Determinism vs Randomness and Chance

Reply #72

Stack47 — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:48:58 GMT

Maryland is paying off $7 million to many quad players today too.

Reply #71

dr san — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:42:57 GMT

Hello rl - randonic, I encourage you to open another post about digits, I would like to see

The system of digits function in the following condition = if a lottery can only be

Provide 70% to 80% in a 49/06 game of trying to predict numbers 4

You can be the first 4 numbers = sample (05,12, 25,26) 32 or 42 (25,26,32,42) or (12,25,26,32)

As if a lottery of 49 / 6 to 49/04 were the other 20% will be random

You talked several times in his posts that hit four 3 rd prize numbers,

So l... [ More ]

Reply #70

garyo1954 — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:46:08 GMT

RL, I would very much like to see you do that. I was getting a valuable lessson seeing what you do. I have a ton of notes, some of which I implemented into a program in an effort to replicate what you are doing. There is still much more to do and with no new information, I'm doing the best I can.

Jimmy? He's okay. His rants are underwhelming.

So do it! Let's get this ship moving.

Reply #69

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:08:23 GMT

garyo1954

I would like to start another Digit System post and all that is needed is a promise from jimmy to

stay away. If he really wants to move on uninterrupted with his post then I think it would be a

bargin, especially when you consider how often we intellectually challenged peasants clutter his

topics with our gross lack of scholastic disciplines. His scrupulously detailed analysis of statistics

coupled with his psychological profile of the mathematical deficient leads one t... [ More ]

Reply #68

garyo1954 — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:11:29 GMT

Jim-jim-jimmmmmmmmmmmmy!!!!!!

Today I looked at your post on Monte Carlo. Why does it have 1 whole reply?

Do you think, maybe, asking someone to install something on their computer and run it for you might be the problem? Excel 2007 already has a What-if Analysis Jimmy.

Why do you rely on these links if you are programming your own Monte Carlo? And why not use Bayesian filters in your Monte Carlo Jimmy?

Come on Jimmmmmmmmmmmmy, talk to me. Tell daddy what's bothering you. If I have... [ More ]

Reply #67

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:07:52 GMT

Jimmy

My many request for you to stop interferring in my post were ignored to the point that Todd had to

lock it.

I don't think the thousands of views to this topic are made by more then maybe 100 people, many of

which read for entertainment. When you agree and promise to stay out of any of my topics I will also

do the same for yours. I also think many others would do the same. Your consistent remarks about

how inferior we all are shows your pride and arrogance. Your statement... [ More ]

Reply #66

garyo1954 — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:52:32 GMT

Jimbo!

No worries! When we get that list of of winners we can all go to Monte Carlo! We'll buy you a brand new 1998 Monte Carlo even! I don't know much about Monte Carlos but the mechanic says it is a LS 3.1 V6 with fault code P0401. Something about the EGR flow is insufficient. That means you can't take it to California, Canada, or Mexico.

Hey Dude! Nice to hear you are developing a gender to go with your simulation system. Somebody in mystic fo was asking earlier if 0 was male or female.... [ More ]

Reply #65

jimmy4164 — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:54:38 GMT

I'm sorry Josephus. I've changed my mind. There may be others like yourself among the people responsible for the thousands of views in this Forum in recent months, but they don't seem to have enough interest to participate. Besides, my use of metaphor, irony, and sarcasm appears to confuse too many people, causing them to be insulted when they needn't be. Add to that the buffoons who seem to have nothing better to do than disrupt my agenda, and the result is not a good climate for a meaningful e... [ More ]

Reply #64

ameriken — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 04:07:14 GMT

The 10,000 year old earth types are not content to go about their business with their beliefs, they feel compelled to attack the scientists who present an abundance of evidence to the contrary. The bible thumpers smile and feel satisfied and proud to proclaim they ain't related to no monkey, leaving the scientists frustrated and often in legal battles with their children's school districts, or if they're teachers, fighting for their jobs.

Those 10,000 year old earth types are just like you,... [ More ]

Reply #63

garyo1954 — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:08:37 GMT

HEY JimBOB! Confidante! Familiare! Bud-dy!

Did something for you today. Called the lottery people and told them I needed the winning numbers. When the little cutie on the other end asked how many I wanted, I told her about 400, she said, Why don't I send you the whole list?

Whoa! We're getting the whole list! THE WHOLE LIST JIMMY!!

Shhhhh. Don't tell anybody. We want to keep all this money for ourselves.

Here's my new system. When I get the list, I'll find the date and post the winn... [ More ]

Reply #62

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:11:31 GMT

Jimmy: leave those interested free to examine some interesting Monte Carlo Software techniques that I would like to introduce which could prove useful not only in understanding the lottery, but other more general areas where stochastic processes exist.

I'd be interested in reading about your experiences with Monte Carlo software [insofar as they're Excel friendly]. I hope you'll post them.

Your views about religion don't interest me. I don't have strong feelings about your views about rel... [ More ]

Reply #61

jimmy4164 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:12:46 GMT

To Whom It May Concern,

Jimmy keeps attacking! How quickly you forget. If you start at the top of this Topic, which I initiated, you will see that I was trying to remove myself from this futile debate with RL-RANDOMLOGIC. It's too much like debating evolution. The 10,000 year old earth types are not content to go about their business with their beliefs, they feel compelled to attack the scientists who present an abundance of evidence to the contrary. The bible thumpers smile and feel satisfie... [ More ]

Reply #60

Stack47 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:43:11 GMT

He and his 2 friends have hijacked the Topic.

Speaking of hijacking topics.

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/226890

Why did you feel it was necessary before discussing what does it take to win (mathematically speaking)? that future posters read a boring article that never came close to answering the question your topic suggested?

I have to give you credit, Jimmy; it's not easy to go completely go off topic in your first post and hijack the thread you started.

Reply #59

Stack47 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:26:47 GMT

Playing day to day would be a losing proposition, one I avoid like the plague.

That's really bad news for Jimmy because all his statistics are based on playing the same number the same way everyday; sometimes for years.

If you play $1 on a straight daily, every 2 or 3 years you'll hit for $500. and My backtests of 33+ years of the PA [000-999] lottery resulted in an average straight hit rate of 1 per 1000 draws, and this was true applying various TTT schemes as well as systems like betti... [ More ]

Reply #58

jimmy4164 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:00:20 GMT

Reply #57

garyo1954 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:26:44 GMT

Jim! Jimmy! Jimbo! Duddddddddde!

People gonna think you be hating on me now! I can't help I was born stupid! Hind site. Hindsight. No big deal, just funny if you think about it. I make enough mistakes to fill an encyclopedia. But don't underestimate me, as soon as I've done the stupidest thing you can imagine, I'll do something stupider just to prove you're wrong!

Would like to tell you how I come up with the megaplier 4 last night but my dog is eating my ham and egg croissant. It's an old... [ More ]

Reply #56

ameriken — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:51:32 GMT

Some of these threads could actually be pretty good if it weren't for his attacks.

Reply #55

rcbbuckeye — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:34:10 GMT

Very simply....

You refuse to stop attacking RL because tearing someone down makes you feel superior.

In reality, you are a very inferior person.

This is my one and only post to you, to try to show others what you are really about.

Reply #54

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:13:44 GMT

Interesting set of posts RL. Thanks.

Reply #53

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:09:23 GMT

Jimbo

For the record the amount was $36,764.70. 28% feds and 4% state. This winning is not

included in my figures because you posted that unless a person wins a jackpot then they

will never win in the long run. Back in the days of the 5-30 it was nothing to win a

4 of 5 a couple times a month and if I remember correctly it payed $100.00. A 3 of 5

payed $10.00 and a 2 of 5 paid nothing.

When I give my figures for winning they are for the current game which has been running... [ More ]

Reply #52

jimmy4164 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:42:14 GMT

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

(From your more recent posts:)

I use to spend far more but never gained from doing so.

So your system is not scalable. Too bad.

Playing digits works for me and just because you don't have any success using them means nothing.

I play QuickPicks.

--------------------Referring to the quoted post above-------------------

Finally, RL-RANDOMLOGIC has given us some numbers we can work with.

He said, For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per yea... [ More ]

Reply #51

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:41:21 GMT

Eeryone, place your bets, Jimmy is about to explode with another set of statistics that will echo

through LP land. I just hope that he includes the data for 2of3's, 3of3's and not just the 4of5's

that has tipped his plate. Save yourself the time jimmy. Been there done that so before you waste

your time which is exactly what you are doing, take a deep breath and remember the one word that

I use so often ----- IF ------ . The idea here is to remove from the pool of selection. If one is... [ More ]

Reply #50

jimmy4164 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:04:35 GMT

Good for you Gary! You finally found what you were looking for, a spelling mistake in one of my posts. Keep watching; you just might catch another one. And if you scrutinize my next post coming up shortly, you might even find a round off error in my arithmetic.

Good work

Reply #49

garyo1954 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:57:28 GMT

Hind site? Is that a chair or a sofa?

Maybe you meant Hindsight which means realization of the possibilities after the occurrence.

JIMMY, HOMBRE, we all have those 'if I knew then what I know now moments!!!!' I had one this morning!

When I opened the shed, the left rear lawn tractor tire was FLAT.

If I'd have known that, I WOULDN'T HAVE OPENED THE SHED. That's Hindsight.

But with all my determination was I going to let it stop me?

Well........yeah. Determination is a good thing... [ More ]

Reply #48

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:43:00 GMT

rcbbuckeye

Don't be fooled into thinking this is easy, it's not. For my 5-39 game digits 1-2-3 all show togeather around

70% of the time.

#1. Try to Time plays to days when digits 1-2-3 hit, I think most can understand the first step.

#2. 73% of drawings for my pick 5 game contain 5 or 6 digits. I will choose 5 or 6 to play based

on digit shows/ totals compared to the expected calculated from entire matrix.

#3. If I chooes to play 5 digits and select digits 1-2-3 first then... [ More ]

Reply #47

rcbbuckeye — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:20:08 GMT

Very impressive RL. Any time you wish to share your ideas is fine with me. Please don't let some person dictate what you want to do. And please don't some person discourage you.

Reply #46

jimmy4164 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:54:31 GMT

P.S. To learn how the system above may have been arrived at:

Click HERE

Reply #45

jimmy4164 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:54:19 GMT

Hind site is wonderful isn't it?

Works every time, like magic!

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

So much for honoring agreements. You apparently have decided to continue

dropping off your unrelated garbage in a Topic which I initiated.

Go ahead, be my guest.

Reply #44

garyo1954 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:28:12 GMT

Uh-oh RL! Excellent! Another thing to to send me back to the drafting table!

*draws plans for cloning machine*

At this point I'm going to need three of me to keep up with you. Five, just to catch up with you!

Company this weekend is not going to give me much time.

But so far things are falling in place. Great work

Reply #43

dr san — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:17:32 GMT

Rl rondonic Hello, I have one question, have lotteries that use 50 balls

All together, the draw! and have lotteries that uses two digits separated globes

These two forms have the same precision? of digits in your system if those who organize

The game is a draw with the balls all together and the next draw with two other Globe

Separately, does that change anything? For we know that repetition is the key event

Of probability, and that lottery games can only provide up to 70% to 80

Reply #42

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:43:40 GMT

Anyone, everyone

I posted a system that uses / wheels digits to build my lines to play. Over the years I have worked

out several methods of selecting digits that allows me to win more then I play. For the record, I win

between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend. I play between 25 and 35 times a year

and play between 8 and 15 lines. I normally hit three or four 4 of 5's each year but have hit three in

one day. I win many 3 of 5's which pays $10.00 and 2 of 5's which pay... [ More ]

Reply #41

RJOh — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:49:44 GMT

That's exactly my point, LP members come to LP to discuss and exchange ideas about their theories and strategies for winning a lottery, anyone who believes he already has a reliable strategy for winning is not discussing it here.

Where did your latest claim about my beliefs come from? I've never claimed to believe there's any system that could provides an income playing the lotteries. Perhaps you read something in another member post and assumed others must think the same way, but the truth i... [ More ]

Reply #40

time*treat — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:14:16 GMT

In some states triples and quads are sold out almost every day so when a triple or quad is drawn, they will payout the maximum payoff allowed by their rules. I don't know how many losing days a state lottery would have to experience before closing the game if someone did actually share a winning system with thousands of other players.

Like these folks who won playing 2222 ... https://www.lotterypost.com/news/223381/1844693

Illinois Pick 4 lottery winners in huge line for record payout... [ More ]

Reply #39

Stack47 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:00:26 GMT

I would love to see a complete specification of your favorite Pick-3 system, one that you allude to the existence of that one could live on the winnings from, so we could put it to the test.

And that's probably the reason Lottery Post has over 100,000 members all looking for that system.

You remind me of the football player that picked up a fumble, ran the wrong way and scored a safety for the other team when he thought he scored a touchdown. When I said The math was done years ago before... [ More ]

Reply #38

Stack47 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:52:44 GMT

When I read Jimmy's remark I had to double check because I thought it was something Pumpi might say. But I knew better because Pumpi is more realistic; he wants to go after the PB and MM jackpots.

Reply #37

garyo1954 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:29:00 GMT

Jimbo! Dude! Homey! El Diablo!

You answered half the questions. Or maybe one. I can't remember. Either way, you answered what you answered and that's good enough for me.

No, I don't live off lottery winnings. I wouldn't want to work that hard! Tracking numbers, marking Xs on paper and filling out playslips would take too much time away from playing fetch, which, with a black lab, the odds are very much like playing lottery. I'll never throw that kong one more time than he will retrieve it,... [ More ]

Reply #36

jimmy4164 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:57:45 GMT

Stack47 said, Does this mean if I bet $10 on a number straight, I'll win more but if I bet the $10 on the box I'll win less?

It would depend of course on the tickets purchased, and the winning draw.

But I assumed you knew that.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #35

Stack47 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:49:16 GMT

your continual blatherings of the lie that I don't understand the odds there as well are a bore.

I don't care if you understand the odds or not but I said Just another example of your illogical and unrealistic assumptions of how people play lottery games . Thanks for again posting that worthless information from your imaginary Challenge statistics.

If you spend more than that, you'll hit more often so just multply. If you play box tickets, you'll hit more often, but the prizes will be pr... [ More ]

Reply #34

jimmy4164 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:44:17 GMT

He wants to know has anyone come up with a better way to win than luck...

This is a very revealing statement RJOh. It's not the first time you and others have made similar assertions regarding my motives for asking for proofs of the efficacy of systems. Believe it or not, it is amusing to me. Why? Because what it tells me is that you are so steadfast in your belief that there exists a reliable system capable of providing an income stream from secondary prizes that you find it impossible to e... [ More ]

Reply #33

jimmy4164 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:52:18 GMT

Very good idea rcbbuckeye. And given that I posted this yesterday, I thought the bout was over. Apparently, some people missed it:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/227950/1965195

You are free to explore your interests in other Topics here, and unless you are mounting attacks on me, either directly, or through innuendo, I will feel no need to interrupt you.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #32

rcbbuckeye — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:42:20 GMT

I have been watching you and jimmy go back and forth with some amusement. When I first read about your digits system, I thought it was a pretty good idea. When I pick numbers to play, I now pay attention to the digits....but I don't necessarily pick or reject my numbers on digits alone.

My take on the whole thing is that LP is about sharing ideas. I never understood why jimmy, or anyone else would attack a person who posts a system or idea. Maybe it's a case of a person who must tear someone... [ More ]

Reply #31

jimmy4164 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:35:26 GMT

gary01954,

Thanks for your honesty!

Don't beat yourself up so much.

The answer to your questions are really quite simple. Pick-3 [000-999] games are expected to look this way: If you play $1 on a straight daily, every 2 or 3 years you'll hit for $500. If you spend more than that, you'll hit more often so just multply. If you play box tickets, you'll hit more often, but the prizes will be proportionally less. My backtests of 33+ years of the PA [000-999] lottery resulted in an average s... [ More ]

Reply #30

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:10:03 GMT

garyo1954

Jimmy is a legend in his own mind. Everything he has posted is common knowledge. He searches

the web for some article that he feels will support his topic of the day which is also the source for his

topic of the day. I am not nearly as absent minded as he thinks. He feels that statistics rule the day

and overall I would agree. One only needs to look at his analysis of maddogs challenge to see the

effect that I have so many times tried to explain. Notice that one player

Reply #29

RJOh — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:40:35 GMT

Jimmy would love to win as much as anyone who plays and he doesn't care what inferior minds want to know. He wants to know has anyone come up with a better way to win than luck and he dares them to prove it.

Problem is he's not the only one who wonders about such things, when PowerBall had over a hundred second prize winners when they normally expect about five they wondered, investegated and their minds were put at ease when they found out nearly all the winners got their numbers from a fot... [ More ]

Reply #28

garyo1954 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:27:47 GMT

Jimmy,

Inferior minds want to know:

Why do you continue to play Powerball and Megamillions twice weekly when YOU know the odds?

Why haven't YOU won?

With YOUR vast knowledge of the odds, and abilities to calculate the proper trajectory and foot pounds necessary to kill a bear with a thrown tic-tac, is it really asking too much for you win Powerball with a system YOU developed?

Have you tried buying a REAL ticket?

Is it possible to show you a 'favorite' complete anything, withou... [ More ]

Reply #27

jimmy4164 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:00:40 GMT

Stack47,

You said,

...you will never understand that some players are winning something from the 50% the pick-3 games are paying out.

Of course there are winners! If you had really been paying attention to what I've been saying for the last 6 months, YOU might understand that because of the obscene 50% house cut, and the LOW 500/1 Jackpots, the VAST MAJORITY of Pick-3 players register a LOSS year over year!

Do yourself a favor. Either write for yourself or purchase Monte Carlo Simu... [ More ]

Reply #26

RJOh — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:58:50 GMT

What I'm saying is possible or not, states have prepared for it if it does happen. Probability of it not happening was not insurance enough of it never happening.

Reply #25

jimmy4164 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:50:00 GMT

So, if it were not for these state betting restrictions, you apparently

believe that my scenario, described in jest above, is entirely possible.

Correct

Reply #24

RJOh — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:41:35 GMT

I would love to see a complete specification of your favorite Pick-3 system, one that you allude to the existence of that one could live on the winnings from, so we could put it to the test. We could form a conspiracy of thousands of LP players, focus on one state, and laugh all the way to the bank as we watch that state go bankrupt while we collectively take them down through their Pick-3!

Sounds good but it will never happen even if someone does has a winning system because all states have

Reply #23

jimmy4164 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:17:53 GMT

Reply #22

Stack47 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:02:46 GMT

I wish I had had more faith in the other readers before investing so much time, apparently much of it wasted.

The readers are looking for helpful ideas to play lottery games and to date, you have provided none. Get with the program!

Secondly, I HAVE spent considerable time and energy analysing previous draws in these Forums in an attempt to show people that no matter what convoluted lotto math they applied to past history in the Pick-3 games, they tended to win on average 1 time for ever... [ More ]

Reply #21

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:39:30 GMT

Jimmy

Who here couldn't produce tons of them?

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I am glad to hear so many here are doing well.

I will make you a deal, You stay out of my post and I will stay out of yours. Which is all I every wanted.

RL

Reply #20

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:54:22 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on February 22, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

When you say things like, ...the same thing could of been said of your many post, you just took the time to try and make them look like they were your own, you really need to back up your claims!

Would you like to produce some examples of my many post[sic] you feel are plagiarisms, including where I copied them from without attribution?

By the way, your lame excuses for not being able to prove your system will... [ More ]

Reply #19

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:42:50 GMT

Some posters may be presenting errors or ignorance, but whether it's explained or not, I think it's all based on evidence, or at least the poster's understanding or interpretation of the evidence. While multiple posters may be presenting novel ideas I'm reasonably sure that only one is suggesting things that are outside of mainstream views of probability.

KY Floyd: I haven't visited most of the forums, but I've read the labels. This is a huge site. The names of the forums argue what you... [ More ]

Reply #18

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:36:57 GMT

Jimmy

Taken from your maddogs powerball challenge analysis

Poster JP 5+0 4+1 4+0 3+1 3+0 2+1 1+1 PB #Hits $Won $Equity ROI*

Winlotta 0 4 0 140 0 1560 360 2250 2142 6456 842866 589426 3.326

I now see the problem, It's not that it can't be done, It's just that my methods don't work.

RL

Reply #17

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:23:55 GMT

KY Floyd

All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws.

Maybe he was talking about the matrix of possible draws and not the history of draws which then would

be correct.

RL

Reply #16

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:20:48 GMT

jimmy

All they need to do is google your topics and follow the links. None of the post you have made

are original in any since of the word. You claim to have such great understanding of probability

that even before a method is posted your convinced it is flawed. Now you have resorted to saying

I have faked my tickets somehow. You stated Who here couldn't produce tons of them? Really

I ask you to produce lets say 5ea 3 of 5's and one 4 of 5 by friday for your PA 5-30 game that I co... [ More ]

Reply #15

KY Floyd — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:27:09 GMT

All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws.

Much of the evidence involving lottery drawings comes from sources completely uninvolved with lotteries. You could certainly develop hypotheses from examining past drawings (which is, of, course the entire basis for attempts to develop systems), but theres a wealth of information about probability theory from other sources, that is very much applicable to both past and future lottery drawings.

General ideas and opinions

Reply #14

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:19:57 GMT

Savagegoose,

So I guess this forces us to fall back on the old adage that you can't win if you don't play.

I think you'll like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta1Sn6MtC9w

This should not be considered off topic as it has to do with the determinism/indeterminism dichotomy.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #13

savagegoose — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:09:09 GMT

heres a bigger more important thing to ponder.

if everything is pre determined, how do you know if you are supposed to win lotto or not. you cant decide , its all determioned, im not going to win and stop. if you are pre determined to win..

but then if you are pre determined to never win , why keep buying tickets?

problem is with either luck or determinism. is we dont know when or if we will win in either case

Reply #12

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:08:24 GMT

Sorry Raven62. I think I jumped the gun with my finger slap for your post without a link. Upon re-reading it, you deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case. You could have easily assumed most would know it was an excerpt, and/or just forgot the link.

Also, your grammar and spelling is fine, in fact, better than most.

Additionally, posting the article on Indeterminism was right on topic, more than can be said for some of the others posting on this Topic

Reply #11

garyo1954 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:38:51 GMT

RL, your digit system thread was much more interesting than the discussion that broke out about it. It sent me writing snippets to check the viability of your ideas.

I went back through and started checking the data again. Good start. Of the 56 first digit combinations, Base Numbers, call them left$, 4 produce 27% of the hit patterns in Texas Cash 5 over 3891 draws.

Pattern #28 - 01223 - showed 294 hits (Alpha pattern for those who use it ABCCD)

Pattern #25 - 01123 - 283 (ABBCD)

Patt... [ More ]

Reply #10

jimmy4164 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:47:53 GMT

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

When you say things like, ...the same thing could of been said of your many post, you just took the time to try and make them look like they were your own, you really need to back up your claims!

Would you like to produce some examples of my many post[sic] you feel are plagiarisms, including where I copied them from without attribution?

By the way, your lame excuses for not being able to prove your system will be profitable for others over reasonably long periods of time... [ More ]

Reply #9

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:31:57 GMT

josephus

Were were you six months ago. You may be the only one who has correctly interpreted my post. My

many hopes were that someone could take the ideas and improve on them. I don't have all the answers

and each day I hope to find something else that may help. I seem to be making microsteps and may have

pushed the digits to the limit of there usefulness, something I refuse to accept because I have not yet

explored every possibility.

RL

Reply #8

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:57:32 GMT

Jimmy

Looking at day to day or week to week patterns will never work, You have to be able to spot trends

that roll with the flow. If I tried to play daily I would loose my shirt so to speak. I will not post data

that has taken much effort to find and is specific to my game. These patterns are not easy to find

and sometimes last but a very short span. I have copies of tickets to support my claims and you having

not seen them is of little or no importance. Your attack on raven was... [ More ]

Reply #7

jimmy4164 — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:39:45 GMT

Josephus,

Several of your points are well taken. However, I must disagree with a couple. I wish I had had more faith in the other readers before investing so much time, apparently much of it wasted. The lack of enthusiastic postings supporting RL's claims should have been sufficient evidence for me to realize what you hint at; users of the system will find out how well it works.

First of all, I think I made the case fairly well in my opening Post to this Topic that the more general philoso... [ More ]

Reply #6

jimmy4164 — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:09:43 GMT

Raven62,

This is a very well written post, with a much higher readability score than your typical piece. Apparently, you want the readers here to believe you are the Information Philosopher, so you copy and paste from the website without attribution.

I would recommend that anyone interested in the above get it from whence it came. I didn't read it through to determine if any modifications were made.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/indeterminism.html

--Jimmy4164

Reply #5

Raven62 — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:09:22 GMT

Indeterminism is the concept that events are not caused deterministically from prior events.

Indeterminism is an event without a cause. An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

Indeter... [ More ]

Reply #4

JosephusMinimus — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:32:26 GMT

Jimmy4164: You provide some interesting links. Thanks. But you included the hope those links would provide assistance investigating 'the issues'.

The issues here are lottery draws and whatever lottery draw results testify about themselves. How they apply, or don't apply to larger issues isn't a factor. A scientist formulates theory based on evidence examined. All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws. Anyone can examine those draws and decide from them whether there i... [ More ]

Reply #3

jimmy4164 — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:34:11 GMT

The problem here is RL-RANDOMLOGIC's insistance that he has all the correct answers. I think he does not.

Jimmy4164

He also says, I can say however that I agree to disagree.

And I say, Agreed

Reply #2

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:50:00 GMT

PS

The problem here is your insistance that you have all the correct answers and I think you do not.

RL

Reply #1

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:37:33 GMT

Jimmy

I wish you would have started here. Einstein's quote God does not play dice was his dislike of quantum

mechanics, he later must of had to rethink this statement but maybe he was not worng after all. His work

did however help quantum physics move foward. At the macroscopic level randomness would be closer to

chaos. Lets say that you were a particle and everything that you understood functioned at the macroscopic

level. Would not the physical level seem a little strange to say... [ More ]

Determinism vs Randomness and Chance

jimmy4164 — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:01:21 GMT

This morning, while reading over my recent posts and the responses they have elicited, I came to the decision that it is a futile endeavor. Why? Because after doing a little research, I realize that the reason for much of the strife here over the issue of randomness goes much deeper than the lottery. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy between those who abhor what I post here and myself. My opponents have a much more deterministic view of the world than I do. For example, RL-RANDOMLOGIC... [ More ]