Fooled by Randomness

Reply #297

jimmy4164 — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:36:09 GMT

Click HERE to see new format for Powerball reports.

Reply #296

jimmy4164 — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:54:46 GMT

P.S. Check here for more information...

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219401/1808106

Reply #295

jimmy4164 — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:45:45 GMT

CARBOB,

Benford's Law is very useful for certain applications, especially accounting. The problem with using Benford's formula to look for fraud in the lottery is that it was derived by fitting to real life non uniform data. Here's a site that analyzed it relative to many different data sources. Note how lottery results fit.

http://www.physorg.com/news98015219.html

You might want to look again at my analysis of PA's Pick-3 results earlier in this thread. You'll see how just about any ki... [ More ]

Reply #294

CARBOB — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:11:31 GMT

Maybe these post will be of interest to you.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/148025

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/148304

Reply #293

jimmy4164 — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:36:19 GMT

This posting will be of interest to those following the Fooled By Randomness thread...

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/214856/1802546

Reply #292

Kola — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:03:40 GMT

Certainty of patterns - !00%

Translating into results - between 0% - 100%.

Seeing patterns is one thing, making coherent or rather perfect sense of them is something altogether different...

Thanks for the exchange Jimmy4164...The points you've brought up are very useful.

Take care,

Kola

Reply #291

jimmy4164 — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:12:02 GMT

Kola,

Maybe one day you will get your95% proof of system efficacy you require. That's quite steep. You need that much?

The 95% figure refers to the confidence that your system is NOT producing results that can be attributed to Chance. The system need not pick a winner 95% of the time to meet this criteria.

Not even the proof of your gamblers fallacy has that degree of certainty...

My Gambler's Fallacy? I can't take credit for that name. Thanks anyway.

And what degree of certai... [ More ]

Reply #290

Kola — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:22:40 GMT

Jimmy, I had prefaced that sentence with my mention of experiments with self-aware electrons. That you did not disprove. But I knew it would be a little challenging for you to accept the next statement after it, which you highlighted above, about sentient beings and numbered balls. In context, what I said was: Are you aware of the experiment with simple electrons that proved that two electrons were of aware of each other. Don't want to go into it, but if the two electron in that experiment were... [ More ]

Reply #289

jimmy4164 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:20:01 GMT

P.S. Anyone who is TRULY interested in knowing what contributes to their beliefs and behaviour should:

Click HERE

Reply #288

jimmy4164 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:28:18 GMT

Kola,

Kola said, So just as every sentient being has a level of awareness, we can say that particles like numbered balls also have a level of awareness. Again, not my opinion. Fact.

Fact?

Since I have yet to see any evidence to prove these are facts, I don't share your beliefs. I am not saying all of these things are impossible, only that in terms of lottery draws, they have yet to be demonstrated to be true. So, if ever you devise a coherent, documentable system of choosing nu... [ More ]

Reply #287

Kola — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:29:04 GMT

Hello Jimmy4164,

Great thread.

I enjoy and agree with many of Mr. Taleb ideas. But nowhere does he give an example of random occurrences The examples he gives just prove that oftentimes the herd may get it wrong, but there is always a handful that see perturbations, or patterns no one else sees or sees as well. Mr. Taleb was able to see it, and so were a few others.

There are always patterns Jimmy. When you look at the natural universe, Nature - the Patternmaster(term borrowed... [ More ]

Reply #286

jimmy4164 — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:07:29 GMT

CARBOB,

What do you think now, still noise, over 25% hit rate ?

(Did you read this?)

http://ms.about.com/od/glossary/g/significance.htm

The next time you watch three [0...9] lottery ball machines on TV, ask yourself,

How do these machines know what the trend is and whether to continue it if they do?

If, after reading the About.com definition and reflecting on the ball machines, you still believe you have discovered some predictable pattern or trend, you are free to do so. In... [ More ]

Reply #285

CARBOB — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:11:39 GMT

What do you think now, still noise, over 25% hit rate

Reply #284

jimmy4164 — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:38:32 GMT

CARBOB,

In this post,

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1783866

ME: No. There are no trends in p-3.

YOU: What would this be, the values in red. The True/False is tracking Mirrors within 3 draws, False is no mirror witin 3 draws; True is mirror within 3 draws. The mirrors are 0-5,1-6,2-7,3-8,4-9. To me, that's a trend.

Sorry Bob, but to me, this is noise.

Do you think your observations over these few days would pass this test?

http://ms.about.com/od/glossary/g/signif... [ More ]

Reply #283

truecritic — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:26:48 GMT

I had asked about your method in your thread...

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/214856/1784121

Just thinking it might solve skepticism if people could run the program themselves.

Reply #282

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:20:43 GMT

truecritic

Just trying to repay jimmy by taking a crap on his yard. The guy reads too many comic

books and believes himself to be a super hero garding the universe from thugs like me.

You know that he has stoped my evil plans to sell my software which I offered to Todd

for free to add to LP as a tool for whoever. I made this offer to Todd long before Jimmy

ever came to LP and the offer still stands. Some people need to run someone else down

before they can feel good about thems... [ More ]

Reply #281

truecritic — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:15:50 GMT

Hi RL,

I posted the Pigeon Superstition because luizgota mentioned false beliefs about the magic quarter his sister used to scratch a winning ticket.

Your many loses from past play have taught you that nothing can be done so now your only hope of winning anything is in a random event tied to a little luck.

Not at all. I don't really want to repeat my entire comedy of errors here but for my beliefs - which is that I think there can be self-picks that outdo quick picks - please read wha... [ More ]

Reply #280

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:43:02 GMT

truecrtic

I now see very clearly where you and jimmy are comming from, Your many looses from

past play have taught you that nothing can be done so now your only hope of winning

anything is in a random event tied to a little luck. Thank you very much for this post as it

really explains much. I guess this is why I believe that I can win because of my past play.

I was a little concerned that the event shown was on a 20 second timer which trained the

bird very well but considering... [ More ]

Reply #279

truecritic — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:55:22 GMT

Interesting. Not an easy read. The pigeon could never grasp it.

Reply #278

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:48:36 GMT

Joker17

What we should be asking him is to show how good he is /was at trading. I would think that

any one worth mention at the markets would have far better things to do then to waste his time

posting here at LP. Wow, what a way to enjoy the many years of success he has behind his

belt. You know when he first showed up here I kept getting PM's from him wanting me to help

him write software for the markets. My first impression of him was that he had not done to well

and wa... [ More ]

Reply #277

jimmy4164 — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 03:41:19 GMT

truecritic,

That's Wild!

(An analog -- Reconstructing the Past)

Check out the subtle connections between this study and the pidgeon!

(For skeptics: This is not meant to be a direct analogy. Just related and more to think about.)

http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10319/jdm10319.pdf

--Jimmy4164

Reply #276

truecritic — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:00:11 GMT

Turn sound up - for some reason the sound is very low on this video.

It is from the beginning of a movie called Mr. Nobody.

Reply #275

jimmy4164 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:25:15 GMT

luizgota,

Thanks for your support! You've helped me make a decision.

This post answers your question about me and the markets.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/215821/1757729

What do you trade?

You're so right in your take on the contribution of psychology to beliefs here in Patterns and the Systems to detect them. Even if there are in fact anomolies created by unscroupulous IT people or Ball Machine Techs, the methods being employed to find them have about as much chance of suc... [ More ]

Reply #274

luizgota — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:00:46 GMT

Speaking of magic btw, I remember my sister once bought a scratch-off while buying coffee on her way to work. There was a religious middle-aged Jewish man standing by and he said to her here take this lucky quarter and scratch with it . And what do you know, she won lol. I don't remeber exactly how much, it wasn't the top prize but it wasn't a 1 dollar either. She never bought lottery before that btw. Probability of that situation? Not much. Still, most likely, fooled by randomness, but it makes... [ More ]

Reply #273

CARBOB — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:55:27 GMT

No. There are no trends in p-3.

What would this be, the values in red. The True/False is tracking Mirrors within 3 draws, False is no mirror witin 3 draws; True is mirror within 3 draws. The mirrors are 0-5,1-6,2-7,3-8,4-9. To me, that's a trend.

Reply #272

luizgota — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:46:28 GMT

jimmy, as a fellow financial markets trader I understand the motives behind your crusade against the systems posted here. Too many wolves in sheep's clothes on trading forums who take advantage of human gullibility to sell their systems. Just wanted to say good job. However, looking for patterns is an innate characteristic of the human brain, so you won't really be able to stop people from believing that they see something. Hell, even I got intangled in the pursuit of a magic system at one point... [ More ]

Reply #271

jimmy4164 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:00:19 GMT

No. There are no trends in p-3.

The next time you watch three [0...9] lottery ball machines on TV, ask yourself,

How do these machines know what the trend is and whether to continue it if they do

Reply #270

joker17 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:19:51 GMT

That's a shame. Can't the same skills involving the tracking of trends in the Market be used with p-3, and why not

Reply #269

jimmy4164 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:43:13 GMT

joker17,

Thanks for asking.

Absolutely NOT!

--Jimmy4164

Reply #268

joker17 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 01:36:55 GMT

Hey jimmy4164, has any of your expertise analyzing the stock market helped you with more wins in a p-3 environment?

I'm very interested to know this.

Thanx.....

Reply #267

jimmy4164 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 01:25:36 GMT

Be sure to keep up to date with MadDog's Challenge here:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220561/1778864

At some point, the summation of the results there will be examined here to take a closer look at its implications for system play.

Reply #266

jimmy4164 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:51:13 GMT

Truecritic,

I think some of your questions are answered here:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1736549

It's not worth my time to write any more programs that will do no more than illustrate the fact that Straight bets on Pick 3 games have a winning frequency of 1 per thousand bets. Regardless of whether you play the same number every day, use a RNG to pick a new one each day, play the number that hit one week ago, or use a TTT or RL system to pick one, at the end of 33 years of... [ More ]

Reply #265

truecritic — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:20:08 GMT

Other than the workout I proposed previously, I have thought up another workout that might be of interest.

Previous: Post a Pick3 workout for the entire 33 yrs showing (A) A random pick. Played until it wins. Then (B) another random pick until it wins. etc; (C) How many runs through the entire 33 years does it take to produce a profit over the 33yr data, using random picks?

New: Might be able to add this into the same workout? How many games does it take before a random pick wins a Pick3

Reply #264

jimmy4164 — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:20:57 GMT

TTT Players!

Click here to see the results of more Backtests and information on Twedk's TTT system.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207517/1773842

Reply #263

truecritic — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:11:16 GMT

No problem.

Reply #262

jimmy4164 — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:22:48 GMT

Sorry truecritic, for not giving credit where it's due. After all the heated discussions and backtesting, I had forgotten about your prediction.

Reply #261

jimmy4164 — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:54:59 GMT

Stack47,

Pascal and Fermat were idiots.

You know better.

Dream on!

--Jimmy4164

Reply #260

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:29:56 GMT

How many triples hit in PA over the last 33.5 years?

Whatever that number is, I know for a fact by using each digit twice instead of three times would give a player over 11,000 chances to win compared to probably under 150 known losses.

Besides, if you're going to do that, why not a (1/10) so we'd have TONS of winners every day!

First of all it would be a 3/10 lotto and all anybody has to do is look at the probability for the next 1000 drawings. If someone wanted to play it as a 3/10... [ More ]

Reply #259

truecritic — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:28:55 GMT

Original Post by jimmy4164

What I was hoping was that you would try a prediction of the results using Probability Theory!

I hope all my time and energy spent writing programs and presenting people with the actual results of system play will result in at least a few seeing the light.

I didn't feel it was necessary to do the math - if you can recall way back, I sent you a PM with my prediction for TTT. Note the date below. Thanks for spending time running it.

Pre... [ More ]

Reply #258

jimmy4164 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:13:57 GMT

Stack47,

Statistically all 30 digits are only needed in 1% of all the drawings (triples) so why not make it a 3/20 lotto?

Interesting thinking. But then we'd miss all the fun like they just had in NC! Besides, if you're going to do that, why not a (1/10) so we'd have TONS of winners every day! And you already know precisely what digits you COULD HAVE eliminated immediately AFTER each drawing anyway!

The BIG question to be answered when betting under your belief system in Pick 3, 4, 5,... [ More ]

Reply #257

jimmy4164 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:33:59 GMT

Truecritic,

What I was hoping was that you would try a prediction of the results using Probability Theory!

I hope all my time and energy spent writing programs and presenting people with the actual results of system play will result in at least a few seeing the light. Most of this would not be necessary if more people understood and accepted what those 17th Century French mathematicians figured out so long ago!

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219401/1763411

Twedk's TTT system sta... [ More ]

Reply #256

Stack47 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:36:18 GMT

I'm surprized noone has shown any interest in the (3,30) Lotto I suggested recently. If you add sub-labels to the 30 balls from the three Pick-3 machines [1 30] and dump them into an unused Pick-5 machine... Voila! You've got a (3,30) Lotto machine.

Statistically all 30 digits are only needed in 1% of all the drawings (triples) so why not make it a 3/20 lotto

Reply #255

truecritic — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:08:22 GMT

I went through the entire thread of twedk's - this figure may not be exact because of the way she reports hits. From Jan to Aug for NY, 61 hits. 7.26 hits per month for what appears to be 10 numbers played per day. I believe those hits are box bets. Although I saw some straights mentioned.

Open up the results and let's take a peek......drum roll...

Reply #254

jimmy4164 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:45:14 GMT

Truecritic,

I suspect they are waiting for me to publish the full test, including a large Box.net file of the details, so they can claim it is invalid for some reason that they could easily assert here right now.

Are you prepared to guess how many $500 hits that TTT produces to offset the tickets purchased over the 33 years?

--Jimmy4164

Reply #253

truecritic — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:07:32 GMT

I hope that twedk and maybe Knightsquad come here and verify that this is the correct twedk version of TTT. Far as I am concerned, your version works for me

Reply #252

jimmy4164 — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:41:53 GMT

TTT Backtest !

This is a preliminary report on a TRIAL RUN of a Backtest of twedk's TTT system.

It is based on his description here:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207517

Twedk has more recently suggested the TTT from the LAST DAY of the month be used for all the days of the subsequent month. That is what this Backtest is doing.

The results below are just a few of the hits from the PA Daily Number (Evening). I chose them because they represent the variations that occur as a... [ More ]

Reply #251

jimmy4164 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:23:22 GMT

If a player had excellent timing...

Yeah, only IF!

Here's a system that doesn't require intuition, but perhaps those who rely on the human element can enhance it.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106

Reply #250

Stack47 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:16:18 GMT

I'm sure Jimmy will concur that each three digit number was drawn at least once and many were drawn more than 12 times in the 33.5 year history of the PA nightly Daily Number. If a player had excellent timing of when those numbers were drawn by way of intuition and hunches , they made lots of money. It could be as simple as using it to determine if the all three digit positions will be high or low or even or odd. Play the 125 straight combinations using 50% of the digits and win $375 if your int... [ More ]

Reply #249

Stack47 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:01:38 GMT

A 3/30 game could be played the same way as regular drawings using the first three digits drawn in order to create a straight three digit number. The big difference between pick-5 and lotto drawings is that each digit would have three chances of being drawn. If they made a distinction between each of three same digits like 3A, 3B, 3C, an order could be established.

Before they started a pick-3 game, Ohio had a game called The Buckeye 300 with pre-printed 50 cent tickets having 5 three digit n... [ More ]

Reply #248

truecritic — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:42:18 GMT

THAT is the question we are waiting for you to answer with a workout(s

Reply #247

jimmy4164 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:32:01 GMT

Should this endurance cause one to believe they must be money makers

Reply #246

truecritic — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:10:32 GMT

Original Post by jimmy4164

By the way, why do you refer to TTTs as OLD?

They have been around quite awhile.

Reply #245

jimmy4164 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:41:13 GMT

Twedk recently called for using the last day of the previous month for TTT calculations. Maybe that would have produced more than the one match for August that you found. Even though noone is clear about the bet selection process and how many tickets need to be purchased per day, I guess I can safely assume that August was not a very good month with the rules you chose.

I'm surprized noone has shown any interest in the (3,30) Lotto I suggested recently. If you add sub-labels to the 30 balls... [ More ]

Reply #244

Stack47 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:23:22 GMT

Aw, the old TTT system!

A guy showed me a version of TTT the day after I hit my license plate number (647) straight on the second ever Ohio Pick-3 drawing. He put the previous drawing in the middle row, subtracted 1 for the first digit on the top row, and added 1 for the bottom row. He added and subtracted 2 for the second position, and 3 for the third. His explanation was using a true TTT; vertically, diagonal, and horizontal creating 7 three digit numbers. Said it worked for the old numbers... [ More ]

Reply #243

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:59:15 GMT

The implication of using intuition and hunches to select lottery bets is that somehow the action of the balls can be divined that way. I guess I made the incorrect assumption that you agree with that theory. Sorry - my error.

Reply #242

truecritic — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:06:13 GMT

(your links are still messed up - same problem, extra wording within the link).

Here is the correct link: https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207517/1763243

Here is where your link points to: https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/thread/207517/1763243

Not at all familiar with FireFox, so I can't offer a cure.

From reading the latest responses, it appears twedk is using intuition and hunches to pick out the actual numbers to be played.

Reply #241

RJOh — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:20:54 GMT

I only commented intuition and hunches based on past experience is how many posters explain the decisions they make when using their systems which makes it impossible to duplicate their results or back test their systems. I never said it had anything to do with the behavior of ping pong balls, where did you get that

Reply #240

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:53:07 GMT

RJOh,

And why would you believe that intuition and hunches based on past experience have anything at all to do with the behaviour of Ping Pong Balls responding to air turbulance?

--Jimmy4164

Reply #239

RJOh — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:34:04 GMT

Jimmy,

You're probably going to find some of these systems posted by LP members are not completely static, they are dynamic and involve intuition and hunches based on past experience which can't be easily explained or digitized in a computer program which makes back testing of them impossible.

Reply #238

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:41:17 GMT

P.S. These Link problems are annoying!

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207517/1763243

Reply #237

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:29:50 GMT

Stack47,

If you click here you will see that I need some help in this other thread. I know you don't have much interest in Pick-3 games, but I think you've been around here long enough that you might be able to answer the question that I can not get answered there.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207517/1763243

--Jimmy4164

Reply #236

jarasan — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:56:06 GMT

Randomness, shmandomness. Here is a random thought......................... If you ain't in it you cain't win it! another random thought............ You ain't nuthin' if you ain't up in that game! ..............................and another random thought........................... It is only a theory unless you play the dang thing. .....................'Pi$$$iiingggg in the wind is (fill in the blank)_____________________________________.

Reply #235

Stack47 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:24:57 GMT

Betting styles are why players choose one game over another and that's why I gave a couple example of what could be done with $10. I've seen people hooked on pick-3 and wager $100 or more on one drawing when ever they can and some of the potential wins are in the thousands. They will probably lose in the long run even if the catch a number for $10,000 at the beginning because their next bets will be $200 or $300 with even higher win potentials.

Someone playing $10 or more on 5/39 pick-5 games... [ More ]

Reply #234

jimmy4164 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:54:41 GMT

Stack47,

Thanks for a reasonable statement of your position. I don't agree with everything above, especially your tendency to mix Odds with Payouts, but since I've addressed these issues several times already, I don't think it's worth nit-picking your post.

What I think your post above illustrates very well, although you didn't intend to do it, is that the various betting styles and game choices you mentioned must be made by each individual player based on their comfort for Draw Downs. The... [ More ]

Reply #233

Stack47 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:10:11 GMT

The general consensus here seems to be that PB and MM type games are Harder to win than Pick-5 6 games, apparently because people believe they are not as predictable. (I could be wrong on this point.)

Just looking at the odds of matching 5 numbers without the bonus numbers is enough reason for me to choose a 5/39 game over 5/56 or 5/59 games. It's almost seven times harder in MM and nine times for PB. If that's not reason enough, matching 4 numbers is five and six times harder but the prize... [ More ]

Reply #232

jimmy4164 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:39:47 GMT

Another System Test

I'm in the middle of writing a more complex version of my backtester, one that hopefully will be accepted as truly showing the performance of a bonafide System that has claims of success. In the meantime, since my current backtester version is so easily adapted to simple pattern matching, and recent events on the site gave me such a great idea for a new pattern to test, I decided to test it and post the results. Then I'll get back to the new Backtester.

My NEW idea is s... [ More ]

Reply #231

RJOh — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:31:40 GMT

In Ohio the daily games don't go pari-mutuel but there's a limit to the amount that can be wagered on a number so if someone plan to bet heavy on a number they better be first or they may get shut out. I think that's the way most states protect themselves with the number games.

Reply #230

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:19:02 GMT

Interesting aspect of the game in some states.

When the cause of Pennsylvania reverting to a parimutuel payout in their Daily Number game is the result of the players overturning the state's 2 to 1 advantage, I'll pay some attention to it!

Here's something that might interest you:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219914/1761345

Reply #229

RJOh — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:00:57 GMT

I think Jimmy got my message, it's just that he was fooled by all the positive stories from pick3 players. He wanted someone to explain to him how he could break even or make a profit playing the PA pick3 game and explain it clear enough that a computer program could be written to do the same.

I explained to him the only person that could do that would be someone who tracked and played the PA pick3 game and if they could do it they probably wouldn't for fear of effecting their payouts.

Jim... [ More ]

Reply #228

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:28:42 GMT

Stack47,

What I don't understand is why when I agreed with you that making the same bet everyday throughout the history of any pick-3 game would be a bad bet, you continue to say I'm wrong.

Obviously, you didn't go back and look, as I suggested. If you had, you would have found that I DID NOT say you were wrong for saying what I just highlighted above in Blue. I said you were wrong about several other things, including how you interpreted the TRUTH of what I highlighted here in Blue.... [ More ]

Reply #227

Stack47 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:26:27 GMT

I think it would be of benefit to you if you spent some time going back over this thread.

If would be more beneficial for you to look at all the forums so you can understand how people play pick-3 games. It doesn't matter to them how a group of three digit numbers are chosen as long that group produces hits. While you may not see the relevance of a TTT or Power Trails system, others might be making a profit playing those numbers. Ask someone that just hit a dream number the mean, median, and... [ More ]

Reply #226

Stack47 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:17:19 GMT

Reading between the lines above, I can see you're starting to cave.

When I entered this thread I assumed you were trying to develop a pick-3 system because after all this is the Lottery Systems forum. If you recall you invited me when I was discussing a MM wheel using all the wps and all the bonus numbers so I thought you had a pick-3 method using all the digits. I guess I was fooled by the title of the thread and because of the forum.

None of us really likes to admit being wrong.

Wh... [ More ]

Reply #225

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:53:02 GMT

Stack47,

You're really wasting your time and mine.

I think it would be of benefit to you if you spent some time going back over this thread.

All the resources you need to keep your bets sufficiently spread over the Universes of each game are provided right here at LotteryPost.com, many of them free. There is no need for you to pay charlatans for systems alleging to beat the odds.

And I'm sorry, but it looks like I overestimated you in my last post above.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #224

Stack47 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:54:20 GMT

I don't play pick3 or pick4 and I don't track them either.

I told him at least five times playing the same number every day the entire history of any pick-3 game is a bad, bet but he keeps on saying I was wrong or confused. You may have to tell him you don't play the games or track them a few more time before it finally sinks in.

Reply #223

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:42:45 GMT

Stack47,

Well, I knew it had to happen eventually. Reading between the lines above, I can see you're starting to cave. You're too smart to go on indefinitely under the spell of that powerful fallacy, the one we've talked about so much here! But I'm disappointed. It appears you're going to take the evasive stance old Dean Esmay outlines here, rather than a more courageous one. But, at least the fog may be lifting for you.

The Brainteaser That Changed My World

April 17, 2002

If y... [ More ]

Reply #222

RJOh — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:41 GMT

I have this desire to see a workout. I want to see something that resembles the prediction board for each and every system posted here. I have a desire for facts. How close is a system to working?

truecritic,

A lot of members would like to see that but workouts take time and for them to be understood every step taken has to be explained and maybe even backed up with data from previous drawings. From what I've read on the Internet, there are those who have written books about it, so the inf... [ More ]

Reply #221

RJOh — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:58:01 GMT

Not at all. I don't play pick3 or pick4 and I don't track them either. Analyzing any game takes a lot of time so I only do it for the games I play when I'm playing them.

Reply #220

truecritic — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:53:11 GMT

I have this desire to see a workout. I want to see something that resembles the prediction board for each and every system posted here. I have a desire for facts. How close is a system to working?

Amount won from $1 straight tickets

Amount of $1 tickets played

Profit/loss

Amount won from $1 box tickets

Amount of $1.00 tickets played

Profit/loss

If it is a jackpot game, amount won $1 tickets

Amount of $1.00 tickets played

Profit/loss

Don't you have that desire for de... [ More ]

Reply #219

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46:21 GMT

But wouldn't you be just a little curious to discover if that TTT, still actively discussed at twedk's Thread, can produce winnings beyond what Chance would predict regardless of how it does financially

Reply #218

RJOh — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:39:01 GMT

Would you be willing to help me completely specify that TTT, one which is apparently not expected to do much more than break even, if that? Then we would all at least know the Expected Value of that system, for a fact!

Sorry Jimmy, I don't do pick3, besides if a system doesn't work its users can figure that out without any help.

Reply #217

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:24:58 GMT

Stack47,

Please check out this earlier post...

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1751377

Here's an excerpt:

--------------

jimjwright,

Do you know what a normal bell-shaped distribution curve looks like? How far out in the right hand tails of these distributions do you see the TOP 11 over the last 30 days and the TOP 18 lifetime shown above? As you should know, we can't answer that question without knowing HOW MANY PEOPLE IN TOTAL these 11 and 18 are a subset of, and ev... [ More ]

Reply #216

Stack47 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:10:07 GMT

You're being silly because you keep on saying I'm wrong when I agreed with you. Everybody knows betting the same amount on the same 3 digit number in every drawing for 33.5 is a bad bet. But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a losing wager .

Sorry Stack47. You're confused.

If only choosing pick-3 numbers were easy as predicting what Jimmy will say next.

When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets.

Who evaluates a $1 lottery wager as an... [ More ]

Reply #215

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:33:19 GMT

But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a 'losing wager' .

Sorry Stack47. You're confused. There is no Santa Claus.

When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets.

The VALUE in the lottery is the entertainment and anticipatory excitement it provides for people, as well as the remote chance of a Jackpot Hit. These are the reasons I don't buy Pick-3 4 tickets. Although in long term investment terms, they are no worse bets than the large Jackpot games... [ More ]

Reply #214

Stack47 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:00:12 GMT

8/28/10:

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

8/30/10:

You just repeated what I said only worded it differently; I know making the same bet on the same number for 33.5 or 67 years is a bad bet as is making the same bet on 2, 10, or 100 numbers. Tell... [ More ]

Reply #213

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:41:42 GMT

P.S.

RJOh,

You shouldn't be concerned about other people learning the details of twedk's TTT since the Daily Number in PA (a Pick-3) is NOT paramutuel, so they will pay ALL of us with winning tickets!

--Jimmy4164

Reply #212

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:32:24 GMT

RJOh,

You're slick but you're not going to trick anyone into giving up their information that easy, if you want a program that does that then you're going have to write it yourself starting from scratch.

No RJOh, I'm not slick in that regard, but I might be a little stupid to waste so much time on this. The fact is, I am in no way attempting to steal secrets that would allow me to perfect a winning system, because such a system does not exist! If I'm trying to be slick, it's to get the s... [ More ]

Reply #211

RJOh — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:12:05 GMT

In the meantime, if you, or anyone else can define a Pick-3 Straight betting System that is sufficiently specified that any programmer here can translate it into the programming language of their choice, and it is profitable when applied to the 33.5 year PA Results, I will gladly stop boring you with my stepwise attempt to open your eyes.

--Jimmy4164

Good luck with that idea. The only persons that would even attempt to do that would be someone who plays PA pick3 and if they're winning then... [ More ]

Reply #210

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:19:46 GMT

Stack47,

I'm trying to remain civil in these discussions even though you and others are not.

However, I only have so much patience for ignorance.

You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet.

You either have a short memory, or read selectively. If you check my posts, you will find that I have on many occasions stipulated that I was not proposing any of the patterns used for illustrative purposes be used as bet... [ More ]

Reply #209

Stack47 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:27:46 GMT

All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused.

You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet. And hopefully you have stopped that one foolish player out of several thousands that actually considered playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for the next 33.5 years from m... [ More ]

Reply #208

Stack47 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:31:55 GMT

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

Wrong. What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clust... [ More ]

Reply #207

truecritic — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:15:57 GMT

Reply #206

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:02:14 GMT

Mixing Apples and Oranges is a metaphor for inappropriately assigning Ping Pong Balls and Randomness to the same basket.

Reply #205

RJOh — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:10:37 GMT

Now you're getting confused, I never said randomness was like apples and oranges, but as a concept you can conceive it any way you want to.

Reply #204

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:55:05 GMT

You're mixing apples and oranges RJOh. Ping pong balls are plastic items that you can see and touch and blow around with air. Randomness is a concept.

It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked.

Reply #203

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:38:15 GMT

P.S.

We forgot to specify what numbers we are betting on with multiple purchases. Buying 3 tickets numbered 123 gives us a (1:1000) chance to win $1500.

Reply #202

RJOh — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:37:49 GMT

You probably have read that ping pong balls have no memory and therefore can't effect future drawings. Well the same is true for randomness, it can't actively confuse anyone. It's just a name to describe the chaos of balls or numbers being mixed and picked. Lottery players trying to define it and use it to improve their odd of winning doesn't spell dome for the country. Who knows, they may discover something new about math that we didn't know. Every day people are discovering things that couldn... [ More ]

Reply #201

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:19:59 GMT

truecritic,

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point. Semantics can be a problem. I think my way of differentiating between Odds and Payoff Amounts avoids these pitfalls, but to each his own. Besides, that misunderstanding does not detract from any of the other comments I made. I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here. The Gambler's Fallacy reigns supreme! All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people w... [ More ]

Reply #200

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:57:10 GMT

Thanks for the heads up, tungsten chef.

I take it you don't think much of Taleb's work.

Obviously, experiences at Amazon.com will vary.

Reply #199

tungsten chef — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:42:03 GMT

Amazon.com is a joke. Stuff that is pathetic(movies..books..etc) all seem to get 5 stars. I'm sure it's the folks that work there praising all the items so they sell..sell...sell...

i read the reveiw for the blue ray dvd...barkada?? barrada or some crap. 1 of those big wig movie critics sISKEL OR eBERT made it sound like it was the greatest visual ever made. I bought it..it's utter garbage. I tried to return it, but they said they can't take it back just cause it's garbage.

NO ON... [ More ]

Reply #198

truecritic — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:04:04 GMT

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

Wrong. Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered. The ODDS remain the same, no matter what you bet.

====================================================

If you are talking pick 3 - straight bets for $1 each the odds change by how many tickets you purchase or another way of saying that is by how much you bet. Since 1 ticket = $1.00.

Buy 1 ticket/ Bet $1 - Odds are 1 in 1000

Buy 2 tickets/ Bet $2 - Odds are now 2 in 1000 or 1... [ More ]