United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Tialuvslotto on Oct 30, 2014
Thanks for pointing that out Jim!
I got the 90% from Win D's old post, but checking my own data I get closer to 60%.
Must remember: when taking information from the web, verify, verify, verify!
Well, unfortunately, the empirical data does NOT support Win D's double trap. As a matter of fact, it didn't take long ,at all, to find that the empirical evidence ,overwhelmingly, refutes it.
Anyway, the back-testing was done on one state and has ,before long, shown significant losing streaks with way too many consecutive losses. The fact is that if something fails in one state then you can expect it to do worse when playing many states. So, Win D's double trap can be considered to be ,officially, debunked. But, no offense to Win D though.
WARNING: Do NOT use Win D's double trap for real-world game play. Especially, when playing a lot of money as Jimjwright suggested.
United States
Member #1,344
April 6, 2003
184 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Oct 30, 2014
Well, unfortunately, the empirical data does NOT support Win D's double trap. As a matter of fact, it didn't take long ,at all, to find that the empirical evidence ,overwhelmingly, refutes it.
Anyway, the back-testing was done on one state and has ,before long, shown significant losing streaks with way too many consecutive losses. The fact is that if something fails in one state then you can expect it to do worse when playing many states. So, Win D's double trap can be considered to be ,officially, debunked. But, no offense to Win D though.
WARNING: Do NOT use Win D's double trap for real-world game play. Especially, when playing a lot of money as Jimjwright suggested.
Even at 60% +/- it's as good or better than any trap out there right?
Could you please show your work or the actual math? We need to see how to do it and the actual rate expected.That way we know the average expectations. Math examples do all the heavy lifting for show and tell. Show the math.Otherwise, just data streams and words leave us still guessing.
It sure seemed to work more often than not, and for a long time. Of course, even using data from several states or a set time can be misleading. So, math is better yes? Using data streams alone can always be misleading or anomalous no matter how large. Thanks.
United States
Member #155,677
May 26, 2014
26 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Oct 30, 2014
Well, unfortunately, the empirical data does NOT support Win D's double trap. As a matter of fact, it didn't take long ,at all, to find that the empirical evidence ,overwhelmingly, refutes it.
Anyway, the back-testing was done on one state and has ,before long, shown significant losing streaks with way too many consecutive losses. The fact is that if something fails in one state then you can expect it to do worse when playing many states. So, Win D's double trap can be considered to be ,officially, debunked. But, no offense to Win D though.
WARNING: Do NOT use Win D's double trap for real-world game play. Especially, when playing a lot of money as Jimjwright suggested.
One state? You are kidding right? What state are you talking about? No state numbers and no data shown so it's pretty hard to agree or not.
Most states get 99doubles per year out of 365.Those LONG double skips most times don't show more than 4,or 5,or even 7 or 8 times per year, per state game. Sure, I've seen exceptions go past the10 draws trap mark but not enough to worry about per year.
Sure, some go for longer or less over time but not very many. I always start my traps at 8 or 9 instead of 7 single draw runs and play until the 11th. draw and stop. It is so rare that most players forget to play it. So rare it's better to follow many state's games to even find enough to play. Of the 97 doubles Louisiana had last year we only went past 10 draws 5 times. 18,11,11,13,15 What percent is that of the 97? About 95% good yes ? Only 5% went badly over. Remember too I play until the 11 draw. So only 3 bad ones for me of the 97.
United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Prometheus1 on Oct 30, 2014
Even at 60% +/- it's as good or better than any trap out there right?
Could you please show your work or the actual math? We need to see how to do it and the actual rate expected.That way we know the average expectations. Math examples do all the heavy lifting for show and tell. Show the math.Otherwise, just data streams and words leave us still guessing.
It sure seemed to work more often than not, and for a long time. Of course, even using data from several states or a set time can be misleading. So, math is better yes? Using data streams alone can always be misleading or anomalous no matter how large. Thanks.
Well, one would just need to look over the history of their own state to know that it is not reliable and would cause one to have too many consecutive losses. There's no math or rocket science involved.
United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by clothilde on Oct 30, 2014
One state? You are kidding right? What state are you talking about? No state numbers and no data shown so it's pretty hard to agree or not.
Most states get 99doubles per year out of 365.Those LONG double skips most times don't show more than 4,or 5,or even 7 or 8 times per year, per state game. Sure, I've seen exceptions go past the10 draws trap mark but not enough to worry about per year.
Sure, some go for longer or less over time but not very many. I always start my traps at 8 or 9 instead of 7 single draw runs and play until the 11th. draw and stop. It is so rare that most players forget to play it. So rare it's better to follow many state's games to even find enough to play. Of the 97 doubles Louisiana had last year we only went past 10 draws 5 times. 18,11,11,13,15 What percent is that of the 97? About 95% good yes ? Only 5% went badly over. Remember too I play until the 11 draw. So only 3 bad ones for me of the 97.
Well, the state I'm referring to is New York. But, it only takes one state to debunk it. Btw, if it fails in one state then it could fail ,at any time, in any of the others. So, here you go.
As you can see, there are ,so far, 9 consecutive losses(L's). For that matter, this losing streak might even continue. Clearly, this is completely unacceptable for any player. Also, take note that these are all recent draws. Now, the fact that I've found this so easily is ,indeed, a bad sign.
Crested Butte, CO United States
Member #69,862
January 18, 2009
1,394 Posts
Offline
Well in WinD's defense he based his 90% number based on tracking Georgia's Midday, and Georgia's Evening separately (i.e. not combined) for the year 2013. He did not have software at that time that would track all the states.
I highlighted in red the year 2013 where 20 out of 22 times the double trap worked for Georgia or 91% of the time. So if you don't have software to easily track all the states its easy to come to the conclusion that 90% would work for all states based on the results you saw playing in your home state of Georgia.
United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimjwright on Oct 31, 2014
Well in WinD's defense he based his 90% number based on tracking Georgia's Midday, and Georgia's Evening separately (i.e. not combined) for the year 2013. He did not have software at that time that would track all the states.
I highlighted in red the year 2013 where 20 out of 22 times the double trap worked for Georgia or 91% of the time. So if you don't have software to easily track all the states its easy to come to the conclusion that 90% would work for all states based on the results you saw playing in your home state of Georgia.
WinD is still smarter than anyone else I know in playing Pick3 end of story.
Jimmy
Well, that's not much of a defense for a method that's so overrated. But, it doesn't matter whether the Midday and Evening are combined or not. This method must work in any case to be reliable. So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart? There's no reason why I can't do the same thing then.
Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense? Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?
Anyway, Win D may be smarter than anyone else you know, but that doesn't ,necessarily, mean that he's the smartest one on here. So, if he's so smart than he should be able to solve this problem. For that matter, there ,already, is a solution to this problem and it exists within my own system.
COLUMBUS,GA. United States
Member #4,924
June 3, 2004
6,719 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Pick3Guy on Oct 31, 2014
Well, that's not much of a defense for a method that's so overrated. But, it doesn't matter whether the Midday and Evening are combined or not. This method must work in any case to be reliable. So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart? There's no reason why I can't do the same thing then.
Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense? Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?
Anyway, Win D may be smarter than anyone else you know, but that doesn't ,necessarily, mean that he's the smartest one on here. So, if he's so smart than he should be able to solve this problem. For that matter, there ,already, is a solution to this problem and it exists within my own system.
I noticed, you keep mentioning "your system", but I don't see any posts showing any part of your system.
Texas United States
Member #150,790
December 31, 2013
824 Posts
Offline
For the record, I think WIN D rocks! He has developed a wide range of innovative methods for Pick 3 that WORK. And, he has been incredibly generous in sharing his methods with the LP Community.
Now, can I please re-focus this discussion on the point that I was trying to make?
Pick3guy claimed that the law of averages could tell you how often to expect any given event, but not how many draws to play. I argue that the probability distribution does give information on how many draws to play for optimal coverage.
So, my POINT would be that the "holy grail" of Pick 3 would be to track the data in order to pick up on any anomalies and then use the distribution of that event to define your playing window. I like to wait for long-out events that have a 0.95 or higher probability of success within a few draws.
Or, as discussed earlier by Peer Gynt, just play the "zero skip", i.e. capitalize on the fact that many events in Pick 3 have a high probability of repeating. For example, doubles have a 0.27 probability of repeating, or about a 1 in 4 chance of success. So also, for any of the 50/50 splits, the 2/1 or 1/2 configuration (eg HHL or EOO) has a 0.38 probability of repeat or about a 1 in 3 chance of success. And so it is for many of the statistics in the Pick 3 game.
"There is no such thing as luck; only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
COLUMBUS,GA. United States
Member #4,924
June 3, 2004
6,719 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Tialuvslotto on Oct 31, 2014
For the record, I think WIN D rocks! He has developed a wide range of innovative methods for Pick 3 that WORK. And, he has been incredibly generous in sharing his methods with the LP Community.
Now, can I please re-focus this discussion on the point that I was trying to make?
Pick3guy claimed that the law of averages could tell you how often to expect any given event, but not how many draws to play. I argue that the probability distribution does give information on how many draws to play for optimal coverage.
So, my POINT would be that the "holy grail" of Pick 3 would be to track the data in order to pick up on any anomalies and then use the distribution of that event to define your playing window. I like to wait for long-out events that have a 0.95 or higher probability of success within a few draws.
Or, as discussed earlier by Peer Gynt, just play the "zero skip", i.e. capitalize on the fact that many events in Pick 3 have a high probability of repeating. For example, doubles have a 0.27 probability of repeating, or about a 1 in 4 chance of success. So also, for any of the 50/50 splits, the 2/1 or 1/2 configuration (eg HHL or EOO) has a 0.38 probability of repeat or about a 1 in 3 chance of success. And so it is for many of the statistics in the Pick 3 game.
You, Win D, Rl, and JJ, all rock for your sharing attitude. Let me include WSLS!!!!
United States
Member #155,987
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Tialuvslotto on Oct 31, 2014
For the record, I think WIN D rocks! He has developed a wide range of innovative methods for Pick 3 that WORK. And, he has been incredibly generous in sharing his methods with the LP Community.
Now, can I please re-focus this discussion on the point that I was trying to make?
Pick3guy claimed that the law of averages could tell you how often to expect any given event, but not how many draws to play. I argue that the probability distribution does give information on how many draws to play for optimal coverage.
So, my POINT would be that the "holy grail" of Pick 3 would be to track the data in order to pick up on any anomalies and then use the distribution of that event to define your playing window. I like to wait for long-out events that have a 0.95 or higher probability of success within a few draws.
Or, as discussed earlier by Peer Gynt, just play the "zero skip", i.e. capitalize on the fact that many events in Pick 3 have a high probability of repeating. For example, doubles have a 0.27 probability of repeating, or about a 1 in 4 chance of success. So also, for any of the 50/50 splits, the 2/1 or 1/2 configuration (eg HHL or EOO) has a 0.38 probability of repeat or about a 1 in 3 chance of success. And so it is for many of the statistics in the Pick 3 game.
Well, Win D does deserve some credit for his work. After all, a logical basis has been found to support his double trap method. Also, some empirical evidence has been found in favor of it. So, we have evidence both for and against it. But, the fact that you can get 9 ,or more, consecutive losses is unacceptable. So far, my analysis reveals that Win D's double trap is too risky and is in need of some improvement. This has even led to changes within my own system.
Anyway, I don't recall saying that the law of averages could tell you how often to expect an event. Although, I've say that it doesn't specify how many plays. Now, it can be said that the game shows anomalies all the time when outcomes seem to defy probability. But, these "anomalies" might just be the game proceeding normally. So, what would you consider to be an anomaly?