Wisconsin couple win in lottery -- again!

Comment #54

LckyLary — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:47:47 GMT

Really, it's computer-drawn?

A game that is computerized has to be approached much differently than a ball-drawing. Computerized games are purely numeric-based. They said he is a fan of math puzzles. It would mean his system is probably limited to computerized games then, but I'd still want to look at it. Think of it, if the system is good then it can foil those pesky computerized games...maybe now the Lotteries would have to ditch them! Isn't that what we want? Also with computerized, it doe... [ More ]

Comment #53

BobP — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:45:36 GMT

What we know is 4 winning tickets were turned in purchased from different locations.

The Wisc SuperCash 6/39 game pays up to 20 fixed jackpots of $350,000. each. After that a pool of $7 million is divided among winners.

Tickets are 2 for a dollar.

The game is computer drawn.

Just because 4 winning tickets were presented to the lottery, there may have also been lower tier prizes paid in cash if a wheel was used.

The winners may have had the experience of winning mult... [ More ]

Comment #52

LckyLary — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:55:39 GMT

I wonder if you scan past the matrix change? Or less? Also 1000-something drawings would require either a computer program or a very simple algorithm. A simple hot/cold/due tally can be done by rewriting the frequencies each drawing. It's possible he QP'd the top however-many but the 1 is weird. Maybe his due calc. is different OR maybe there is a bug in his system as I have sometimes in mine. He wants to patent his system which sounds like it's compex and/or a program because you probably can't... [ More ]

Comment #51

Stew12 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:59:15 GMT

I threw the WI history in my app here for sh*ts and giggles, and checked a few basic methods.

With a pool size of 1025 drawings (back to the matrix change), we get these statistics.

ACTUAL RESULT: 1,5,8,13,24,26

If we look at the HOT numbers ranked from HOT to COLD, 5 were decently close to the top.

29,35,20,8,24,13,26,18,2,5,23,38,4,25,19,15,21,9,28,14,27,6,10,33,1,3,30,12,37,32,34,16,17,11,36,39,7,22,31

HOT number ranks that hit were: Rank # 4,5,6,7,10,25

If we look

Comment #50

MillionsWanted — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:29:34 GMT

I won't believe them unless they can return with a first prize again within 6 months.

Comment #49

LckyLary — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:52:27 GMT

More food for thought:

- Nothing in nature is purely random, just so complicated that it can be difficult or impossible to predict.

- Let's say you have a Powerball system that provides a 1% edge. It's not much, but it's better than QP and if you win with numbers you picked you feel more like you earned it and deserve more recognition. You'll have quite a few new friends even w/o even giving them actual money!

- The matrix of SuperCash did seem to change Oct. 23, 2005, because they anno... [ More ]

Comment #48

RJOh — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:13:04 GMT

If the system was developed using only the posted results, then the pre-draw information shouldn't be a factor.

Comment #47

Stew12 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:22:12 GMT

Well 'counting' cards is just keeping track of what percentage of cards in the deck are in your favor, it all depends on what you do with that info!

It takes money to make money! To win big money using card counting methods any big BlackJack player will tell you that you need to start with a decent amount of money to ride out the lows. You won't see anyone walking in with $20 to start counting cards seriously! Counting cards only gives you a few percent advantage (if done properly), the whole... [ More ]

Comment #46

Coin Toss — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:00:12 GMT

Re: Card counting.

As a former casino worker I have to say some of the input here is quite entertaining.

Some things folks should know:

The casinos teach their supervisors card counting. They've even sent them to card counting schools (some become degenerate gamblers themselves, partly due to this).

So many times inside the pit you will hear conversations like, The guy on BJ 12 thinks he's a good counter but that's as far as it goes.

Card counting is only half of it for a good co... [ More ]

Comment #45

time*treat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:16:05 GMT

Hmm, I think you have to dig state-by-state for pre-draw info.

To that end, the Ohio lottery website links to all the other state lottery sites.

I've done some modeling of day-day vs. day-eve systems (which, in a way, mimics pre-draws). The results say don't worry about pre-drawings. Now, if you don't believe a system can work, you'd have no interest in pre-drawings (unless you saw the number you played ... show up there.

Comment #44

justxploring — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:58:01 GMT

@ time*treat

Meteorology is a science - not always an exact science - but it's still based on atmospheric physics. I took a course on meteorology physics but I don't ever remember hearing about a course on playing the lottery. Maybe your college had a different curriculum.

Judging from the traffic, I thought everyone DID live in Florida! lol

Seriously, what states do not have pre-tests before a drawing? Do you know?

@Stew - my bad. I probably shouldn't have mentioned... [ More ]

Comment #43

time*treat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:51:50 GMT

One other thing everyone keeps missing is the fact that there arepre-tests. A Florida spokesperson recently commented that they have 6pre-tests before a drawing. So how can someone base a system onpast drawings without knowing the results?

1) Not everyone lives in Florida.

2) Not everyone uses the same kind of system.

How can one predict the overall path of a hurricane without knowing the vector and temperature of every molecule

Comment #42

justxploring — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:48:32 GMT

Adding decks to blackjack games doesn't make it any more difficult to count the cards, it just reduces the percentage you can gain over the house by knowing what is left in the deck.

Isn't that what counting cards is all about?

You play the table minimum until the count is in your favor, then raise your bet 10-15 times what it previously was.

Where the heck did you learn this? I think some casino managers made it up and started spreading the news around Vegas so all the tourists would... [ More ]

Comment #41

Stew12 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:19:47 GMT

Adding decks to blackjack games doesn't make it any more difficult to count the cards, it just reduces the percentage you can gain over the house by knowing what is left in the deck. Mainly, because the casinos use 8 deck shoes now and re-shuffle after 6 have been played (leaving 2 decks not used). Since you have an edge (while counting cards) when the number of cards in the shoe is lessened, this hurts the maximum edge the players can gain. Besides that, in order to make any money you have to v... [ More ]

Comment #40

justxploring — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:03:15 GMT

There was a book written about the MIT Blackjack team. However, I doubt if anyone at MIT would create a lottery team since it's random not a science. Blackjack isn't random. The more decks in the sleeve, the more unlikely a player can count the cards and/or predict what will come next, but it's still possible. However, let's say there are as many as 6 decks being used. 24 aces have been dealt, so you know there are no more aces left. But after a lottery drawing, all the balls are put back into p... [ More ]

Comment #39

justxploring — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:55:13 GMT

In Blackjack there are 52 cards and someone with a great memory can figure out what's left in the deck. Each time a card is dealt, that card is eliminated from future picks. Not so with the lottery. Each game has the same odds as the previous one. The casinos kept adding decks to keep people who mastered the system from beating the house and to make it more difficult to count the cards as they were dealt.

Comment #38

RJOh — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:34:39 GMT

For all we know, there could be a MIT lottery team operating now. With jackpots of $50M+, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear it has at least been considered. When lottery jackpots are claimed by a trust, we have no idea who the winners are.

Comment #37

Stew12 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:10:29 GMT

It looks like October 2005 was when the matrix changed to 6/39.

Comment #36

RJOh — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:23:11 GMT

Stack,

Remember the guy that played one Buckeye5 combination twenty times every drawing? Everything was fine until he matched 5 and learned that Ohio paid $100K for each winning ticket up to a maximum of $1M and then all winning tickets shared the $1M.

There was another winning ticket and he only got 20/21 of $1M instead of the $2M he thought he deserved. He sued the state and the retailer claiming the disclaimer on the back of the play slip was never point out to him to read. He lost the

Comment #35

Stack47 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:48:05 GMT

With our jackpot games, we can only put 5 combinations on one play slip so when I was playing a 20 combination wheel, I had to fill out four. Most clerks don't check the tickets to see if they ran the same play slip twice and missed one of them so I made sure that lowest number on the first combination on each play slip was different and it was easy for me to check the tickets.

At the bottom of the pick-3 and pick-4 play slips there is box with the number of times we want to play the ticket a... [ More ]

Comment #34

time*treat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:17:52 GMT

If you do a search on MIT blackjack team, you'll get a good feel of the lengths the casinos have gone to.

There's even a documentary about it.

Comment #33

justxploring — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:52:40 GMT

@RJOh - One of the most intelligent statements I've read on this board regarding systems.

Although I don't believe there is any type of proven system, I agree with you. So, knowing that a game would surely be discontinued, changed or investigated if you really had a winning system, why would anyone go public with it? (obviously for profit or maybe some ego stroking)

Let's say I came up with a system and began winning regularly. Even if I won a few jackpot games in a short time and the Lot... [ More ]

Comment #32

KY Floyd — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:11:51 GMT

The other thing about patents is that you can only get one for something that can be patented, and you can't patent a mathematical formula. They could write about it and get a copyright (only on that specific written work), but that wouldn't prevent other people from writing about it and selling (or simply giving away) a competing work.

Comment #31

RJOh — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:28:14 GMT

I've heard casinos consider it almost criminal for anyone to devise ways of beating their games even if no laws are broken and are not hesitant to band them from their establishment. I don't think any state would go that far even if they suspected someone was regularly beating the odds of one of its game and it probably wouldn't discuss it publicly, it would just change or replace the game.

Comment #30

time*treat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:00:01 GMT

Original Post by four4me

If such a system were found we would have heard about it by now.

You hear about it in the form of matrix changes and games being dropped.

Just like in the casinos where they have changed the rules over the years and ban people not necessarily for cheating, the lotteries have changed the games, too.

Comment #29

RJOh — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:59:02 GMT

I just quoted the Professor words but I never said I believed them. He wouldn't be first person of knowledge who stated what seems like a simple truth that was later proved wrong.

Besides, if anyone ever devised such a system it wouldn't be talked about publicly , the lotteries would have to discover it and they would just change something in the game to make it harder for such a system to work.

Comment #28

ThatScaryChick — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:19:39 GMT

RJOH, I am sure there would be tons of people from here that would be begging for your system if you won. Your inbox will be full of requests.

Comment #27

four4me — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:20:46 GMT

He said there is no way to devise a strategy for finding the winning numbers in a game that uses randomly generated numbers to determine the winning combination.

I agree... there are millions of gamblers over the years who have tried to devise a system to win the lottery. If such a system were found we would have heard about it by now.

The lottery drawings are not mathematical equations that can be decoded.

Believe me i wish they were.

Comment #26

RJOh — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:10:14 GMT

After hearing the Adamsons were exploring patent protection for their equation, Steven Post, a mathematics professor at Edgewood College in Madison, wasn't buying it. He said there is no way to devise a strategy for finding the winning numbers in a game that uses randomly generated numbers to determine the winning combination.

He said, the only strategy would be to buy all the tickets .

Comment #25

LckyLary — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:08:26 GMT

Sorry but I have to ask something.. when did the format change to 39 numbers for SuperCash? I notice that the few highest numbers must have been added relatively recently. Was he aware of the extra numbers? Usually format changes can render the best system impotent until the new format is out for a while to build new data. This is especially so in ball drawings where there are now a few more flying around in the bin knocking around the original balls! Be very wary of a system that spans across a... [ More ]

Comment #24

RJOh — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:01:32 GMT

If you assume each winning combination could have been pick by an algorithm then you'll find 10-15% of them have enough similarities to have been picked by the same algorithm. Then it's just a matter of reducing the possible combinations to an affordable amount because 10% of 300-400 past drawings are still 40 lines and there are probably another 10 thousands or so lines that could still have been picked.

Comment #23

LckyLary — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:56 GMT

1. Bear in mind their payout is fixed I think, always 350K or that multiplied by the Doubler (too bad no doubler huh?) up to a certain # of winners, so the store clerk copying their #s might not have mattered. Sometimes they ask are you sure you meant to play the same set 4 times? but it probably is he plays his set each time he visits a store for whatever reason that has Lottery.

2. My best algorithms so far have matched 3 of 6 on the same drawing. It could also have been an optimized set. A... [ More ]

Comment #22

Guru101 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:05:29 GMT

I don't see what the buzz is about. The guy played the same numbers for the SAME drawing. If he won the jackpot from separate drawings, then he would have something to talk about. He didn't win the lottery 4 times.

Comment #21

RJOh — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:01:51 GMT

When David Sneath of Livonia,Michigan won his $135M MegaMillion jackpot on his 60th birthday back in April, he picked his own numbers too, but from an old QP tickets and as far as I know he hasn't set a trend.

I doubt when I win my first MM jackpot using my system if anyone will be interested in using it even if I do it again. Most lottery players are not convinced that any fore thought or planning will improve their odds of winning.

Comment #20

savagegoose — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:31:29 GMT

thats the thing with patents , they have to work before you can patent them.

Comment #19

ThatScaryChick — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:25:24 GMT

I agree. Most store clerks probably see a hundreds of numbers and lines a day. Why would they pick out one person and take their numbers. Odds are they don't care what numbers you pick.

Comment #18

GASMETERGUY — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:58:37 GMT

If I could find a total of 7 numbers (hence 21 combinations) and knew for a fact three numbers will be drawn, I would only run all 21 combinations thru one store, and then drive to another store for my second purchase. And so on.

First and foremost, I would not wish to draw attention to myself as having a formula that consistantly won. Once word got out, I don't think my life would be worth a Zimbabwe dollar.

This couple made a huge mistake. I can see it now. Some convict, about to get ou... [ More ]

Comment #17

justxploring — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:41:46 GMT

I see what you are saying, but are you a clerk in a store that sells tickets? Where I go, the people are too busy to bother. I suppose if I told someone to run a number 4 times, it would be different. Otherwise, a person would need to have a photographic memory to remember 6 numbers.

Comment #16

claymore — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:18:46 GMT

Perhaps to eliminate the chances that the clerk would go hmm... and play those exact same numbers once the winners left?

I know I'm perceptive enough to recognize odd behavior...and playing a set of numbers multiple times would arouse my suspicions enough to prompt me to throw my own dollar down on the set as well.

Comment #15

myturn08 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:09:37 GMT

I think im missing something..They had all four tickets to the winning jackpot..obviously all the tickets had the same numbers, so why would they drive to 4 different stores?...especially if he has a formula..

Comment #14

crystaltips — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:25:29 GMT

I hope they get their patent on their 'formula' I would certainly buy it.

Comment #13

guesser — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:56:57 GMT

Hey Jack - I think you are mistaken.

I have a Powerball 'formula' - and I bet most of us on here do as well, for whatever game they play.

This does not mean our 'formula' is going to pick the correct numbers for us, for example: my 'formula' helps me decide how to configure distinct pools of numbers to choose from, and it also eliminate a bunch of numbers based on other criteria. None of this means I'm going to choose the correct numbers, I still think it takes a lot of luck for things to... [ More ]

Comment #12

justxploring — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:06:04 GMT

They are doing their best to capitalize on this win too. It's now the headliner on Yahoo News. It says something like couple has formula to win lottery and that they won the lottery 4 times but they only won once! I think the person who won $50 million or $100 million using birthdays or buying a QP is better off, but I'll take any win. I think it's great when anyone wins, but I wouldn't want my name all over the internet. Not that $1.4 million isn't a nice prize, but I would want my privacy.... [ More ]

Comment #11

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:02:21 GMT

Let me get this straight. He said he has a formula. She says they have been playing the same numbers for years. Which one is it?

Oh, I know now! Her numbers range from 1 to 39.

I tend to believe him more than her solely because I want to believe him.

As to a way he can make money with a system, he uses his formula to find 7 numbers that have a good chance of being drawn. These 7 numbers will translate into 21 possible combinations (lines, for those of you old-timers). If I remember co... [ More ]

Comment #10

whodeani — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:54:05 GMT

So they played the same numbers four times. There was a guy from Wisconsin a while back that did the same thing. I don't understand this. They should know how the payouts work for Supercash. Supercash will payout up to 20 winning tickets!!!!! That's $7,000,000. You get two plays for a buck. So these people spent $2. If you feel that strongly about a set of numbers to play them multiple times, why not just splurge and spend $8 more and buy the maximum of 20 tickets to multiply the amount of your... [ More ]

Comment #9

jeffrey — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:54:53 GMT

I agree. A random system will play out the odds. Mathematics is a rock in this respect. Non-random lotteries (i.e. rigged systems and faulty) can be predicted. People who claim life is easy, lunch is free and money falls from the sky in plenty are selling something. Please, don't be a sucker, have fun and play wisely.

Comment #8

dejack03 — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:44:20 GMT

Brad Duke claimed to use a numbering system that had won him a couple hundred dollars (and 85 million) in the Powerball.

Bull.

Sorry guys but it's mathmatically impossible. ONE: If such a formula existed, it would have been discovered easily by now. There is no forumla. A formula would defeat the entire purpose of the lottery. TWO: Lotteries employ a certain range of possibilities, played over a certain population, which USUALLY results in a win a couple of draws later. MILLIONS of people... [ More ]

Comment #7

justxploring — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:15:18 GMT

You took the words right out of my mouth (or should I say fingers?) I began to type something similar before I saw your post.

Comment #6

ThatScaryChick — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:11:58 GMT

Whatever system they used, it sure paid off! Congrats to them, again

Comment #5

RJOh — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:12:35 GMT

It's not much of a system for jackpot games if it came up with the same combination four times unless they were playing to win several lower tiers prizes. Since one ticket can win as much as four tickets when the same person owns them, it makes more sense to not have repeats unless you were playing a pick3/4 game.

Comment #4

Uff Da! — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:06:19 GMT

But after presenting the first two tickets, Judith Adamson said, I'm in a state of shock. She also said they had been playing the same numbers for several years.

What kind of system can it be if they have been playing the same numbers for several years? Sounds mighty strange to me.

Comment #3

LckyLary — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:17:34 GMT

There are more systems out there than teenagers at a Jonas Brothers concert. But I have never seen a backtest of any showing consistent profit, which would be a key selling point more so than one major jackpot win and several small wins that may or may not have netted profit before then. I do hope that their system is valid and profitable and can be used on other games including here. I would even be interested in buying it if it could help with Jersey 5 or MM or PB etc. But I would have to see

Comment #2

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:04:59 GMT

Who says there is no system!!!! This couple has one. So predicting the lotto is possible after all!

More power to them

Comment #1

LckyLary — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:57:54 GMT

Oh Joy! We finally have the CORRECT numbers!

Now to get crackin' on figuring out HOW they arrived at them.

If I am successful in doing that then I will freely share it.

It would be a riot if one of my own algorithms given their data gave the same result!

And again, if we guess that 10percent? of players use systems, then when there is a winner (all else equal) there is a 10% chance they used a system. If there were a disproportionate amount of winners that used systems or if a thorou... [ More ]

Wisconsin couple win in lottery -- again!

Lottery Post — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:49:14 GMT

The Mount Horeb couple who made headlines earlier this week because they held two of only four winning tickets sold in Wisconsin for Saturday's SuperCash drawing, turn out to have the other two as well.

Verlyn Adamson, 69, and his wife, Judith, 69, of Mount Horeb, turned in the other two tickets and it turned out they are the only winners in Saturday's drawing and are now $1.4 million richer.

Lottery spokesman Andrew Bohage was surprised when the Adamsons held the first two winning tickets... [ More ]