All The Brains

Reply #130

Stack47 — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:06:39 GMT

Reply #129

time*treat — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:25:40 GMT

From the WV lottery site

$1 to play. Choose 6 numbers between 1~25

$25,000 top prize (6 of 6) up to 10 winners.

5 of 6 = $250

4 0f 6 = $10

3 of 6 = $1

Reply #128

guesser — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:21:48 GMT

That said, if you did NOT know a thing about the game or hit history, would YOU walk in and play 1-2-3-4-5?

(I'm already betting you will say 'yes').

And if you DID know the game and hit history would you play 1-2-3-4-5?

(and I'm betting you will say a less-resounding 'yes').

Reply #127

guesser — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:57 GMT

What does it pay?

You folks should be all over it

Reply #126

time*treat — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:32:34 GMT

The WV Cash 25 is a Choose 6 numbers from a matrix of 25 numbers.

Reply #125

rocks242 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:29:36 GMT

hi jimmy4164 do you have a workout or any numbers for florida today

Reply #124

RJOh — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:28:21 GMT

The following is for the last 260 PB drawings since its last matrix change.

Until the numbers 01 11 18 29 51 matched 5 in last night drawing they had:

MATCH 0 = 173

MATCH 1 = 74

MATCH 2 = 11

MATCH 3 = 1

MATCH 4 = 0

MATCH 5 = 0

Likewise the numbers 01 02 03 04 05 have:

MATCH 0 = 174

MATCH 1 = 78

MATCH 2 = 8

MATCH 3 = 0

MATCH 4 = 0

MATCH 5 = 0

Not a lot of difference between the two sets of numbers until the one matched 5.

Reply #123

guesser — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:17:40 GMT

I have no idea what West Virginia cash 25's matrix is, that's a different bird altogether, my guess is it is a 6/49 game.

The odds suggest 3-7-8-21-39 is FAR more likely to hit than 1-2-3-4-5 in Powerball. Powerball is all I know.

I'd be far more inclined to play 7-8-21-39-46, or something like that.

a 3/2 split with three 'odd' numbers.

And besides, RJoH does just fine, I have no problems with his logic.

Reply #122

guesser — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:10:32 GMT

Sorry, I did not see the ongoing discussions after I posted.

If 1-2-3-4-5 hit how would I explain it?

I wouldn't, I can't, aside from random luck, nobody can.

The facts are, the majority of games won are games where there are two or three numbers hit from 1-29, and three or two numbers chosen from 30-59. (It's usually a 2/3 or 3/2 split).

I prefer to make selections that actually hit 73% of the time, to have all five numbers hit from 1-29 or from 30-59 is not impossible, but the odds... [ More ]

Reply #121

RJOh — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:03:32 GMT

Nothing I posted prevented guesser from replying so I'm guessing he had no plans to reply.

Reply #120

jimmy4164 — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:08:44 GMT

...but each has a fixed amount which allows one to calculate the probability of one from a particular group hitting.

...and then what

Reply #119

RJOh — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:58:54 GMT

In fact, the Straight pattern defined above has more possible outcomes (55) than any other pattern you can come up with!

--Jimmy4164

What about all even numbers? 29/59 = 118,755

What about all odd numbers? 30/59 = 142,506

What about multiple of 3's? 19/59 = 11,628

I could go one, there's practical no limit to groups of numbers by patterns, but each has a fixed amount which allows one to calculate the probability of one from a particular group hitting.

Reply #118

RJOh — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:00:58 GMT

RJOh,

Why didn't you let guesser reply?

If this was meant to be a private conversation, why didn't you PM Guesser

Reply #117

jimmy4164 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:51:09 GMT

RJOh,

Why didn't you let guesser reply?

Besides, your answer is misleading and innacurate.

1-2-3-4-5 is no more or less likely to be drawn than 3-7-8-21-39, which was my point, and which you are evading. If you define a Straight as N, N+1, N+2, N+3, N+4, N is restricted to the range 1-55, which means there are actually 55 possible, not 54.

If we wished to bet only on patterns represented by my other example, it could be defined as N, N+4, N+5, N+18, N+36. By inspection, you should se... [ More ]

Reply #116

RJOh — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:47:22 GMT

There are some things you just won't see hit in one game, such as 1-2-3-4-5, or 55-56-57-58-59, or any five numbers in a row.

As with any random event, anything can happen but lotteries have a fixed number of possible outcomes so predictors choose to ignore those outcomes that have less than a 1% chance of ever happening.

Guesser would have been more correct to say such combinations aren't likely to come up since they are only 54 of 5,006,386 possible outcomes in the PB drawings . However... [ More ]

Reply #115

jimmy4164 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:24:38 GMT

There are some things you just won't see hit in one game, such as 1-2-3-4-5, or 55-56-57-58-59, or any five numbers in a row.

Why do you think you just won't see straights like that?

If one did happen to occur, how would you explain it

Reply #114

guesser — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:39:15 GMT

But sometimes an outside person will see things that others simply don't see.

This was the case a few weeks ago when one gentleman predicted 5-14-53-56 to all hit in one game, I pointed out why that would not happen, and he roasted me. I told him those four won't hit together, and I also said it would not surprise me one bit to see two of them hit together, and that is exactly what happened 3-4 games later.

There are some things you just won't see hit in one game, such as 1-2-3-4-5, or 55... [ More ]

Reply #113

time*treat — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:38:28 GMT

Most of the pick-3 systems quickly devolve into take these pairs of numbers and mate them with the other 8 digits --- and box them .

At that point, you've upped the playlist until it's barely covered by any wins.

Reply #112

Stack47 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:17:29 GMT

A while back a poster had an interesting method for playing the 6+1/42 Win For Life game, but by page 2 they began converting it for MM or PB before any real effort was made to apply it to WFL. I could understand the logic behind using that method in a game that draws 16.7% of all the numbers in every drawing but never understood the logic of moving on to more difficult games just because someone asked if it could be applied to PB or MM.

Most the pick-3 systems begin with a moderate 10 to 20

Reply #111

RJOh — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:09:49 GMT

A good idea doesn't need the approval of others to have value, it just need the support of the person who came up with it.

Usually it takes time for an idea to prove its value but most players, even the ones with the ideas, want to see some value immediately or they're ready to move on to another idea. That's one of the reasons I seldom take the advice of others seriously when picking numbers to play. Too many give advice that they wouldn't take themselves. If an idea has any value it will p... [ More ]

Reply #110

RJOh — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:59:08 GMT

That's bound to happen occasionally when you get a bunch of brains together, the only thing they usually can agree on is the other guys don't know what they're talking about . Considering none of their great ideas has ever helped anyone win a lottery jackpot, they may be right.

Reply #109

GASMETERGUY — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:21:04 GMT

hey guys, I didn't mean for this topic to become a little heated, I just wanted us to stand together not divided.

Now you know why Guesser stopped posting. He was getting too many antagonistic reponses. Pity, too, for he had some very good ideas.

Reply #108

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:57:46 GMT

He was suggesting there might still be a winner left in them and could help some Ohio players.

That's the reverse side of it's a random drawing and you can't predict random because those pesky ping pong balls can't prevent some of Butch's 50 combos from being drawn; not without cheating.

Reply #107

Stack47 — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:50:31 GMT

I learned my lesson the hard way starting out with a 3 if 5 of 14 wheel because I matched all 5 numbers and lost money. The 3 if 4 wheel gave me a slight profit but not enough to move on to a 4 if 4 or a 4 if 5. However the 2 and 3 matches did keep in the game much longer but only because of the $1 two number matches. In states that give free tickets for matching two numbers, it would really cut into the profits unless the freebies were contributing.

Everything considered, if you can catch so... [ More ]

Reply #106

time*treat — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 06:47:05 GMT

If the winning 5 numbers are among the 12 chosen, it won't take very many drawings to be able to afford playing all 792 in one go. Starting off, you won't have to play nearly that many.

The bankroll will be quickly built up by the 4 of 5 prizes.

One wheel I found for a 4if5of12 takes 113 sets and wins a minimum of five 4-of-5 prizes (not counting the 3-of-5 prizes).

The Ohio site currently shows $300 paid on a 4-of-5 match.

$113 in, $1500 out (not counting the $10 3-of-5 and $1 2-of... [ More ]

Reply #105

RJOh — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:04:38 GMT

In the jackpot forum, butch2030 came up with 50 lines that had he played them since Ohio Classic Lotto first started he would had spent $35K, won 4 jackpots for $37.8M and $80K in other prizes.

He was suggesting there might still be a winner left in them and could help some Ohio players. He's posting them on the prediction board to see what happens.

I've alway thought it was easier to know what you could have done to win after the drawings than it is to know what you should do to win befo... [ More ]

Reply #104

Stack47 — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:16:42 GMT

I thought it was interesting when you show that 12 RC5 numbers produced two jackpot winners but to guarantee winning, all 792 combos must be played. The problem with creating a system using groups of numbers is the cost of an effective betting strategy. A better idea might be to construct a system based on how much we're willing to spend on a daily bases.

Reply #103

RJOh — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:45:06 GMT

I was talking about printing to the screen too. I seldom print to the printer, I prefer to print to a text or pdf file and if I need a paper copy later then I can send it to the printer.

Reply #102

time*treat — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:04:03 GMT

Well, I just had it show the combos on the screen. I'd probably never PRINT more than a few pages worth.

Just waiting on that fill out your playslips from a list of numbers app ...

Reply #101

RJOh — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:12:32 GMT

With my programming skills I doubt if I could write a program just to print the numbers 1 to 575,575 in 6 seconds, but what ever I wrote would still be a 100 times faster than doing it by hand.

Reply #100

me-thinker — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:15:09 GMT

HI! Well can U send me Your last 10 draws from 5/39,and I send U back my ansver back as soon as possible.For a reasonable reliable system maybe.

Reply #99

JosephusMinimus — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:19:49 GMT

Thinktank: Probably illusive is an apt description of the concept of everyone working as one mind. So's producing top knotch discoveries. Producing threads that turn long is enough easier to happen on a more-or-less frequent basis.

Good luck on your top knotch epic discoveries.

Reply #98

guesser — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:17:36 GMT

Depends on your definition of 'rich'. sic.

Reply #97

time*treat — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:33:15 GMT

I tried the new combo generator; it did 39 choose 5 in just under 6 seconds.

I'm now seriously wondering if my system-in-progress may be written in the wrong language.

Reply #96

RJOh — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:48:35 GMT

Maybe the problem with people here, is that everyone is too smart..

That statement reminds me of the question little kids ask of adults who claim to be smart.

If you're so smart, why are you rich? Did you notice any rich people posting in this thread

Reply #95

thinktank — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:21:46 GMT

hey guys, thanks for all your input, and judging from reading the posts here.. I am somewhat convince that everyone working as one mind, is a bit illusive, however, I am still optimistic. Yes I do have a creative way at looking at the lottery, and I've been developing some top knotch discoveries... when I say discoveries, I really mean more of an epic discovery..and it happened by accident..lol. but, I don't think at the moment that it will produce winning tickets.. Maybe the problem with people... [ More ]

Reply #94

RJOh — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:07:36 GMT

Thinktank is probably looking for something more realistic.

That's probably true but it was unrealistic to hope some one would come up with anything close to that and give it to him. I do have to admit the feature of printing all the possible combinations for any matrix that Todd just added for everyone to use comes close. Thinktank was asking where he could find such a program in one of his earlier posts, if he has a way to filter out the winners he may now have what he wants.

Reply #93

RJOh — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:35:22 GMT

I think if any algorithm is ever developed that works, it will be unique to a game but knowing that a successful one exists and how it works will make developing different ones for other games easier.

Reply #92

GASMETERGUY — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:14:28 GMT

I could not agree more. The algorithym I am researching is designed to produce a group of combinations within which one can find the winning combination.

While I do not expect to be right every time my algorithym tells me to place a wager, I do expect to be right at least one time out of ten.

That might be a little too optimistic but that is my goal. I do not believe there is a method which will produce a winner each and every day. This is my reason for playing only the P5 games and in th... [ More ]

Reply #91

Stack47 — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:26:34 GMT

Breaking the code would be having a program like the QP generator on LP; set it to whatever game you're playing and click a button and it matches the drawing every day. Thinktank is probably looking for something more realistic.

Reply #90

RJOh — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:31:11 GMT

While there is no lottery code to break, some players have tried to come up with algorithms and strategies for picking small groups of numbers with the winning numbers of the next drawing based on patterns observed in previous drawings.

This may be what some are confusing with breaking the code when in fact it's creating a code which may be what thinktank had in mind as a project for a LP group when starting this thread.

Reply #89

guesser — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:30:59 GMT

There is no 'code'.

All there is is our ability to guess future games based on past performance, or based on whatever you want to base it on, and if you get lucky, the numbers drawn will match your selections, not the other way around.

If there was a 'code' to break, it would be hit EVERY TIME.

Reply #88

joker17 — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:21:19 GMT

I was referring to JP games, not P-3.

In any event, I doubt you broke the code. To break the code in P-3, at least in my book, would enable you to quit your job immediately, move to Hawaii, and buy a modest Yacht until the exponential profits would kick in. Then an upgrade would be imminent...lol

Reply #87

BlowHard — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:26:26 GMT

Hell yes!! go look at my thread.

Reply #86

jimmy4164 — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:14:05 GMT

At least you can take consolation in the fact that you are not alone.

A positive way to look at that year is that it only cost you $250 for all those chances you had to hit a jackpot!

P

Reply #85

RJOh — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:28:34 GMT

I'm sure there are because I almost did it back in 2002 when I match 5of6 in the Ohio Super Lottery for $1500 in April of that year, but in December I finally had bought $3000 worth of tickets and ended in the hole $25 or so for the year.

Worst part, since I got a W-G2 and had to add that $1500 to my taxable income and could only claim up to the $1500 as a lost, I didn't exceed the standard deductions I was getting without the win and ended up paying almost $250 more taxes, so that $1500 win... [ More ]

Reply #84

jimmy4164 — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:59:46 GMT

Well RJ, it looks like I'm preaching to the choir in your case. I'm glad you spelled it out so clearly.

However, I'm sure there are many who disagree with you, and I still would like to know the value of P that they think is correct.

Any ideas

Reply #83

JosephusMinimus — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:27:36 GMT

time*treat: Good summation. Maybe the ones who say it's impossible are right. Maybe nobody will manage what those who say it's impossible say is impossible. Or maybe someone will, and those who said it's impossible will learn of it and quickly lose the memory of having said it's impossible, then go on to say something else is impossible that hasn't happened yet.

The act of saying something is impossible doesn't have much of a relationship with whether it's actually impossible. It just has a l... [ More ]

Reply #82

Coin Toss — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:59:20 GMT

Any and everything done to beat the game doesn't classify as a code to me.

No, but it's an attempt to crack the code , so to speak.

Reply #81

RJOh — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:41:12 GMT

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

Any and everything done to beat the game doesn't classify as a code to me.

Just think if someone could beat a game conistently and prove it ........

The fact that anyone would need to prove they could beat a game consistently means they've never done it or someone else would have already noticed.

Reply #80

RJOh — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:22:35 GMT

If there is some percentage (P) of the lottery playing public that you believe is consistently, and continuously winning at a rate that gives them a ROI of 100% or better, which is 50% better than all the rest, WHAT % DO YOU BELIEVE P is, approximately?

I have no reason to believe that any players except jackpot winners are winning more than they spend because I have no reason to disbelieve lotteries reports of returning 50% of sales in prizes. With number games this means players if they pla... [ More ]

Reply #79

Coin Toss — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:03:51 GMT

RJOh,

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

I'm pretty sure that not only do the lotteries have their own people constantly checking the integrity of the games, but that the games are tested and retested before thye ever become availalble to the public.

The incident years ago in Pennsylvania with the Pick 3 was a fluke, bit somewhat of an inside job, no?

That and the group that teamed up on the Virginia lottery, but since then no one can tie up terminals like th... [ More ]

Reply #78

time*treat — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 04:57:27 GMT

There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears. Aside from the fact that it is an unnecessary distraction in developing your own system.

The modern world is full of inventions created by those who didn't pay attention to the people sitting around saying it's impossible .

Reply #77

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 04:09:49 GMT

@JKING:

This statement of yours has been keeping me going...

The acid test for all of us is in how much we win and how much we lose.

However, I've been thinking a lot lately about the truth of your other statement,

There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #76

JKING — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 04:01:49 GMT

Hi,

I guess that I didn't make myself clear. From my perspective, using any sort of random numbers as a source of a predictive lottery system or using a random number generator to simulate another random number generator will ultimately be a futile mathematical excercise.

I also respect the fact that whatever system or method presented here has some percieved value to the person presenting it. The question then becomes, does it have value to what you are working on. There is no point in... [ More ]

Reply #75

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:59:28 GMT

I didn't target specific systems to show how they can effect DISTRIBUTION. I went to great pains to present evidence that randomness is all that is necessary to produce the kinds of dispersion of winnings that we see.

This post and the one right above it contain what is necessary to understand what I'm getting at. That's the best I can do with the time available. If you have a very strong need to believe that you can use systems to win more money in the lottery than the average person, you ma... [ More ]

Reply #74

RJOh — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:11:09 GMT

I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

Which systems did you use to show those results? I didn't know any systems had been available for examination.

Reply #73

Stack47 — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:33:38 GMT

Thirty years ago, you could have made a fortune using your Monte Carlo simulation to test potential lottery games. When some states started their pick-4 game, they limited the drawing to 3 a week and some were pari-mutual because they feared huge payouts.

it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers.

The Tennessee Lottery hired Rebbecca Hargrove and she hired the programmer. Sounds reasonable to me.

Reply #72

Stack47 — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:14:40 GMT

They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal.

A LP member posted an email from the Tennessee Lottery that said double digits were drawn during testing but that should have been impossible based on the explanation given by the Lottery after the mistake was found. The computer was programed for no repeat numbers for their pick-5 game and was used in their pick-3 and pick-4 games too.

Reply #71

jimmy4164 — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:52:06 GMT

@JKING:

I don't know anyone who plays randomly using QuickPicks or otherwise who believes they will do any BETTER than anyone else. I don't. What they believe is that system players will NOT do any better than they do.

I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

Reply #70

JKING — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:25:53 GMT

Hi,

How long has the using the random method been kicked around at the LP? I figure, at some point, someone will figure out that it not a viable system for consisten winning. Think about it, using something random to match something random. And the odds of coincidence are?

But, then agian, I am one of those other ones who thinks a little bit defferently. *S*

I hope it works for you (the ones using the random methodolgy), but I still can't fathom why you think it will work better than... [ More ]

Reply #69

RJOh — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:48:10 GMT

Before I retired I got the impression that most organizations in my area considered IT workers little more than office clerks and their potential for advancement was about the the same in spite of their degree in computer science. When they needed programming done, they used an outside firm and only used their IT worker/s to maintain those programs. Consequently, IT workers that were good programmers didn't stay around very long.

Workers with degrees in business were considered more valuable... [ More ]

Reply #68

time*treat — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:27:28 GMT

Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

Yes.

[D]o you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stream of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology?

The question pre-supposes that

a) there is only one (the) code to be cracked,

b) more money always equals better results,

and c) such a code can be applied to physical-ball... [ More ]

Reply #67

jimmy4164 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:00:53 GMT

That certainly is disconcerting. What a lame excuse! With the high number of unemployed IT workers I've read about, it's unconscionable that they would hire such incompetent programmers.

Reply #66

RJOh — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:32:46 GMT

While I'm sure most lotteries run tests, I'm not sure if they understand their results. When Tennessee started using a RNG for their daily numbers games, players noticed there were no doubles and triples and asked why. They were assured for four weeks that predraw and post draw tests were being done that showed everything was normal. It was later revealed a switch in their RNG that would have allowed numbers to be picked more than once had mistakenly been over looked. Makes one wonders if tests... [ More ]

Reply #65

guesser — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:03:08 GMT

Concise it into 200 words or less and more folks will read it.

You speak of 'probability', and where that is true, the CONTEXT of that probability can be misleading:

Let's say any given number will hit five times in 100 games. Does that mean every 20 games that number will hit? no. Does it mean that number will hit 5 times within 10 games and then go ninety games without hitting? no. But the latter is MUCH closer to the truth than the former.

The majority of number actually do hit in a... [ More ]

Reply #64

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:35:27 GMT

Any method used which can be explained in terms of math will also conform to the same. Two plus two

will always equal 4. If the probability of an event equals .75 then the event will occur 75% of the time

on average. The probability of two or more related events can also be calculated and the results will also

follow the rules so to speak. When a person uses the whole matrix of sets in analysis you can expect

better results because the history has nothing to do with the n... [ More ]

Reply #63

jimmy4164 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:01:03 GMT

CT: Hope you're not offended at being made a Partner in Crime!

First of all, if we're talking about a mechanical ball machine draw, cracking codes is not relevant, IMO. In the case of computerized draws, saying that, the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked... is implying that there is a conspiracy at the Lottery which is producing a series of draws that could conceivably be deciphered and predicted by unraveling, or cracking some aspect of the... [ More ]

Reply #62

Stack47 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:52:57 GMT

Never let it be said that Jimmy4164 doesn't contribute ideas for system players!

But has Don Catlin been awarded the coveted Pumpi Seal of Approval ?

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218839

Since Catlin is your latest idol, try this one out at your local bowling center. Hey, maybe Bluejay will give 10 to 1 odds if you do this in 200,000 consecutive games.

http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/bowling-59234

Reply #61

RJOh — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:25:48 GMT

I'm sure lotteries are running tests all the time checking to make sure there's no abnormalities in their equipment that can be exploited by players but what code are you talking about players trying to crack

Reply #60

joker17 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:01:16 GMT

I don't believe anyone can crack the code If the seed is changed before every draw.

Reply #59

Coin Toss — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:15:07 GMT

Does anyone think the lotteries just might be running their own tests?

While people here are trying to crack the code with relatively limited resources do you think that the lotteries just might have people employed to make sure the code can't be cracked, with up to the minute technology, and a steady stram of millions of dollars pouring in every week to finance that technology

Reply #58

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:53:33 GMT

I just took another look at the output from a computer simulation above of (5,39) Lotto. In 25 runs of 5,000,000 draws each, I see NO Jackpots (5/5). The distribution of (4/5) hits average close to expected but with some choppiness at the low end. ANYTHING is possible, but since chance would cause me to expect to see around 8 or 9 Jackpots on average in 5,000,000 draws, if this were my program, I would turn on the DEBUGGER, disable all the timer stuff, and take a serious look at my algorithms! J... [ More ]

Reply #57

RJOh — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:24:33 GMT

Your membership never ends, just your premium status. You don't think all those 100,000+ members are still posting or even still alive, do you

Reply #56

RJOh — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:19:24 GMT

I've never noticed that problem with the RNG in my program. I always enter the same seed which is my birthday and when I've rerun the program I seldom get the same results farther out than 2 or 3 combinations. It must be how I use it and some of the parameters I enter. Actually since numbers can only be used in certain positions and add up to particular sums and can't be repeated until all numbers have been used once of a loop is create that can only be broken when the maximum times a number can... [ More ]

Reply #55

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:40:45 GMT

Jimmy

When my membership ends so will my post. It was not nessary to repeat yourself nice move though.

RL

Reply #54

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:10:41 GMT

Did you notice that my call to Randomize in my example simulation was made ONCE, at the top of the program, to allow for code testing? Your references to Randomize and the System Clock are really not very transparent.

You said earlier that your sequences were repeating too often but you've ignored my links which provide you with random numbers that would solve all of your problems.

You force me to repeat myself:

Those here who are having trouble producing random number sequences w... [ More ]

Reply #53

RJOh — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:45:55 GMT

After the post you made at the beginning of this thread about systems in general and yours in particular I had serious doubts about the time you spent researching your digit system since you seemed to be doubting some of your earlier posts about it and had to ask that question. Feel free to criticize my posts when ever you think they deserve it, I won't be offended.

Time is limited and I hardly have enough to research my own ideas let alone those suggested by others. Right now I'm concentrati... [ More ]

Reply #52

time*treat — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:01:22 GMT

Thanks RL.

We kick enough ideas around, something just might turn up.

Reply #51

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:49:32 GMT

RJOh

I use to share a similar opinion as JKING until you started sounding like jimmy. When you said Was it just an idea you

thought up off the top of your head and never tried or tested before sharing at LP? you lifted your skirt so to speak.

I have found many post where I could have attacked your methods but chose not to say anything out of respect for

a fellow system player. I will still give you one last bit of advice and ask you to backtest your RNG to see how many

sets it nee... [ More ]

Reply #50

RJOh — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:14:44 GMT

JKING,

Thanks for your kind remarks.

I try to keep my criticism of others ideas to a minimum and give my best evaluation of those ideas when asked. One doesn't need an idea to criticize those of others.

As far as I know other than buying a ticket, no one yet has come with a better idea that resulted in them winning a lottery. The closest I ever came was in 2002 when I matched 5of6 in the Ohio Super Lotto (6/49+1) and I didn't have a clue of what I did right except buy a ticket with te... [ More ]

Reply #49

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:13:41 GMT

Jimmy

I think the code below belongs to you.

RANDOMIZE 11 ' Try different seeds and observe results

When he was making a point and teaching us fools it was ok then. I have never thought MS's randomize

was a good seeding tool. I think I might use another RNG and see what happends just to be fair. I wonder

if the lottery would show the code they use so we could test it.

RL

Reply #48

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:51:04 GMT

Time*treat

I tracked the match 0of5 to 4of5 and here is the result.

wins QP's 0of5 1of5 20f5 3of5 4of5 Numbers drawn

no winner 5000000 2406977 2011841 518219 62961 1 31 25 12 36 27

no winner 5000000 2451204 1997521 507059 41295 2920 29 27 22 8 15

no winner 5000000 2449719 2004747 483557 58115 3861 6 5 32 18 31

no winner 5000000 2415969 1993471 537112 51981 1466 6 10 1 5 34

no winner 5000000 2379156 2051243 511717 56005 1878 32 33 29 17 6

no winner 5000000 2367475 20... [ More ]

Reply #47

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:26:43 GMT

Those here who are having trouble producing random number sequences with acceptable cycle lengths and distributions by repeatedly calling the Randomize Function in Microsoft Basic might learn something if they look back at what the people at the Nuclear Energy Agency made available back in 1984.

http://www.oecd-nea.org/tools/abstract/detail/nea-0939

And for a discussion and the full source code for a RNG used under extreme scrutiny in the casino world of the 21st Century, click here:

ht... [ More ]

Reply #46

time*treat — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:32:08 GMT

Ah, I knew simulations were useless for a reason.

Reply #45

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:36:37 GMT

time*treat

I did not track this information so I don't know. What I wanted to show was a problem with time based RNG's

used for simulations. I generated what would be the main draw first and then added a 3 second delay before

running the 5 million simulated QP's. The RNG used here uses the system ticks as a seed but a randomize timer

statement is also used to make the seed value even more random. This produces a very nice random set but

when the time between sets is reduced to a v... [ More ]

Reply #44

guesser — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:09:17 GMT

wanne bet there are far more than just one ticket with the folowing numbers:

5-8-24-48 (plus an oddball, maybe #3)

6-16-17 probably 9 and another.

27-29-31-33

and any other nascar car combination that folks like.

Reply #43

guesser — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:05:45 GMT

Folks still don't realize some of those books are ancient, when PB was something like a 5/39.

They also claim to have created many winners - but that was back in the 80's, when the odds were a LOT lower.

But, whatever helps you to do better, maybe you will get something out of it.

Reply #42

BlowHard — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:19:27 GMT

I don't agree

Reply #41

time*treat — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:27:30 GMT

I see some potential, here. What I'd like to know is how many (on average, at least) of the 575,757 combos were generated among the 5 million buys.

Reply #40

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 May 2011 22:34:53 GMT

I agree!

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222258/1832926

Reply #39

BlowHard — Tue, 31 May 2011 21:55:36 GMT

Please do not leave RL.

Many love you here at LP.

Reply #38

BlowHard — Tue, 31 May 2011 21:48:48 GMT

Thanks for the info RL.

The method I use to

pick my digits is to first only play on the days that I think digits 1-2-3 will show with and make up 5 or 6 of the sets total.

Reply #37

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Tue, 31 May 2011 10:25:53 GMT

Another one but this time I used 5,000,000 QP's for each game. This amounts to giving the RNG 8.7 attemps

for every set in the matrix to come up with a match. Notice in this simulation that one JP was hit with only

3,068,809 tickets sold, WOW, them QP's are bang'in good. I know what is wrong here but would like to hear

from those that want to take a guess.

RL

no winner 5000000 10 18 9 34 22

no winner 5000000 10 1 9 12 36

no winner 5000000 30 9 16 25 13

no winner... [ More ]

Reply #36

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Tue, 31 May 2011 09:02:27 GMT

Stack

You need to play using the same rules as jimmy does. Hope I am not stepping on any toes here but

since there are so many who proudly proclaim QP's as the almighty victor when it comes to playing

the lottery and that jimmy is the leader and that his results are infallible and that he also loves QP's

and thinks that all SP players fit into the stupid box and fall short in the area of math skills I decided

to use his own methods and run a few backtest. First since QP's rule I... [ More ]

Reply #35

Coin Toss — Tue, 31 May 2011 05:55:09 GMT

jimmy4164,

Since you brought Catlin up, have you read his lottery book?

He is the author of The Lottery Book, The Truth Behind the Numbers published by Bonus books.

It should be required reading for this forum.

Reply #34

jimmy4164 — Tue, 31 May 2011 03:02:57 GMT

It looks as though the time has come for me to give up on you. Until now, I thought there was a chance that if you attempted to explain those two simulation runs and answer the 5 questions, you might just see the light. I don't think that's going to happen.

75% of the respondents to my Poll of Interest in Simulations and Backtesting (24/32) reflect a positive interest, so your belief that nobody cares is obviously untrue. As far as the lack of positive comments to the simulation results goes,... [ More ]

Reply #33

Stack47 — Tue, 31 May 2011 02:11:48 GMT

Nobody cares about your 50,000 imaginary QP players or how they made imaginary wagers of $1 every night for 20,000 drawings. Get over it.

Reply #32

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 May 2011 19:25:55 GMT

P.S. What is your criteria for relevancy in this context? You said, But as usual, you show up and tell us what we already know and want to talk and post links about irrelevant testing. This makes me suspect that when you don't have a clue to an answer to even one of the five questions, by necessity, it's irrelevant to you.

Reply #31

jimmy4164 — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:58:29 GMT

Never let it be said that Jimmy4164 doesn't contribute ideas for system players!

Here's your chance Stack47. Surely you can take this proven paradox, apply it to the lottery, and produce a winning system from two losers.

http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/parrondos-paradox-46851

Until a couple of years ago, if someone had asked me if it was possible to somehow combine two games with negative expectations into a game with a positive expectation, I would have told them it wasn't p... [ More ]