Applications of Probability and Statistics

Reply #38

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:32:23 GMT

PS

I guess the homeless still in need of shelters will have to rely on your disciples who were lucky enough to receive your manna before you pulled it from the public domain. Unfortunate...

My system was never public domain, I just sent copies to people who I thought would take

the time to learn it. How they use it in part or in whole is up to them and I still give hints

and tips for using it. I have a method that allows me to pick the correct digits to play. You

however, w... [ More ]

Reply #37

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:56:51 GMT

Jimmy

The only tears produced here are from having to read another one of your meaningless post.

#1, I stoped giving away software because of the time needed to support it. There is only one of

me. It took 3 to 4 hours a day to just reply to peoples questions.

#2, I can write post making a few comments here and there without it taking up but a few minuets

of my time unlike you and your vegas trip, shame.

#3, The software is a mechanical system which includes a... [ More ]

Reply #36

RJOh — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:30:30 GMT

Dream on, if someone knew how to be the grand prize winner of the next PowerBall drawing then they would be buying the winning ticket for themselves. All anyone can tell you is what they are doing to try and improve their odds of winning and if they haven't won yet then you know how well that's working. At least when you get free advice on playing the lotteries, you get your money worth even if it is a hassle to read.

Reply #35

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:09:17 GMT

(Warning: Tissues may be needed - this is a tear jerker!)

Fewer and fewer of these less than random events exist and the main reason is that people post them.

This is an astute observation. I've found it to be very, very true in the stock markets and at the racetracks, just not in the lotteries.

RL-RANDOMLOGIC, If your system really does work, I'm afraid you may be too late with your warning. You've been posting various proprietary aspects of your system throughout 2010, and even into... [ More ]

Reply #34

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:07:39 GMT

pumpi76

Probability and statistics when applied to the lottery requires randomness. If any method produces

a better then expected outcome then it is the randomness that is in question. Lottery Statistics do

prove very well what one can expect when making a random selection and is almost mechanical in

nature. If however you find a pattern or other information that can be predicted to some degree then

statistics will not produce the correct results. This does not mean that the sta... [ More ]

Reply #33

pumpi76 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:36:52 GMT

i always felt that the same way the engine of an airplane is complex and made up of many different things to work in unison so can there be a mathematical equation/theory or system made of different components working in unison to predict randomness including probability and statistics....

Reply #32

butch2030 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:46:41 GMT

I just updated the file above. The results are as of 02/19/11. I have 38 Groups making up 105 out of the 221 drawnings since the last Matrix change. Or 47.51% of the total drawnings. With the odds of winning the Grand prize at 1 in 195,249,054. I think you will have better odds from one of my 38 groups which make up almost 48% of the total drawning to date since the last matrix change.

Good Luck Best Wishes

Reply #31

butch2030 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:19:02 GMT

All I can do is give you better odds of winning. To view my combos patterns found in the Powerball go to: http://www.box.net/shared/f74qiezh2r

I will be updating this file later today, but it will show you which combos patterns come in more often.

The results as of the ending 01/22/11 make up 46.95% of all the drawnings thru 01/22/11 since the last matrix change.

Please advise if you have any questions - you can send me a Private Message if you want.

Reply #30

hsg2000A — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:06:45 GMT

Forget all this alluring hassle!!!

Please tell me how to be the grand prize winner of this next powerball draw? I want to be the Grand Prize winner!!

I need an answer not the theories to run in.

Reply #29

butch2030 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:52:49 GMT

Back in 1960, when Ford put out the Ford Falcon the Mercury Comet, they had a major problem with their rocker arm assembly in their engines. It seems, they had to be replaced every few thousands of miles because they kept burning out. It was an auto mechanic that had to tell Ford that the hole they bore in the engine was too small for the oil to be pumped from the oil pan to the rocker arm assembly. When the oil got alittle dirty, it would pulg the hole which prevented oil getting to the rocker

Reply #28

Coin Toss — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:27:57 GMT

jimmy4164,

No, this meant that the casino guys had seen people with degrees in probabilitis come up to the game with their pencils and notebooks get slaughteredd by a pair of dice.

And by the way, nothing to do with an anti-intellectual mindset. It had more to do with telling intellectual after intellectual the dice were frozen or chopping and they didn't want that particular table but the eggheads, with their statistics, just had to be the ones to prove the dice wrong. Yeah, sure.

Reply #27

time*treat — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:43:39 GMT

One of the lessons learned by the M.I.T. team was that when the casino beats you, it's all good -- when you are beating the casino, it's a thorough body search by casino security, in a back room -- followed by a ban from the property.

Reply #26

truecritic — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:06:00 GMT

Has there ever been a game more publicized at being beaten than Black Jack? (maybe roulette if you include Thorp).

The Old time Las Vegas boxman would of never had the chance to say that when the M.I.T. team was in their prime.

Reply #25

jimmy4164 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:07:36 GMT

Does this mean that Las Vegas boxmen know more about probability than people with degrees in mathematics?

There's nobody I enjoy beating more than someone who just got a degree in probabilities. Especially if they're from Providence .

This is a psychologically revealing quote. Why do you think they so enjoy beating someone with [presumably] more formal education than them? Could it be that they share the same anti-intellectual mindset as the auto mechanics who think they know more about e... [ More ]

Reply #24

jimmy4164 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:48:48 GMT

You seem to be telling us that your theory is that when lottery draws result in repeats, it proves the draws are not random. And, if the draws are not random, and the lottery claims they are, I guess we must conclude that there is fraud involved in some way. Let's think about this. Someone at the lottery wants to rig the draw by forcing an outcome known to them in advance so they can be sure to bet on it. If you were this person, would you choose a set that had already been drawn, knowing this w... [ More ]

Reply #23

Coin Toss — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:06:10 GMT

jimmy4164,

Using the game of casino Blackjack as an example, every book out there will tell you never to take insurance. This is based on computer generated results of millions of hands. But you're not going to pay millions of hands, or millions of drawings.

So the night you go out and play comes and you hit a little streak and now you're betting greens and maybe blacks ($25 and $100 chips). You're usually a $1-$5 bettor but like I said you're on a roll .

So you've got $200 bet and some... [ More ]

Reply #22

butch2030 — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:44:14 GMT

In the above statement you state the kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories . And then, you have the nerve to say The lotteries are Random! They are not truely random. The only time that they would be random is if they were drawn in a vacumn. The machines are man made, the balls are man made, they are put into the machines in a given order, the entire process of turning on the machine having the balls come out is less than 15 seconds. I

Reply #21

jimmy4164 — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 05:30:00 GMT

No Stack47, not abandoned.

Just patiently waiting for someone to seriously reply to the opening post.

Hint: Someone who believes Probability is not useful for predicting what you will most likely win or lose in the lottery could try to explain how this is consistent with the fact that it is so valuable in the sciences.

Reply #20

Stack47 — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:20:30 GMT

Apparently Jimmy has abandon this topic in favor of What will it take to win (mathematically speaking?) by quoting psychological theories. And after two pages, still no discussion on the topic he started.

Reply #19

garyo1954 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 03:43:59 GMT

Jimmy is really okay. He's just a bad parody of what he sees as a bad math professor. I sorta look at jimmy as the LP troll. Every forum has a troll, some are really bad. But jimmy.....

Well, he stays in this little corner, he's not costing anything, and we don't have to feed him, walk him, water him, or bathe him. I think it is a pretty fair trade off to poke him one in while to make sure he is still alive.

I learned to never expect an answer. I spent a minutes reading one of his posts a... [ More ]

Reply #18

ameriken — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:55:31 GMT

I guess you are right.

There is no answer to my question so it appears that the idea of actually having a discussion was not a serious request.

Reply #17

garyo1954 — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:00:20 GMT

Don't feel discouraged. Having a discussion with jimmy ranks as one of the great mysteries of mankind.

Rumor has it NASA took up the daunting task of establishing there WOULD be a discussion.

Unfortunately, once it was established the possibility was near the nano level (.000000000), jimmy started a new thread, ultimately destroying the data.

Rumor also says jimmy was once nominated for the cover of the Who's Who of FAIL. IMHO he ranks right up there with the guy who worked diligently p... [ More ]

Reply #16

ameriken — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:59:33 GMT

I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this thread. You named it ''Application of Probabilities and Statistics and said it would be a good idea to 'discuss these issues'. Great idea...as a new member and as someone trying to learn everything he can about playing these games, your title attracted me to the thread.

However as I read through your first post, I see comments like 'pathetic claims being made'; and 'those who feel P S are a waste of time'; 'anyone who really believes that their... [ More ]

Reply #15

Stack47 — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:47:18 GMT

Are any of them posting here in 225692?

It looks like a large number of posters are doing exactly what I said; trying to create a system that produces hits.

As for the We , that post was a reply to RJ and I never saw RJ say they learned something from you they didn't already know. I suppose I could include several of the Challenge players that said they already knew betting $3168 twice a week for a year would be stupid too.

Statistics might show that more baseball players had 50 home r... [ More ]

Reply #14

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:47:27 GMT

You can count me in as being one of the we .

Reply #13

jimmy4164 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:55:51 GMT

It's curious to me why someone who claims to already know what I've been posting here would bother to take the time to read my posts and then put forth considerable effort to try to discredit them. Hhmm...

BTW, who are you referring to when you say we?

Are any of them posting here in 225692?

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/225692

Reply #12

Stack47 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:29:28 GMT

The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific.

The only question anybody should ask, does the system produces hits because that's what the majority of LP members seem to be looking for. We all understand it's a random game of chance and know the odds are against us.

For whatever reason, Jimmy is on a quest to tell us things we already know.

Reply #11

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:20:42 GMT

jimmy

P.S.

Thanks for combing your hair, you look so much better now. I know how bad hair days can effect a persons

mood.

RL

Reply #10

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:18:24 GMT

jimmy

I worked for over 20 years in a field where I had to depend on math every day not only to do my job

correctly but to keep my job. Making a single mistake could have costed ten's of thousands of dollars.

To compare that job to the lottery would be like comparing a rocket scientist to building sand castles

on the beach. There is no math for the lottery beyond (P), so we tear up the books and apply lottery

math. What is lottery math, glad you asked. Lottery math is using bits a... [ More ]

Reply #9

RJOh — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 06:46:39 GMT

BTW, you brought up the word dumb, not me.

You're right and I also didn't say I believed that once a person graduated from High School they can no longer learn new concepts.

Reply #8

jimmy4164 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:57:23 GMT

Lotteries are among the simplest games ever invented! Mediocre scientists can handle it just fine. If the Lottery employs a sufficiently random RNG it makes no difference whatsoever how many pre-draws are made. If computerized draws were done in secret, allowing technicians, with their own tickets in hand, to keep drawing until they liked what they saw, knowing precisely what the next [Televised] Draw was going to produce because of their corrupt code, then there would be a problem. Do you know

Reply #7

jimmy4164 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:36:08 GMT

Did I say they got dumber? No. Do you deny they would fail to improve their understanding of Probability Statistics?

It would be nice if you would reread my opening post and comment on the substance of it, rather than quibble over the silly issue you've latched onto. Did you use Google to look up any of the papers presented at the last conference at V xj ?

BTW, you brought up the word dumb, not me.

Reply #6

Jordans121 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:19:21 GMT

With so many pre-draws it is unlikely that the best scientists in the world would come close to figuring out the lottery.

Reply #5

RJOh — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:12:59 GMT

That's not what I said, I said they don't get dumber because of reading other player's unscientific lottery theories as you suggested might happen unless some one challenge such lottery theories.

Reply #4

jimmy4164 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:11:36 GMT

It appears you believe that once a person has graduated from High School they can no longer learn new concepts or challenge their beliefs. What I've read about cognition and learning causes me to be much more optimistic than you.

Reply #3

RJOh — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:43:39 GMT

....there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical! How will our country compete on the world stage when students in Asia are running circles around ours in the sciences?

Lottery players has to be at least 18 years old, they aren't school students. If after 12 years of schooling a person doesn't has the basics of a good education in logic and science then playing the lotteries and reading unscientific lottery theories about how to win aren't going to make him dumber.... [ More ]

Reply #2

jimmy4164 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:49:17 GMT

The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific.

This statement is true.

However, the kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories could have a serious effect on our future! If someone doesn't call attention to the absurdity of some of the VooDoo suggested by some here, there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical! How will our country compete on the world stage... [ More ]

Reply #1

RJOh — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:40:18 GMT

Playing the lotteries isn't brain surgery or rocket science and shouldn't be treated as such. The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific. If it works for you then it doesn't matter if it works for others. If you can't find a theory up to your standards do what other players are doing and make up one of your own, after all you aren't trying to save the world but trying to win a lottery.

Applications of Probability and Statistics

jimmy4164 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:05:19 GMT

Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here. I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.

For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions... [ More ]