Jimbo
Don't waste the time, you won't apply the correct application to the many different aspects. You are
so into your ego that all you look for is fault. I reread the thread which prompted me to write the above
post. The reason for it was to show you that I do understand that which you think I am unaware of.
Sorry you don't agree with the statement that you will reduce your chances of winning a JP in your
lifetime but it's true. In my many test of random over many years these type of sets don't show that
often. Please note that the set has the same odds as any other set but if you play this set you can
expect it to show only once within so many drawings, that amount is most likely longer than you have
left. This also applies to many other types of lines and is not limited to just your set. I use digits in
such a way that it gives me the most coverage I can get in the fewest possible. Nothing more than
this is meant by the statement. I hope to hit the JP when I play but the real effort is in trying to trap
as many smaller prizes as I can. The game odds would say that your set has the same chance to show
but actual test I have ran say otherwise. I don't care if you agree or not it's just my personal observation.
I think it's my personal observations that gets your panties all bunched up. When you post your colorful
post I hope you attempt to put your EGO aside and try to understand what I wrote. Many times your
response is addressed to me but I can't figure out why because you miss what I meant by a mile. The
digits I choose to play determines the range of possible sets that if the drawing falls within then I will
win way more than expected. If you study my last post you should see how that certain digits can be
combined to give the best coverage based on my beliefs that the next set drawn will fall within some
range. All that it is doing is expanding the field I choose to play. Nothing more nothing less. If my digit
choices are incorrect then well they are incorrect, so what.
RL