Win $1800.00 Daily

Reply #49

RJOh — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:20:50 GMT

In this thread: https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/191435

BobP post Now now RJOh I only posted that system as a demonstratum, I didn't recommend playing it.

Reply #48

time*treat — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:41:15 GMT

Even a whacky system can be worth discussing, if for no other reason than to explain to others why it's whacky.

Reply #47

Kaptainess — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:12:29 GMT

I mean no disrespect, but this system is whacky. I make a decent return on my bets, but I do the homework in order to do so. This is leaving too much to chance, when there are other ways in which to win. Too much output, for very little return, too much left for a mishap.

I hope you don't bet your money this way.

Reply #46

JimmySand9 — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:14:05 GMT

This actually could work, 80% of the time. The other 20%, I'd rather not think about it.

Reply #45

diamondpalace — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:07:10 GMT

This is a high risk system, risking 8 to win 1, and if lost 8 require a consecutive of 9 days to win it back + 1 to stay ahead, while risking to lose 8 more totalling of 16 ($1,600). If one have $800 sitting around doing nothing, put it in good investment or break it up into smaller budget of under $50 to win $250 - $500 is ideal for pick 3 str. Since there's 20% that a player will lose $800, that's a high risk. Would rather spend $100 to have 20% to win $800, that means ideally in 10 bets (cost... [ More ]

Reply #44

time*treat — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:29:58 GMT

What will save many people a lot of grief is that $800 hurdle to play this way.

More people would risk $20~$50 a pop without backtesting, but $800, you're gonna think about it for a minute.

Of course, the seller of the system doesn't care, they've already got your purchase money.

Reply #43

RJOh — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:55:13 GMT

Have you ever run a simulation on paper for a couple of weeks to see if you really would have made a profit?

Back testing usually always come out positive because when it doesn't changes can be made to make it come out positive. Most players don't have the patients to test forward with a simulation because if they have a couple of hits after doing all the work, it hard to resist playing for real.

Reply #42

time*treat — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:31:42 GMT

Yep. I stand corrected on the # of win days vs # of lose days.

4 days out of 5 (or 8 of 10) days, you will net $100 gain each day.

Now you just gotta figure of which 1 of 5 days not to play, else you'll lose all the profit back and then some.

Reply #41

BobP — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:02:28 GMT

You're betting 800 of the 1000 numbers so you should win 8 times out of 10 for a profit of 100 each draw for a total profit of 800 and lose two times out of 10 for a loss of 1600 unless you make a choice such as not playing those two days. BobP

Reply #40

time*treat — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:45:35 GMT

It's not a bad investment on the 1 of 5 days that you put in $800 and get out $900 on a win.

It's a bad investment on the 4 of 5 days that you put in $800 and get out $0 on a lose.

Reply #39

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:36:46 GMT

Why would putting out $800 to win $100 be a bad investment? I don't understand.

Assuming one can find a place to lay down 800 dollars for a 900 dollar win, the return on your investment is actually great. That return translates into a 12.5% return on your investment. At twice a day, that comes to 25% return....daily. Find a bank, mutual fund, Bernie Madoff scheme, paying that much; just try.

Of course this is assuming you never lose.

Reply #38

BobP — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:55:47 GMT

Long time back I was surprised to find some of the best sounding Pick-3 Steve Player systems were nothing more then progressive wagering.

You know, win $250,000 playing Pick-3, just keep doubling the bet, write yourself a weekly paycheck, just syphon off a little as it grows.

The math was sound, if you could pick the winning numbers and if you want to do that, you have to buy one of the systems that picks winning numbers.

When I went to play at what we call the other place arou... [ More ]

Reply #37

tjk1058 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:29:50 GMT

Sorry BobP-

I wasn't intentionally highjacking this thread... just rambling off my results of a paper system I had tested and it worked until I found out the limits of the one online betting place I was going to use said they limited the amount of bets per day to a real low amount.

My system actually doesn't start at a 900/100 or 90/10 loss as it starts with betting the lowest amount from day 1 and then working your way up progressively each day to cover all your bets from previous days.... [ More ]

Reply #36

BobP — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:17:49 GMT

This is called hijacking a thread by turning it to a different topic. Happens all too often around here, but what can you do?

The 200/800 gives you an 80/20 shot at winning and maybe better.

Your system starts at 900/100 or a 90/10 shot at losing your first wager.

The 800/200 or 80/20 shot, how often did that work?

Once you start getting into the 1 in 3 area things start to look up win wise.

The question with the 200/800 system was whether more recently drawn (last

Reply #35

tjk1058 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:32:55 GMT

I worked on a progressive pick 3 system that I back tested for 5 months and was showing a paper profit of $45,000. I was excited that I had discovered this until I found out that the online lotto that claims to pay $900 per $1 bet limited the amount you can bet each day or draw.

The system was basically this...

day 1 bet $1 on all 000's

if no win bet

bet $2 on all 500's

bet $3 on all 600's

then alternate between low and high numbers until you hit...

So by day it would look l... [ More ]

Reply #34

js1237 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:41:22 GMT

CONGRATS Fibonacci,

Mon-March 16, 2009$ OHIO-MID-484 $STR... Hope that someone caught it...I missed it as I just seen your post.

Do you still like all 3 numbers as STR in ALL States???

Keep the winners coming...JS....

Reply #33

Fibonacci — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:18:51 GMT

Update ..since posting above..

3/15/2009 565 note this number falls between the emerging cluster 552....570...more hits there, from the 200...expect a close number from the 800 list 566---564 etc

3/14/2009 073 begins with a missing digit 0,1,3,8

3/13/2009 507

The narrowest cluster is between 481 and 496. I would play the numbers there until they come, especially the doubles

484--488--494

Reply #32

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:27:49 GMT

or tryFibonacci

Hey Fibonacci that was arduous job

taking the last 200 straights in GA (without repeaters) from Feb 28 backwards.If you try again I will input to test again...or try myself .

Reply #31

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:03:15 GMT

Zero and One digit winners ..as normal

147 354 049 148 247 364 149 374 249 348 456 394 457

Brought you this far with a good key

digit 4... If you had to reduce farther

Stick with the troughs

147 049 148 149 249 348 394

There is a 51.2% probability that the next winning number will not contain a 0 or a 1. Which means that there is a 48.8% probability that the next winning number will contain either 0 or 1 or the 01 pair. Pretty close to a 50/50 shot. BTW there are 384 strai... [ More ]

Reply #30

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:33:04 GMT

Inspect the larger group above

You may want to choose/follow

High/Low:

HHH 0 0%

HHL 2 15.4% 456 457

HLL 11 84.6% 147 354 049 148 247 364 149 374 249 348 394

LLL 0 0%

Even/Odd:

EEE 0 0%

EEO 7 53.8% 049 148 247 364 249 348 456

EOO 6 46.2% 147 354 149 374 394 457

from Mar 1 to Mar 12

Thu, Mar 5, 2009 4-8-1

Sat, Mar 7, 2009 0-9-4 BOX Play

The 800 list follows

000 002 0... [ More ]

Reply #29

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:27:15 GMT

Your Key digits rating changes

Key Numbers:

0 3 13.0% 049 067 069

1 7 30.4% 147 148 149 156 176 168 196

2 4 17.4% 247 249 265 267

3 7 30.4% 354 364 374 348 394 356 367

4 13 56.5% 147 354 049 148 247 364 149 374 249 348 456 394 457

5 6 26.1% 354 456 457 156 265 356

6 12 52.2% 364 456 156 067 265 176 356 069 168 267 196 367

7 8 34.8% 147 247 374 457 067 176 267 367

8 3 13.0% 148 348 168

9 6 26.1% 049 149 249 394 069 196

Reply #28

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:11:52 GMT

048 147 246 354 444 049 148 247 364 445 149 284 374 446 455 249 348 456 474 394 448 457 466

066 156 246 363 067 265 364 616 068 176 266 356 446 069 168 267 366 456 196 286 367 466 556

These are the box version..to continue

Remove all non-clean numbers

Numbers that are not:

two highs and a low

two lows and a high

two evens and an odd

two odds and an even

all even , all odd or doubles

******************

Your result(remove any duplicates)

147 354 049 148 247 36... [ More ]

Reply #27

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:04:45 GMT

12 15 1.9% 039 048 057 066 129 147 156 183 228 237 246 255 354 363 444

13 15 1.9% 049 058 067 139 148 157 229 247 265 283 337 355 364 445 616

14 15 1.9% 059 068 077 149 158 176 239 257 266 284 338 356 374 446 455

15 14 1.8% 069 087 159 168 177 249 258 267 348 366 375 393 456 474

16 14 1.8% 079 187 196 259 277 286 358 367 394 448 457 466 556 880

Remove the duplicates

*****************************

Find the top key digit(s) from the above

Key Numbers

Reply #26

Blackapple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:01:20 GMT

WHERE I COULD BEGIN WITH A LIST OF 800

Using Ga. eve example

The 800 list follows

000 002 004 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 015 016 019 021 022 023 024 027 028 030 032 035 036 037 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 055 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 075 076 077 079 080 082 083 084 085 086 087 089 090 091 092 093 095 096 097 099 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 109 111 112 113 114 115 116 118 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 128 129 130

Reply #25

RJOh — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:14:05 GMT

You didn't misunderstand the system. Granted, every time you go one record back, you have already looked at 199 or those 200 drawings but it's still seems like a lot of work for the potential reward. First you have to find a place that pays $900 for a straight hit on a dollar ticket.

I guess if I played pick3 it wouldn't seem like a lot of work because I actually wrote a similar routine in my analyzing program to check winning numbers for the jackpot games I play but with jackpot games I'm n... [ More ]

Reply #24

time*treat — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:31:37 GMT

Yeah, each draw requires itself plus the previous 200 drawings (or nearest 200 unique drawings), so if you wanted to backtest a years worth, you'd need 365 + 200 + a cushion of about 30 days. About 600 numbers. Whatever timeframe you wanted to test for, you'd need that plus ~250 days.

Reply #23

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:29:45 GMT

Evidently I am misunderstanding the system. From what I gathered one is to take the total combinations of 1,000 and remove 200 of them. So let us take just one year of data and apply the algorithym.

Recording one year of a P3 game will result in 730 drawing. Starting with the oldest drawing, remove 200 of the drawn numbers from the total population of 1,000. Now the question becomes Is the winning number contained within the 800 that remain? There can only be two possible answers; either yes

Reply #22

Fibonacci — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:01:14 GMT

GA (E). Ten (10) of last 12 draws came from the 800 list (slightly higher than the 4:1 expected).

Cost at 25 cents $2400 Revenue $2225 loss $125 even when the returns were above the mathematical average. LOL.

Now notice that no hits have come from numbers with digits beginning with 0,1, 3, 8. Now you can narrow down an filter. With some additional filtering work the scheme can transmogrify into a system.

Another strategy: Notice where ealry signs of possible clusters are showing.

Num... [ More ]

Reply #21

Fibonacci — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:48:09 GMT

Here's a test of this Madoff Scheme on the state of GA (E). I take the last 200 straights in GA (without repeaters) from Feb 28 backwards. Then I play the 800 undrawns from Mar 1 to yesterday, Mar 12.

It took 224 of the previous draws to get 200 different straights (there were 24 repeaters). Numbers drawn from each from Mar 1 to Mar 12 are highlighted in GreenaHere are the 200 different straights that hit in GA (E) up to feb 28, 2009.

001 003 005 006 014 017 018 020 025 026 029 031 033 034... [ More ]

Reply #20

time*treat — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:36:14 GMT

Seems I misunderstood the question. I took will this system work? to mean will this system profit the person using it?

I considered a continuous growing net loss proof enough that this system shouldn't be played.

Good luck.

Reply #19

Fibonacci — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:58:46 GMT

The probability of a number that hit in the last 200 repeating in the next 200 is still mathematically 1/1000.

IOW the probability of any individual number in the 200 list is the same as any individual number in the 800 list.

However the prob of that the next draw will be from last 200 draws is only1/4 times the probability of its being from the 800 list. But that's ONLY because 800 is more than 200 not becxause they have not been drawn

Reply #18

Badger — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:53:30 GMT

You may be correct in the idea of some people willing to take a chance. But if they have $500 laying around, they aren't in such bad shape. We have millions without paychecks, and more being turned out on the street seemingly every day.. People that still have a regular income coming o them should just appreciate that.

Reply #17

Fibonacci — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:44:30 GMT

All I can say is LOL! I could have sworn I saw Bernie Madoff hatching this system.

Reply #16

BobP — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:20:43 GMT

Pick-3 is a negative expectation game, the math will always show a system losing over time. This means the player must make correct decisions as to what to play and when to play for any such system to play at a profit over time.

Playing 800 numbers out of 1000, many might say it's hard to lose if a little thought goes into it. You'll likely win 8 times out of 10 without even trying, though we want to win 10 times out of 10. What's the two additional wins gonna take?

BobP... [ More ]

Reply #15

RJOh — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:55:56 GMT

Mathematically none of our systems can work so that's not proof they shouldn't be played.

That's probably more true when you're talking about a system that is played twice a week to win a MegaMillions or PowerBall jackpot of $100M+. The potential reward is big enough that the risk can be shared with others

Reply #14

BobP — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:40:47 GMT

Sure that's the risk if we selected ANY random 200 out of 1000 numbers not to play and played the other 800, but this is a little different because the 200 already hit in the last 200 draws and now each of those 200 individually faces a 1 in 1000 chance of being drawn again, while your odds of winning with the 800 plays is pretty good at 80%. If profit weren't a consideration we'd take an 80 side of an 80/20 wager every time. The question is whether our chances are better then 80% if we cast out... [ More ]

Reply #13

cranesworld — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:02:15 GMT

No offense, but if i had that much money to blow every day, i wouldn't be playing the lottery at all

Reply #12

time*treat — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:33:53 GMT

The raw daily odds are going to be 4/5th chance of gaining $100 (net of $800 played and $900 won) and 1/5th chance of losing the $800 played.

4/5 ($100) - 1/5 ($800) == $80 - $160 == -$80 therefore, with average luck, one could expect their drawdown (loss) to be ...

$80/day lost.

Reply #11

RJOh — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:28:21 GMT

Go back several years and record the drawings. Using this method, see how often you would meet disaster and lose.

Several years for a daily drawing, that's 365 drawings per year. Consider the previous 200 drawings for each of those drawings, that's 365 x 200 = 73,000 drawings per year. That's a lot of work to prove that if you had $800 to gamble daily, you might have a chance of making a $100 profit. I doubt anyone with the time to do the figuring would have $800 to gamble.

Reply #10

GASMETERGUY — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:10:56 GMT

Here's an assine thought I am going to throw out there.

Go back several years and record the drawings. Using this method, see how often you would meet disaster and lose. What is the gap between those times? Record the gaps ( the number of draws between diasaster). What do you see?

Now that is a statistic I would gladly like to see: the gaps. I might have a thought or two concerning that information. As I do not play the P3 or P4 games nor will I in any foreseeable future, I will not dete... [ More ]

Reply #9

time*treat — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:02:26 GMT

@BobP: Are you backtesting this one for illustration

Reply #8

RJOh — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:59:06 GMT

So the player is risking $800 to maybe win $100 (no such thing as a lock), but if they lose on the first drawing it takes 8 consecutive wins to cover the loss.

That sounds even more pitiful when you reduce it down to risking $80 for chance to win $10 .

Reply #7

Coin Toss — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:52:02 GMT

In the event a number from the 200 wins, you will lose $800. and will need 8 wins to cover the loss.

So the player is risking $800 to maybe win $100 (no such thing as a lock), but if they lose on the first drawing it takes 8 consecutive wins to cover the loss.

Since there is no such thing as a lock, who is going to risk $800 to maybe win $100?

One loss and they're stuck $800 and playing catch up right oput of the gate.

Remember when Mike Tyson lost to Buster Douglas? There were T... [ More ]

Reply #6

BobP — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:07:59 GMT

Recessions are a time when people are often willing to take a chance. What with banks paying 1.75% for a CD and former blue chip stocks dropping like rocks, foreclosed houses selling on ebay for under ten grand in Mich, Ohio and Pa, wagering starts to look like a way to get a quick return on investment.

BobP

Reply #5

Hans — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:45:42 GMT

In how many times would you go down maximum?and how down would that be?In how many times can you catch up and then how high would that reach

Reply #4

Hans — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:43:29 GMT

In how many times would you go down maximum?and how down would that be?In how many times can you catch up and then how high would that reach

Reply #3

Badger — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:33:59 GMT

Someone is selling this system for $500? In the middle of this recession

Reply #2

BobP — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:18:14 GMT

There has to be a way of calculating the probability of a 1 in a 1000 number repeating within the next 200 draws. I mean each of the 200 is up against odds of 1 in 800. Simple math suggests 1 in 5 if they hadn't already hit, that would indicate playing the last 200 draws for each draw to be the basis of a system. Have to determine when to play and when to skip a draw.

I've also seen this system where you don't play any of the 200 numbers in numeric order, I know that does NOT work.

B... [ More ]

Reply #1

Avid Playa — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:54:40 GMT

Hi, BobP: This might work in the short term, the very short term - however it's highly likely that there will be repeats which will come from the 200 numbers you are NOT playing ..... should it happen three or four times in a given period, say a month - you'd be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle!

I worked something similar in a virtual reality-type scenario and the end result was a definite loss.

By the way, where can one play online for a $900.oo payout on a $1.00 str8... [ More ]

Win $1800.00 Daily

BobP — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:37:02 GMT

You Can Win $1800.00 A Day Playing This System !

There ought to be a law against selling these kind of systems, but that doesn't prevent our talking about their efficacy.

First of all the headline is true, you really can win $1800 a day if your state holds two Pick-3 draws per day and you play online where a dollar play pays 900 to 1.

The theory is very simple. Numbers that hit straight (in as drawn order) do not come up very often their odds being 1 in 1000.

The player s... [ More ]