? It kind of reminds me of the boy who cried wolf..then nobody listened when the wolf actually appeared. I can only assume that you are getting some sort of personnal payoff by being so persistent (no matter how ineffective it is). Everyone is going to pursue the path that makes sense to them. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. People with follow thier personnal preference. So, put your ideas out there (once is just fine). Either they will buy into it or they won't...end of story. Best of luck to all. Don't stop posting the great ideas that some of you have been so gracious to submit. The goal for all of us is the same even though we may agree how to get there. *s* JKING says, "How is trying to beat in your views on the lottery into other LP members working for you? ...deaf ears?" I understand that most of the people reading here, silent and otherwise, who understand and agree with me, are not willing to expose themselves to the maliciousness they witness being expressed. However, I've received enough encouragement behind the scenes to believe that I am reaching enough people to continue. As busy as you must be searching for that pot of gold, it's understandable why you haven't had time to go back and discover what makes me persistant. I'll save you some search time... >http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1907506 (Be sure to read about Juries and Parole Boards.) If you truly are employing mathematically sound backtesting techniques, over periods of time sufficient to attain statistical significance, I commend you. And when you finally conclude that what I'm saying is true, I won't expect you to admit it here on these Forums, but a simple PM to that effect would be appreciated. --Jimmy4164 | | |
mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 16129 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 2:33 pm - IP Logged | |
JKING says, "How is trying to beat in your views on the lottery into other LP members working for you? ...deaf ears?" I understand that most of the people reading here, silent and otherwise, who understand and agree with me, are not willing to expose themselves to the maliciousness they witness being expressed. However, I've received enough encouragement behind the scenes to believe that I am reaching enough people to continue. As busy as you must be searching for that pot of gold, it's understandable why you haven't had time to go back and discover what makes me persistant. I'll save you some search time... >http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1907506 (Be sure to read about Juries and Parole Boards.) If you truly are employing mathematically sound backtesting techniques, over periods of time sufficient to attain statistical significance, I commend you. And when you finally conclude that what I'm saying is true, I won't expect you to admit it here on these Forums, but a simple PM to that effect would be appreciated. --Jimmy4164 Any one who reads the odds and payout charts on most play slips and on every state lottery website knows 95% or more of the possible combinations of any lottery game will win nothing every drawing, but they also know once in a while someone wins the jackpot by matching all the numbers drawn. For many that's more than reason enough to keep trying to pick the winning numbers. It's not that they disagree with what you're saying, it's just they've heard so many times that now it's just back ground noise that they hear and chose to ignore. * The fundamentals of winning a lottery jackpot *
* play a lottery you can win *
| | |
bgonçalves Brasil Member #92592 June 9, 2010 1205 Posts Online | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 3:12 pm - IP Logged | |
Hello, kjing, I just send you a few ideas because you asked me, so when you have ideas, don't stop, pareto's example. I agree that would test, but think how born the theory of probability = a punter asked blaise pascal a way how to win the majority of times, then pascal began exchanging correpondencia with pierre de fermat, pierre is never ending Spoke to pascal, is not it brings problems only solutions, instead continued correspondence until Sunrise the odds, has people with more knowledge and resources than others, and can help in the Forum has there, create a new topic of discussion, in 1000 thousand ideas appear a 10 good ideas already this good, how many attempts, happened to create the light bulbDespite this she was always there, but you're right, I gotta stop bringing ideas for debate. Happens that might happen as that history of stones and diamond, in 95% of lotteries, people play little, without planning, wanting to hit in a single event, (draw) the basis of the games is = mathematically can be go up to a certain extent The forecast is then random (by causes of repetitions) the challenge is a system that hit 80% time, 1 the 20 sweepstakes, Of course there will be a cheap bet, tends to be various people play football with 20% of the bets, I don't have the resources That has Americans in it (even though we have Americans), but you're right, I'll stop giving ideas. | | |
United States Member #5700 July 13, 2004 1126 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 12, 2011, 8:57 pm - IP Logged | |
Hello, kjing, I just send you a few ideas because you asked me, so when you have ideas, don't stop, pareto's example. I agree that would test, but think how born the theory of probability = a punter asked blaise pascal a way how to win the majority of times, then pascal began exchanging correpondencia with pierre de fermat, pierre is never ending Spoke to pascal, is not it brings problems only solutions, instead continued correspondence until Sunrise the odds, has people with more knowledge and resources than others, and can help in the Forum has there, create a new topic of discussion, in 1000 thousand ideas appear a 10 good ideas already this good, how many attempts, happened to create the light bulbDespite this she was always there, but you're right, I gotta stop bringing ideas for debate. Happens that might happen as that history of stones and diamond, in 95% of lotteries, people play little, without planning, wanting to hit in a single event, (draw) the basis of the games is = mathematically can be go up to a certain extent The forecast is then random (by causes of repetitions) the challenge is a system that hit 80% time, 1 the 20 sweepstakes, Of course there will be a cheap bet, tends to be various people play football with 20% of the bets, I don't have the resources That has Americans in it (even though we have Americans), but you're right, I'll stop giving ideas. Hi, The last thing I intended is for you to stop giving ideas. Your input can have value to many who visit the LP. Just don't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon or be at your disposal to verify your suggestions for applicability to the lottery. Your input is always welcome. *S* You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk | | |
Pennsylvania United States Member #93975 July 10, 2010 1908 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 13, 2011, 4:13 am - IP Logged | |
Any one who reads the odds and payout charts on most play slips and on every state lottery website knows 95% or more of the possible combinations of any lottery game will win nothing every drawing, but they also know once in a while someone wins the jackpot by matching all the numbers drawn. For many that's more than reason enough to keep trying to pick the winning numbers. It's not that they disagree with what you're saying, it's just they've heard so many times that now it's just back ground noise that they hear and chose to ignore. RJOh, "Any one who reads the odds and payout charts on most play slips and on every state lottery website knows 95% or more of the possible combinations of any lottery game will win nothing every drawing, but they also know once in a while someone wins the jackpot by matching all the numbers drawn. For many that's more than reason enough to keep trying to pick the winning numbers." You've written this in a way that implies I don't know this. I think you know that I do, so why write it? What it does is sidestep the fact that... "It's not that they disagree with what you're saying, it's just they've heard so many times that now it's just back ground noise that they hear and chose to ignore." ...may be true for people who think like you or me, but NOT true for the people you see trying to obfuscate or mock everything I say. The areas of contention with them are not the published odds that they admit will determine the long term winnings of QuickPick players - it's their claim that these odds don't apply to them because of their selection systems. Although they claim they are not seduced by the Gambler's Fallacy, most of their systems are built upon it! RL-RANDOMLOGIC is the only exception to this rule that I'm aware of. However, I'm afraid he will never find what he is searching for either because the randomness of the ball machines is beyond any of our comprehensions or measurement ability and any non-random cycles in computerized draws will either be the result of fraud and short lived, imperceptible, or so insignificant that they will be useless for purposes of future predictions. This is especially true in light of the overwhelming house edge of the lotteries, the 10% offshore games notwithstanding. In the meantime, as long as the fallacies mentioned above are accepted as true, the dangers they present will persist. I'm still waiting for someone to give their assessment of this months old posting of mine. Would you like to be the first? Please don't stop reading until you've grasped my point regarding Juries and Parole Boards! I don't want JKING's analogy of the boy crying "WOLF" to be fulfilled in the form of a tragedy! http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1907506 --Jimmy4164 | | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them dadgum hills, son! United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 12622 Posts Offline | | Posted: August 13, 2011, 1:33 pm - IP Logged | |
When I was teenager I religiously watched "Heavy Metal" at the theaters on the weekends with my friends tripping on acid. Hanover Fiste was one of my favorite parts. The courtroom scene.....
Now finally, I understand where your agnosticism and spacemonkey nonsense stems from. "...I religiously watched "Heavy Metal" at the theaters on the weekends with my friends tripping on acid." Do you realize how much time we could have saved had you divulged this previously? Your brain is fried. Art Linkletter's son did acid and jumped off a highrise convinced he could fly (tragically, he couldn't). You did acid religiously and are convinced Martians came here and made sweet love to some monkeys and created modern man (didn't happen - trust me). It's all clear now, thank you. No response necessary, I won't be posting again in this thread. | | |
United States
Member #75870
June 1, 2009
5350 Posts
Offline
| | Posted: August 13, 2011, 9:23 pm - IP Logged | |
joker17 You lost me, how does this fit in here? Maybe you should lay off the acid and the booze for awhile, just saying.
RL Obviously you don't remember the previous page when Stack47 showed Hanover Fiste in a picture. http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/234355/2164502 Maybe YOU should do your homework before you write things that make you look like an idiot. Just saying... | | |
|