Proving a system works

Reply #31

pacattack05 — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:10:14 GMT

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?....WHEW

Reply #30

Tenaj — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:06:17 GMT

I already know the answer. The bottom line is winning without hurting or offending anyone and helping others to win.

Reply #29

Rip Snorter — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:56:43 GMT

I dunno, Tenaj. You've been posting frequently lately and some of the opinions you expressed so strongly they were deleted. Maybe you can look inside yourself for the answer to your question.Jack

Reply #28

Tenaj — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:28:44 GMT

I was just wondering if the people who had the most to say and the strongest opinions were the ones who were hitting. It's what I figured.

Reply #27

Rip Snorter — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:32 GMT

I haven't played during the last three days, Tenaj.I assume the reason you're asking involves the fact that the people posting on the thread seem to believe that to 'prove' a system numbers need to be posted before the draw, and watch them hit or miss. Or, a means of communicating profit/loss needs to be provided.The fact is, you never made any bones about your unwillingness to do this from the first blog entry. You told it exactly as you intended to tell it. I don't see you as an issue. You... [ More ]

Reply #26

pacattack05 — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:10 GMT

I bought 1000 tickets on the number 808, yesterday in Florida. A half a million tax free.I'm getting new shoe laces for my sneakers tommorrow. And a brand new pillow case.

Reply #25

Tenaj — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:51:12 GMT

How many times have you guys having this conversation hit in the last 3 days?Just curious.

Reply #24

Rip Snorter — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:31:09 GMT

It's worth revisiting that thread occasionally as an opportunity to learn something about ourselves:https://www.lotterypost.com/threads.asp?tp=108827 sp=1 sq=biglooooser sm=p si=a sf=0 sd=9999 ss=dd rp=Search p=10It might be we could have all learned a lot if we'd taken a different approach to BL. As it is, we can learn only about ourselves and try to forget the big one that got away. Or maybe it was just a tree stump or old tire we hooked into. We'll never know, and we have ourselves to thank... [ More ]

Reply #23

Rip Snorter — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:08:28 GMT

Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.a) It's nonsense, b) It is not important, c) I always said it was a good idea, andd) I thought of it first. BobPClarke was correct, but it's the institutional, the human personality side of science he's describing. The pure scientific approach would be toobserve a phenomenon, gather as much evidence as possible to explain the phenomenon,formulate a theo... [ More ]

Reply #22

BobP — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:39:57 GMT

Reply #21

Rip Snorter — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:22:50 GMT

I do not think it is that hard to program a system to have the same number spit out.I think you're probably right.Jack

Reply #20

JAP69 — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:34:21 GMT

You are right when you say that having an automated system that spits out a number and will come up with the winning number enough times for profit then why expose it or sell it.In the 3 game having the system that picks one number to play straight only requires a hit once evry 500 draws before you loose money. If you have a system that spits out more than one number the figure for profit will need adjusting.When creating a system it will need to be programed to have the same exact number spit o... [ More ]

Reply #19

Rip Snorter — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:24:45 GMT

I agree. My point was that any meaningful discussion of 'proof' has to begin with a lot of mutual acceptance of the starting point. In criminal court, the assumption is innocence until proven guilty. In civil court the assumption is neutrality, but with a bias in favor of the accuser having to support the claim with a preponderance of evidence, the burden of the defendant being to discredit the claim of the accuser.In science the proof of a theorem presumes neutrality and a neutral examinatio... [ More ]

Reply #18

RJOh — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:49:09 GMT

Playing the lottery is gambling. If a system could guarantee a win most of the time, it wouldn't be gambling. When one gambles, one accept the possibility of losing and courts recognize that. I doubt if any court would hear a complaint about a lottery system not producing a winner. Besides, most systems are sold with a disclaimer that the product is to be used for entertainment only. When one gamble using the product, the contract is voided.

Reply #17

Rip Snorter — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:35:59 GMT

Interesting supposition. Some of it might be true.Jack

Reply #16

pacattack05 — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:42:34 GMT

If you are consistently winning atleast a thousand dollars a day clear, without the lottery authorities picking up on you, and can prove it, you've got a system.No need for me to write 17 paragraphs about this.It's simple as that. Period!Have a nice day to all....... California Love Gin and Juice

Reply #15

BobP — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:27:31 GMT

I suspect if a system were ever to be challenged in court, the experts would explain why it couldn't work, without even once attempting to try it.A system based on past draw history could appear to work because it would be salted like a fake gold mine. I remember Lightning Bolt had one system that was all the Pick-3 numbers from the past year, in back testing it was always correct prior to filtering.Often systems do work in spurts, so for a time a system can ride high and appear to work in re... [ More ]

Reply #14

BaristaExpress — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:48:10 GMT

Reply #13

Rip Snorter — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:18:24 GMT

Depends on what the system's intended to do, it seems to me, and who the intended provee is, and why.If a person's trying to defend himself in a criminal court for selling a system he claims works, he's going to have to be proven guilty of whatever they're charging him with beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the system has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt not to work.If the person's being sued for misrepresenting a system as 'working', when it doesn't, it requires a preponderance of ev... [ More ]

Reply #12

RJOh — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:46:03 GMT

No because most lottery software work like a RNG, player using the same data get different results. If enough players get different results one of them may get lucky. If software gave the same results to all its users then a winning player using it would be sharing his winnings with every other player that used it.

Reply #11

Tenaj — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:35:45 GMT

The Randomness of the Randomness! I'm not trying to understand Randomness!It doesn't matter!It's only what we think it is.

Reply #10

LANTERN — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:11:44 GMT

Randomness is exactly just that randomness and nothing else and from it is where the patterns come from, the patterns come from randomness, the patterns of the past winning numbers.I am looking at Charmed, a very nice TV program.But there is nothing like the Magic of the mind.Randomness creates winning numbers and their patterns.Randomness is so missunderstood, same as filters.Good luck.

Reply #9

Tenaj — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:02:18 GMT

I think the repeat of the same number will throw any system off. Especially if the repeats are often.But the past draws are the key to the hits, regardless of the randomness and you don't need computer software for that, just a good record system to see the patterns as they happen and refer back when it happened before.You will need software to prove that is works but not for it to work.

Reply #8

LANTERN — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:42:50 GMT

Jap69Yes, you are right.There is the make-up and or mechanical details of the game and it's past winning draws.From those, we get the working details and random statistics of the game and prediction comes from their proper application.The key is in understanding random as it applies to the particular game and knowing and understanding it's many statistics.At least I think so, but might be wrong.Fernando, beginning student of lottery randomness or minor adept.The very many faces of Random Statis... [ More ]

Reply #7

bellyache — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:16:19 GMT

I wonder if that will ever happen though. It seems some systems work with some people or some games and not others. I don't think there will ever be a system that works all the time for all people.

Reply #6

RJOh — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:11:28 GMT

Now all that has to happen is for some to post a winning system and the software that makes it work. Good luck.

Reply #5

Tenaj — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:57:50 GMT

Reply #4

Debzo — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:18:22 GMT

Very interesting, good post

Reply #3

urug2000 — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:45:41 GMT

Shades of EINSTEIN.

Reply #2

MADDOG10 — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:10:35 GMT

you're absolutely correct JP. The thought process has a lot of variables and intangibles and not everyone thinks along the same line, hence different results attained from the same system. The only way it ever will be proven is to have it in a software system, or other than that it would just pure luck, even if it is calculated on one's part...

Reply #1

mglsr — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:51:02 GMT

100 % correct JAP 69

Proving a system works

JAP69 — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:45:37 GMT

I have seen a lot of discussion over the years when people post a system to prove that it works.When a system is posted using paper and pencil workout that requires the mental thought of the user can not be proven to work for everyone.When a thought process is used for proof that only proves the ability of the user of the system. Someone else may use the system and come up with different results.For a system to be proven in the lottery it must be 100% automated in a software system.Just my opini... [ More ]