MADDOG'S Powerball Challenges (Discussion)

Reply #82

jimmy4164 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:43:50 GMT

But it's still entertaining to play and challenging to strategize how best to win if you pick your own numbers.

I like that!

Especially, ...strategize how BEST to win...

You got it

Reply #81

jimmy4164 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:48:12 GMT

Well, it must make some difference, as the challenge players did better than chance... unless you're expecting them to spend this year doing worse than chance.

The calculations required to determine what the statistical significance is of the deviations between the Expected and Actual values in the Powerball Challenge results are complicated, and beyond the scope of this thread. But, believe me, just eyeballing those summaries should tell you that the actual results are right in the ballpark... [ More ]

Reply #80

jimmy4164 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:31:08 GMT

It can be shown that when using a smaller pool of numbers, if by chance three or more of the winning numbers are in it,

IF!

maybe a pool of 24 WB and 8 PB is more likely to have all the winning numbers thus reducing the odds of winning the jackpot to 1:340032 when that happens.

Of course (8*C(24,5)) tickets gives you [MANY] more chances to win than (4*C(12,5)) ticket purchases. But don't forget, those many more tickets are not free, and must be used in calculating your odds, costs, a... [ More ]

Reply #79

jimmy4164 — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:56:59 GMT

The thing I don't understand is after all this talk about problem gambling, why did you assume a group of people would all wager $3168 on two draws a week for a year even for statistics?

I never did. I have repeatedly posted that my rationale for using the Powerball Challenge was to produce data from human choices rather than Random Number Generators. I also never proclaimed a desire to end gambling. I'm a gambler. What I lobby for is Responsible gambling. You just don't want to know these t... [ More ]

Reply #78

RJOh — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:55:11 GMT

how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted?

It can be shown that when using a smaller pool of numbers, if by chance three or more of the winning numbers are in it, you're more likely to have a winning combination than if you were using the larger pool of all the numbers. One would think it would balance out over time when there are less than three winning numbers in the smaller pool with no chance of winning anything but... [ More ]

Reply #77

time*treat — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:04:51 GMT

[I]t makes very little difference how you made your selections.

Well, it must make some difference, as the challenge players did better than chance... unless you're expecting them to spend this year doing worse than chance.

Earlier in this thread you were talking about thinking in the abstract when the logistics of playing 3,168 combos was raised, now you want to switch to applying RJOh's buying-all-the-tickets math to actual ticket purchases (which runs back into the logistics problem... [ More ]

Reply #76

Stack47 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 01:29:58 GMT

All I'm trying to do is make people aware that they cannot view the lottery as a means to earn a living.

I've probably been the most critical and most vocal about your statistics and that's because I know lottery players and how they wager. People playing a couple bucks on a pick-3 number aren't doing it to make a living. The same is true for MM and PB; they know the odds are extremely high against them winning a life changing jackpot, but they also know a couple a bucks a week isn't going b... [ More ]

Reply #75

RJOh — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:34:10 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1922143

PB with its posted odds and payouts expect to only payout $34,112,290 in smaller prizes when it sells 195,249,054 chances to win its jackpot which is only 17.5% of the money spent on those tickets. Unless a regular and consistent player wins the jackpot, he should never expect to recover more than 20% of the money he spends on tickets.

Thanks RJ!

All PB states lottery websites tell you as much when they say the state keeps 50% of sales... [ More ]

Reply #74

savagegoose — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:34:55 GMT

yeah well were on a board with 100k members, i think its pretty apparent that winning the big one is a lot gharder than anyone gives due credit for. i think one thing this challenge does, is give people an unbderstanding of how long their odds really are. seeing a $3k a week bet on the 12 numbers produces pretty limited results.

once the 12 are wheeled down a little, the cost hits an area people can resonably afford. its been an eye opener for me,.

Reply #73

jimmy4164 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:19:11 GMT

After a few thousand Powerball ticket purchases, it makes very little difference how you made your selections. The various subsets mentioned above will fair just as well as any. However, the bottom line is spelled out pretty clearly today in RJOh's post in the Mathematics Forum.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1922143

PB with its posted odds and payouts expect to only payout $34,112,290 in smaller prizes when it sells 195,249,054 chances to win its jackpot which is only 17.5% of... [ More ]

Reply #72

time*treat — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:16:42 GMT

People are less random than chance. I expect most challenge players would remove at least 2 numbers from the prior drawing from their choice set for the next draw. The odds favor successfully throwing out 2 bad numbers vs throwing out a good number (or two).

12 from 59 becomes 12 from 57 (or less) . The difference is amplified when they get 2+1 or better because of the full wheeling of the set.

Reply #71

RJOh — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:00:29 GMT

Maybe a 3if3of12 wheel with 31 lines.

WB:01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

PB:13 14 15 16

01 02 03 04 07 +13

01 02 03 05 11 +14

01 02 06 08 09 +15

01 02 06 10 12 +16

01 03 06 09 12 +13

01 03 08 10 12 +14

01 04 05 06 09 +15

01 04 07 08 11 +16

01 04 07 10 12 +13

01 05 07 08 10 +14

01 06 07 09 11 +15

01 09 10 11 12 +16

02 03 06 07 10 +13

02 03 07 11 12 +14

02 03 08 09 11 +15

02 04 05 08 10 +16

02 04 06 11 12 +13

04 07 08 09 12 +14

02... [ More ]

Reply #70

MADDOG10 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:24:48 GMT

Jimmy,

The stats that you've provided are informative, but in my opinion are not realistic for the average bettor here at LP.

Of the (12) numbers put forth in the challenge, it would cost $35.00 to wheel a 4 if 5 abreviated wheel, or $20.00 for a 4 if 5 Key wheel. I have done both and faired very well but not a jackpot as of yet.

I don't know of anyone who could or would spend $3,168 dollars every Jackpot draw per week. I would think if you based your stats on a player spending $35.0... [ More ]

Reply #69

Stack47 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:02:33 GMT

If you played 3168 QPs, you could expect to get 51.31 bonus number matches. The Challenge players can expect to match 1 bonus number once every 9.75 (39/4) drawings. However since one bonus number match in the Challenge has 792 matches, Challenge players would average 81.23 (792/9.75) bonus number matches for every 3168 tickets played for a year and have a slight advantage over QPs.

A better and more practical way of looking at it would be to play 39 combos using each of the 39 bonus numbers

Reply #68

Stack47 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:42:12 GMT

You can get a 4 if 5 guarantee using 12 numbers by using only 35 combinations. Add one more combo and play each bonus number 9 times. Another practical and useful wheel is 3 if 4 of 12 with 12 combos and it's highly balanced. Someone could play all 12 numbers and all four bonus numbers for as little as $4.

Reply #67

jimmy4164 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:10:55 GMT

Stack47,

You said, ...It proves wheeling a specific set of numbers give a player a slight advantage over playing a like number of QPs.

I'm afraid you really don't understand the meaning of the two ROI collumns and their subtotals below. Please take a closer look...

The numbers in the Expected collumns are calculated from the published probabilities for the game and the total tickets purchased.

(Where's RJOh when I need him!)

Expected Actual

Category #Wins ROI* #Wins ROI... [ More ]

Reply #66

Stack47 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:03:47 GMT

how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted?

If by chance you mean how the Challenge played vs a like number of RNG QPs, the answer is obvious. Though it's highly unlikely impossible a group of that size would ever play that way, It proves wheeling a specific set of numbers give a player a slight advantage over playing a like number of QPs.

Didn't you know that before you started the statistics

Reply #65

savagegoose — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:10:44 GMT

personally i would do a 4 if 5 hit wheel. makes it $152 a draw. for 4 +pb or mb if you get all 5 in the 12

or just $38 if you keep only playing with only 1 pb number. but isnt this the fun of picking 12 numbers, something we wpould never wheel oursleves? and seeing who gets lucky

Reply #64

jimmy4164 — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:29:16 GMT

Stack47,

You said, I don't have the statistics and I'm not taking poll, but it's obvious the consensus agrees wagering $3168 four times a week for a year on the Challenges is a bad bet for a number of reasons. If you would just agree your statistics based on imaginary wagers proved what we all already knew, we could move on.

So what was it you already knew? If betting all combinations of 12 WBs and 4 PBs twice a week was such a bad bet, how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge p... [ More ]

Reply #63

jimmy4164 — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:48:44 GMT

I can agree with that too. That's why I play

Reply #62

rcbbuckeye — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:13:37 GMT

The lotteries are selling dreams for a dollar .

How true. Excellent way to put it. And I'm a buyer

Reply #61

Stack47 — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:59:28 GMT

I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts.

Nope it means in 1796 Laplace would have never thought in his wildest dreams that 229,421,186 tickets would some day be bought on one MM drawing. Nor thought there would be a Lottery Post where players show their positive thinking with hundreds of posts about how they plan on spending their winnings.

In 1796 not very many people could afford to spend $1 twice a week playing either PB or MM... [ More ]

Reply #60

jimmy4164 — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:34:04 GMT

Stack47 says, It's obvious that Laplace had been dead for many years when Norman Vincent Peale wrote The Power of Positive Thinking and never heard the term A dollar for a dream .

I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts. If this is true, what about the effects of the millions of others who may be hoping for a different outcome?

You just don't get it. I have dealt at LP (with you nipping at my heels) with every question you ask or... [ More ]

Reply #59

Stack47 — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:57:11 GMT

Speaking of Tools, which is it?

Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no HELPFUL TOOL.

Lotterypost.com has all the tools you should ever need.

Or are you saying while LP has lots of tools, none of them are helpful?

If I want to find which digit in the first digit position in a pick-3 game most followed the digit 1 over a specific period of time, I have a tool that will show... [ More ]

Reply #58

jimmy4164 — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:27:31 GMT

Stack47 says, Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?

Why? Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no HELPFUL TOOL. I've suggested this many times since posting here, and I now see even RL-RANDOMLOGIC has joined me. He also doesn't seem to be making outrageous claims that measuring digit frequencies... [ More ]

Reply #57

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:22 GMT

I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study.

Hadn't RJ and I made our observations there would be no discussion because it looks like nobody else cares. Without our input this thread and the Details thread would be no different than some of the members' threads that respond to themselves to pad their posting stats.

Please don't quickly fire back an unsupported and meaningless reply.

On November 23 in the Details threat I responded to a post Jimmy had made o... [ More ]

Reply #56

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:05:26 GMT

I worked with a guy that drove to PA to buy lottery tickets before Ohio even had a lottery. Some in my area of Ohio drove to WV to stand in line for a couple of hours to play the Big Game when lottery retailers were scarce.

It was only about a year ago when PB and MM states started adding the other game so I suppose in Jimmy's mind, 2009 was the good old days .

Reply #55

Stack47 — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:57:27 GMT

I don't need to read the opinions of the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists to know wagering $3168 two or four times a week for a year would be a bad bet. And I'm pretty sure even they would say your statistics are useless information.

Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?

After all this is a lottery website.

Reply #54

RJOh — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:50:40 GMT

You must be getting old too as this sounds like a good old days story.

I'm old enough to have been retired for a few years and to have played PowerBall and MegaMillions even longer but I wouldn't describe those times as the good old days because weather like the snow storm we're having now would have prevented me from traveling out of state to play those games. Besides buying tickets for friends and co-workers created problems for the persons buying the tickets if they won big. Today is much... [ More ]

Reply #53

jimmy4164 — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:00:15 GMT

You must be getting old too as this sounds like a good old days story.

It reminds me of my time generating random numbers and filling out betting slips for my co-workers too. The betting slip part was what I hated. I tried unsuccessfully to program a dot-matrix printer to produce slip replicas but was eventually able to do it when we got an Adobe Postscript printer. It also required a cooperative lottery clerk as my slips were the wrong color and thickness and rejected by some of them (clerk... [ More ]

Reply #52

RJOh — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:24:32 GMT

When I first started buying PowerBall tickets in Indiana I would head for the first gas station over the boarder and would have to wait in line with other Ohioans buying bunches of (QP) tickets so clerks in the area were used to selling a lot of tickets to long lines when the PB jackpots were large. When I bought tickets for co-workers I had started going to New Haven which was a little farther inland so there usually weren't any lines and the clerks of those stations were happy to get the extra... [ More ]

Reply #51

jimmy4164 — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:49:57 GMT

Apparently, Stack47 doesn't understand the study done by the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists since he chose to take the route of replying with a meaningless response rather than study and comment on it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions

support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.

(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic

biases is somewhat older than experi... [ More ]

Reply #50

time*treat — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:16:29 GMT

What was the buying of that many tickets like?

Did the clerk(s) and anyone behind you flip out

Reply #49

Stack47 — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:49:47 GMT

I asked Jimmy: Have you asked any of the Challenge players if and how they play their predictions?

And Jimmy replied: I didn't miss it; I ignored it. That question has been asked, reasked, answered, reanswered, and hashed over many times, in many threads. I have no need or desire to ask it again. If you do, be my guest.

I was just interested in asking that one player you claimed actually wagered $3168 playing their Challenge numbers a couple of questions. It would be very interesting to... [ More ]

Reply #48

Stack47 — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:37:38 GMT

I asked: Do you really need to see a years worth of Challenge statistics to know that had players individually or collectively spent $3168 per drawing playing only 12 wps with only 4 bonus numbers they would have lost lots of money?

And Jimmy answered with: This rhetorical question implies that you believe that had players been able to use their $3168 to buy 3168 Powerball tickets twice a week without the constraints of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, they would have lost less money, or maybe... [ More ]

Reply #47

jimmy4164 — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:46:50 GMT

I learned from my earliest postings at LP that a lot of people here mistrust Random Number Generators. Therefore, I avoided as much as possible using them while trying to make a point. I had hoped that by using the picks of the participants in MadDog's Challenges over a long enough period of time, [many of them chosen in a systematic way,] the results would finally convince [some] staunch believers in an advantage to system play that it really doesn't matter how they choose their numbers.

It... [ More ]

Reply #46

Stack47 — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:54:08 GMT

Jimmy said:

I would say that your expected losses of (329472-57328) $272,144 should not necessarily be considered losses, but the price you would have to pay for 329,472 chances to win the Jackpot.

The real price is convincing a clerk to run the 634 playslips twice a week while the line behind you keeps getting longer and longer.

Jimmy said:

It just occured to me that MadDog's Powerball Challenge is a golden opportunity for system players to strut their stuff without giving up any... [ More ]

Reply #45

RJOh — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:07:21 GMT

It really makes no difference when you consider the logistics of playing 3168 personal picks. Having a different set of 3168 combinations for each drawing would mean filling out 634 new play slips for every drawing which if one ever had the time to do it once would probably never do it again.

Reply #44

time*treat — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:38:20 GMT

How far from Expected values would Actual values have to be before they were considered useful

Reply #43

time*treat — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:15:09 GMT

I hope the player buying $3168 worth of lottery tickets isn't standing in front of me in the lottery line.

They're more likely to be in line in front of me ... and calling out their picks, 1 .. combo .. at a .. time.

Reply #42

Stack47 — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:01:40 GMT

Jimmy doesn't understand what I never claimed I could do better making imaginary wagers or feel the need to impress anyone by making one. or all I've ever said is I prefer picking my own numbers because I have control over which numbers I play. means because he has no statistics and can't find someone to quote with alphabet letters behind their names to explain it to him.

I too played in pools that bought up to $500 worth of tickets for Super Lotto when the jackpot was high but never thought... [ More ]

Reply #41

RJOh — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:21:22 GMT

Jimmy,

You're are responding as if Stack47 and RJOh are the same member. I can't speak for Stack47 and all I've ever said is I prefer picking my own numbers because I have control over which numbers I play. I believe I can do no worst than QP's and chances are I will do better based on my experiences. If anyone is interested in how I'm doing, I've been posting a sampling of the combinations I play on the prediction board for years.

I'm sure you would be fascinated to read how I would spend... [ More ]

Reply #40

jimmy4164 — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:07:54 GMT

Stack47, RJOh,

You must think I am the only one who will notice that you are [not so] cleverly evading the questions posed above.

I think not.

You must also think your prior claims that you can beat the odds will be forgotten.

I think not.

I made the request, I'm sure I am not the only one who would be fascinated to read just how YOU would spend $3168 on one Powerball draw. Of course, I don't expect you to give up any trade secrets; just impress us by estimating how much better yo... [ More ]

Reply #39

RJOh — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:03:49 GMT

Jimmy, I was just as surprised when you asked me that question so I asked it of you figuring that when you answered you would have a answer. As I've said before, I maintain updated data for all the games I play and can develop any statistics I need and don't need the statistics of others to decide how I play.

Reply #38

Stack47 — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:59:40 GMT

We don't have to make 4 imaginary $3168 bets each week for a year to know what the expected results should be. Even without your data it's easy to understand we have to match 4+1 every week or lose our shirts. Maybe one of days Jimmy will figure out we already know it would be a bad bet.

The amount of his imaginary wagers alone should be enough to prove to him any statistics from them are useless information.

Reply #37

jimmy4164 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:51:27 GMT

I'm surprised RJ. I'm surprised you would ask this question.

The fact that you and Stack47 both reject statistical information

as meaningless should tell you WHY. At least the data derived

from the Challenge was based on live LP members' selections,

rather than QPs, which you REALLY have disgust for. And BTW,

your table was a probability compilation, not statistics.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/223792/1910544

Reply #36

jimmy4164 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:32:27 GMT

TO: Stack47

CC: RJOh

Stack47 says, I never claimed I could do better making imaginary wagers or feel the need to impress anyone by making one.

Oh, OK.

I'm sorry that your abstract reasoning skills are hindering your ability to make the connection between what you call Imaginary wagers and real money wagers. Unfortunately, this is not a skill you can easily improve through study. You want us to believe that the reason you don't participate in the Challenges is because your imaginary... [ More ]

Reply #35

RJOh — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 20:05:41 GMT

So why did you bother posting all that information? I didn't check your math,

but it looks like the equivalent of the Expected Winners side of mine and mine is simpler with payouts.

Reply #34

Stack47 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:25:53 GMT

I wonder how many people showed up at their state lottery headquarters trying to validate their imaginary winning tickets after the record breaking MM jackpot? Jimmy probably tried to validate his in a state that doesn't even play MM.

I never claimed I could do better making imaginary wagers or feel the need to impress anyone by making one. You don't understand the concept behind the Challenges and suggesting we have a contest using imaginary money is as useless as your statistics. You could... [ More ]

Reply #33

jimmy4164 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 05:57:36 GMT

Oops! You forgot the rest of my quote!

Jimmy4164 said, I'm sure I am not the only one who would be fascinated to read just how YOU would spend $3168 on one Powerball draw. Of course, I don't expect you to give up any trade secrets; just impress us by estimating how much better you would do.

Stack47 said, Send me the real Benjamins and I'll show you.

C'mon Stack, are you telling us you want to be paid to

merely tell us to what extent you think you can beat chance?

Please read my... [ More ]

Reply #32

jimmy4164 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 05:41:43 GMT

So why did you bother posting your table? I didn't check your math,

but it looks like the equivalent of the Expected side of mine.

You have claimed that it's possible to increase your odds of winning.

What I'm trying to elicit from you is an estimate of how much better

than this you think you can do with your methods.

Reply #31

Stack47 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:12:38 GMT

This rhetorical question implies that you believe that had players been able to use their $3168 to buy 3168 Powerball tickets twice a week without the constraints of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, they would have lost less money, or maybe even come out ahead over the year's play.

I was clear when I said they would have lost lots of money . How much money is irrelevant when it's imaginary money.

I'm sure I am not the only one who would be fascinated to read just how YOU would spend $3168 o... [ More ]

Reply #30

RJOh — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 21:35:43 GMT

combination size 5

basic pool size 59

(B) Bonus pool size 39

smallest match no (B) number 3

largest match with bonus 5

smallest match with bonus 0

tickets or chances per draw 3168

possible combos of 5/59 + 1/39 numbers = 195249054

MATCHES ODDS WINNING COMBOS EXPECTED WINNERS PAYOUTS

5/5+B 1 : 195249054 1 0.00

5/5+0 1 : 5138133 38 0.00

4/5+B 1 : 723145 270 0.00

4/5+0 1 : 19030 10260 0.17 $ 17.0

3/5+B 1 : 13644 14310 0.23 23.0

3/5+0 1 : 359 543780 8.82 61.... [ More ]

Reply #29

jimmy4164 — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:46:33 GMT

Stack47,

You said, Do you really need to see a years worth of Challenge statistics to know that had players individually or collectively spent $3168 per drawing playing only 12 wps with only 4 bonus numbers they would have lost lots of money? This rhetorical question implies that you believe that had players been able to use their $3168 to buy 3168 Powerball tickets twice a week without the constraints of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, they would have lost less money, or maybe even come out ah... [ More ]

Reply #28

jimmy4164 — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:58:38 GMT

Isn't it amazing how those imaginary 3,168 bets, the ones that I'm told by informed players should surely be avoided, somehow manage to result in an overall return that so closely approximates what mathematicians predict?

--Jimmy4164

P.S. Some related and interesting reading:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/lottery-nonsense-8694

MadDog's Powerball Challenge

2010/12/29

01/02/2010 Thru 12/29/2010... [ More ]

Reply #27

RJOh — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:15:29 GMT

I used Challenge player's predictions (yours included)

Hope you did better than me playing my numbers.

Reply #26

jimmy4164 — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:05:52 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225251/1907506

Reply #25

Stack47 — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 05:34:04 GMT

It was meant for you because it looks like you played in the Challenges since they started and from your last remark, it looks like you could care less how you would do spending an imaginary $3168 four times a week. Many times when the jackpot gets high, I used Challenge player's predictions (yours included) playing a 3 if 4 of 12 number wheel because I don't like playing QPs; cashed a few times too.

He's (Jimmy4161) the one that has accumulated the data from Maddog PB challenge for year 201... [ More ]

Reply #24

RJOh — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:21:25 GMT

You must be confusing my responses to those of jimmy4164. He's the one that has accumulated the data from Maddog PB challenge for year 2010 and probably will explain its importance to himself later.

As I've said before I usually only play 10 to 20 lines and use numbers in the first four lines for the Maddog PowerBall challenge and usually post the first 10 lines on the prediction board. Wheeling is something I don't do since a reasonable amount of numbers can't be wheeled for a cost with in... [ More ]

Reply #23

Stack47 — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 01:34:09 GMT

Do you really need to see a years worth of Challenge statistics to know that had players individually or collectively spent $3168 per drawing playing only 12 wps with only 4 bonus numbers they would have lost lots of money?

Some might play their Challenge numbers using 4, 8, 12 or even 36 combos but that's not even in the same ballpark as $3168.

Sounds like an opinion to me

And my opinion is these statistics are worthless infomation.

Reply #22

RJOh — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:43:03 GMT

Any assertion about a lottery can be shown to be true or false with the application of logic and mathematics. That's only rarely possible with religion or politics.

Sounds like an opinion to me, beside what one players call logic may be considered nonsense to another as is displayed many LP threads.

About religion and politics, you were the one that suggested that such issues could be bias and I'm simply saying it's true of lottery issues too.

I think both Wikipedia and Britannica Encyc... [ More ]

Reply #21

jimmy4164 — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:57:12 GMT

It's interesting to me that you categorize lotteries with religion and politics. I can't see any reason to do that other than the fact that some people have a near religious belief in their lottery systems. Any assertion about a lottery can be shown to be true or false with the application of logic and mathematics. That's only rarely possible with religion or politics.

Since Wikipedia is not accepted here, I signed up for a subscription to the online version of The Encyclopedia Britannica. Th... [ More ]

Reply #20

RJOh — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:20:44 GMT

When it comes to religions, politics and playing lotteries, anyone writing or talking about them are for the most part expressing an opinion and use facts and data that support their opinion and may discard anything that doesn't. That's one of the reason I don't take such writings or talk as gospel.

Reply #19

jimmy4164 — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 06:59:53 GMT

Thanks for the feedback. I've never attempted to edit or submit an article there so I wasn't aware of this. It's too bad. I wouldn't have been surprised learning this about religious or political issues, but one would hope that articles based on logic and math would be outside such biased control. Oh well, I'll have to rely on other sources for support citations and perhaps use Wikipedia as backup when it agrees.

That said, I still think they've done a pretty good job with The Gambler's Falla... [ More ]

Reply #18

Todd — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 06:05:31 GMT

It is called a collaborative effort, but in reality there is one person who accepts or rejects everything. So it's not really collaborative.

A while back, I made an effort myself to make some corrections and suggestions, and the guy was like a Nazi eliminating everything I contributed. It's not like there was anything commericial about it, just information with good backup sources.

If memory serves, I had tried contributing a number of times -- 4, 5, 6 times, something like that. I had ver... [ More ]

Reply #17

jimmy4164 — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:44:51 GMT

RJOh,

You're correct regarding Todd's comments on the Powerball article, but if you look back at the attacks I had to deal with when citing Wikipedia to explain The Gambler's Fallacy, I think you'll find a different story. Although I don't fully agree with Todd's critique of the PB article, he cited a specific passage and what he didn't like about it. Those who have a strong psychological need to believe in the fallacy blindly mounted emotional attacks on Wikipedia itself without attempting t... [ More ]

Reply #16

RJOh — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:40:57 GMT

What you observed weren't negative sentiments for Wikipedia but doubts about some of the information in the Wikipedia article.

Reply #15

jimmy4164 — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:03:59 GMT

I've observed a lot of negative sentiment here for Wikipedia, especially in regard to the articles I've linked to like the ones on the Gambler's Fallacy and Powerball. It should be noted that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. For example, it is quite likely that the Powerball article has multiple contributors, and as this screen shot from the top of its page this morning indicates, it is open for editing. This is the beauty of Wikipedia; it's probably one of the best forums for peer review av... [ More ]

Reply #14

jimmy4164 — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:36:48 GMT

I've seen some dubious information at Wikipedia too, but it usually gets rectified soon enough. If the complex Present Value of an Annuity calculations were detailed, I'm afraid most people would fall asleep reading it! At today's low interest rates, the 2X number puts you pretty much in the ball park, and works for me.

Any pointers to the stats

Reply #13

Todd — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:15:25 GMT

I don't think so. It actually shows a 2x column with calculated numbers. I don't think that line of reasoning works these days. It is very bad form for something that is supposed to be definitive .

To me, the way the whole thing is written is as if the person thinks they are one of the most knowledgeable people out there.

Reply #12

jimmy4164 — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:07:59 GMT

Todd,

I think the Wikipedia article agrees [in spirit] with what you present here. I oversimplified to expedite my post. What's clear to me is that the article is much more in line with your assesment than my original (erroneous) claim that the cash payout was 1/2 of what it should be.

Could someone point to the overall Powerball Jackpot stats for 2010? The only way to verify that the Expected Value of the Jackpot component of one Powerball ticket is 32.5 is to know the total number of tic... [ More ]

Reply #11

Todd — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:33:44 GMT

That's exactly right especially for the info that jimmy4164 is referring to.

The Powerball annuity jackpot is most certainly NOT a 2x calculation. The cash value is actually the STARTING POINT for the jackpot, because the annuity value is calculated FROM the estimated cash value, not the other way around.

Take the jackpot on Nov. 6, for example. The cash value was $67 million, and the annuity was $123 million. So the annuity was 1.8x the cash value, which may not sound like a big differenc... [ More ]

Reply #10

RJOh — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:23:29 GMT

You had better confirm the information from wikipedia with other sources, yesterday I posted that link in the thread: https://www.lotterypost.com/news/225314

and was informed by Todd and others Whoever updates Wikipedia gets it right only sometimes. They post a lot of stuff with absolutely no proof or attribution, ............. In fact a Floridian pointed out the information about MegaMillions starting on Jan. 5, 2011 in Florida was incorrect.

Reply #9

jimmy4164 — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 04:58:07 GMT

It turns out, the answer is at the Link I've been tacking onto my Powerbal (Summaries) postings every week!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball

Scroll down to the section entitled Winning Expectation. It's all spelled out there. The table even details examples of various cash and annuity amounts. I was correct that about 1/3 of ticket sales is what the cash option should be, and wrong in assuming it is not, because IT IS! If I had payed more attention to this article, I would have notic... [ More ]

Reply #8

jimmy4164 — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:07:27 GMT

Powerball Fans,

I posted this last night in a News thread, but I think it fits better here.

Here's an excerpt from my response to Batiatus in:

https://www.lotterypost.com/news/225148/1894405

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

Batiatus,

We're not too many pages away from each other on this. Take a rough hewn example:

$100,000,000 Total Sales since last jackpot payoff

$17,000,000 Payouts for Powerball, 1WB + PB, 2WB + PB,,,,, 5WB

$50,000,000 Lottery's Advertized Cut... [ More ]

Reply #7

jimmy4164 — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:38:59 GMT

It just occured to me that MadDog's Powerball Challenge is a golden opportunity for system players to strut their stuff without giving up any of their secrets. Any players who use a system that reduces the 59 White Ball and 39 Powerball sets to a manageable size are good candidates. Of course, as has been pointed out repeatedly by some, in the real world the average working person can't afford 3,168 bets on a Powerball draw, so they would be forced to use other pruning techniques to select the m... [ More ]

Reply #6

jimmy4164 — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:04:53 GMT

MadDog's Powerball Challenge Players,

As I slowly approach the accumulation of a year's worth of Challenge data, I thought I'd make some general comments on what's being revealed.

A common refrain from those who don't believe these summaries of the Powerball Challenge are of any value is, ...if someone had $3,168 to play on one Powerball draw, they surely wouldn't buy all combinations of 12 of the 59 White Balls. Another one is, ...most people don't have $3,168 to play every day. The best... [ More ]

Reply #5

jimmy4164 — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:27:34 GMT

Please use this thread to DISCUSS the (Details) and (Summaries)

of the MadDog Powerball Challenge Threads.

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

Team Stack47 / RJOh,

Since you apparently feel I have too much free time to devote to the Powerball game, and believe my reporting of MadDog's Challenge is a complete waste of time, the attention you give to it is somewhat puzzling. There are many situations that might allow one the luxury of free ti... [ More ]

Reply #4

jimmy4164 — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:47:40 GMT

That six degrees of separation is an amazing phenomenon isn't it

Reply #3

RollChris76 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:16:51 GMT

Someone in Arizona won the Powerball last night! It wasn't me, unfortunately (although I did win $7, lol). But still, that's awesome. It's probably a friend of a friend of a friend of someone I know, using the six degrees of separation law. Congratulations to whoever it is.

Reply #2

jimmy4164 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:45:20 GMT

The following is from MadDog's Powerball Challenges (Details)

Posted: Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on November 23, 2010

And it's been over a month without any feedback (positive or negative) about your statistics.

I doubted anyone played the same pick-3 number every drawing for over 30 years in the PA evening drawing and doubt if someone decided to wager almost $3200 on one PB or MM game, they would limit their play to only 12 wbs and 4 bonus balls.

Have you asked any of the C... [ More ]

Reply #1

jimmy4164 — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:05:49 GMT

Stack47,

You must have missed my link to this thread when you posted this question in the (Details) Thread:

Since you apparently missed it, I'll ask again. Have you asked any of the Challenge players if and how they play their predictions?

I didn't miss it; I ignored it. That question has been asked, reasked, answered, reanswered, and hashed over many times, in many threads. I have no need or desire to ask it again. If you do, be my guest.

To quote your earlier post:

I'm assumi... [ More ]

MADDOG'S Powerball Challenges (Discussion)

jimmy4164 — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:29:15 GMT

Please use this thread to DISCUSS the (Details) and (Summaries)

of the MadDog Powerball Challenge Threads.

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

Stack47 Wrote:

You might also see that the 3168 simulated tickets that someone virtually purchases is a convenient way to speed up the process.

Personally I think it's more useless information from someone with way too much time on their hands. But my opinion aside, where is the positive feedbac... [ More ]