Fallacies, and two REAL ways of improving your chances

Reply #215

Kumo — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:26:41 GMT

Quoting Yoho:

What are the ways to improve your chances?

1. Don't buy the same ticket more than once. Ya. That's my advice, haha. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But well it works. you see news of people buying the same

numbers and then winning, but really its not a good strategy. I don't understand why anyone would buy the same ticket twice, lol.

2.This point is slightly more interesting. To maximize your chances of winning a jackpot, you should spend your whole lottery allowance o... [ More ]

Reply #214

RJOh — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:54:33 GMT

Yes, it's called reality and it best taken in small doses several times a day.

Reply #213

Ronnie316 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:38:00 GMT

And delusional people agree.

Reply #212

Stack47 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:04:48 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/256208

Yoho wants sticky notes.

Reply #211

Stack47 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:14:38 GMT

Is there any medication for those suffering from delusions of grandeur

Reply #210

Stack47 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:11:05 GMT

why do you think the policy here is to deny the existence of moderators?

I never saw a copy of that policy, but there are rules that are self explanatory. https://www.lotterypost.com/rules

If you have a question about moderators, ask the owner. If you don't like the format, click the red button on the upper right hand corner of your screen.

Reply #209

Ronnie316 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:19:16 GMT

Reply #208

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:18:04 GMT

He doesn't know the answer, he just likes to troll.

Reply #207

Ronnie316 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:11:50 GMT

Or perhaps Jimmy already kmows the answer and he is just trolling for responses

Reply #206

Ronnie316 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:55:29 GMT

I'm sure someone who has been around much longer than us will know the answer to that, but my guess is that Todd monitors the activity close enough that there is no need for multiple moderators.

Reply #205

jimmy4164 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:49:29 GMT

And I suppose you're going to tell me you believe there is only one person responding to that button, moderating this fairly large and active enterprise all alone, a person with quite a few irons in the fire these days? Which brings me back to my question that you're trying to avoid - why do you think the policy here is to deny the existence of moderators

Reply #204

Stack47 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:28:21 GMT

I've never had any reason to call anyone, but I think there is a report abuse feature.

Reply #203

jimmy4164 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:55:22 GMT

How would you know who to call

Reply #202

Stack47 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:07:28 GMT

I'm really getting desperate; should I call a moderator

Reply #201

jimmy4164 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:05:30 GMT

Your desperation is showing!

How many examples of you claiming you ALREADY KNOW what I posted would you like to see quoted?

You really are a glutton for punishment.

Perhaps you'd rather address an easier question.

Why do you think there is an apparent policy at LP to deny the existence of Moderators

Reply #200

Stack47 — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 00:22:04 GMT

why you persist in posting fallacious arguments in opposition to everything I post

You're either suffering from delusions of grandeur again or showing an example of a fallacious remark because it's fact I don't respond to everything you post.

Even though Bluejay said but your wins will be small it didn't stop you from babbling on about something you read on another site and posted a link to his article in response to a remark about progressive bets. The subject was about winning $1.9 mill... [ More ]

Reply #199

Boney526 — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:05:10 GMT

Sounds like a great way to burn money to me

Reply #198

jimmy4164 — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 06:29:35 GMT

It would really be instructive if you would take the time to explain why you persist in posting fallacious arguments in opposition to everything I post while at the same time claiming to KNOW everything I post in advance.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #197

Stack47 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:46:16 GMT

The same number of times you posted something we didn't already know.

Reply #196

jimmy4164 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:15:26 GMT

Wow! Sounds easy.

And how many times have you won the $29,400?

--Jimmy4164

Reply #195

Stack47 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:25:25 GMT

Assuming what you're refering to as a Progressive betting system is what is sometimes called the Martingale, I think you might finally like one of my posts, at least the first part of it.

You're confused again because the wins using Steve Player's progressive betting strategy are never small as in the Martingale strategy Bluejay explained. Just winning three of Steve Player type progressive pick-3 bets nets a player $29,400 on a $31 bet. The odds of doing it are better than betting any Roule... [ More ]

Reply #194

Stack47 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:52:12 GMT

The object is to have all the losing numbers on 7 of the lines. It's not that difficult to understand.

Reply #193

KY Floyd — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:11:16 GMT

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the losing numbers among their lines. Which of the millions of losing combinations, many of which use some of the winning numbers, are you unable to play using this strategy

Reply #192

jimmy4164 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:51:27 GMT

I'll pass on the book.

Assuming what you're refering to as a Progressive betting system is what is sometimes called the Martingale, I think you might finally like one of my posts, at least the first part of it.

Here's the part you should like. It's an excerpt from Michael Bluejay's in depth analysis of the Martingale:

Here's how the Martingale can make you more likely to win in the short term: You'll win most of your sessions, but your wins will be small. Then on the rarer times that y... [ More ]

Reply #191

CajunWin4 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:06:43 GMT

If you got S. Players book or even go to web site . They discuss the Progressive Wagering System for Games

Reply #190

rcbbuckeye — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:01:20 GMT

It's just a strategy . Bob, I said the same thing, but apparently, that part hasn't sunk in.

Doesn't matter. JimmyBooBoo and the others only reason to exist on LP is to say everyone else is wrong.

If we ignor them, they'll just end up talking to themselves. LOL.

Reply #189

jimmy4164 — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:17:28 GMT

Can you find S. Player's systems amongst those discussed here at VegasClick?

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

Reply #188

CajunWin4 — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:33:43 GMT

S. Player's uses a Progressive Betting System for all his Systems ..

Reply #187

jimjwright — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:30:01 GMT

If you are interested in the finer details of the steve player system I mentioned its called Ultra-Win 3 system. Its only #6 on his top ten systems so he apparently has better systems :)

Jimmy

Reply #186

Stack47 — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:54:44 GMT

You were on the right track, but it looks like Steve eliminates duplicate straight combos to get his total of 54. Any two digits in any two digit positions with all the other digits creates 60 straight combos, but 6 of the combos are duplicates: 115, 151, 155, 511, 515, and 551.

I don't know his betting strategy, but the playing strategy is similar to playing 10 box bets. In states where a box bet actually pays 1/6 of the straight prize, a player could get the same effect by betting a 50 cent... [ More ]

Reply #185

jimmy4164 — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:02:37 GMT

The Squad seems to have a short memory. Perhaps they need a refresher. Speaking

of obvious things -- It's so obvious that the same cast of characters scramble every time

someone makes a valid point or disproves one of the popular fallacies. If their friends

and families ever find out what they peddle and propagate, won't they be proud

Reply #184

BobP — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:02:16 GMT

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the winning numbers among their lines.

When one plays all the game's numbers on a minimum number of lines they are 100% guaranteed to have all the winning numbers among six lines or less. However, they still have to play ALL the lines necessary to put all the numbers into play and because we don't know the outcome in advance we go into the draw holding for 6/48, 8 lines in 12 million (though we know... [ More ]

Reply #183

KY Floyd — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:53:51 GMT

The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game.

Exactly. If the odds were 1 in 1,947,792 then you would be guaranteed to win by playing all 1,947,792 possibilities. How could you play every one of the possible combinations when you've only got enough choices to cover 2/3 of them?

There's nothing special about using all of the numbers. It guarantees that you've played all of the winning numbers, but it also guarantees that you've played al... [ More ]

Reply #182

RJOh — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:35:12 GMT

like BobP, you probably have some vested interest in ensuring that as few as possible gain this knowledge

Now you're getting down right silly suggesting BobP and I have some vested interest in players not knowing their odds of winning a lottery when it's on the back of most play slips and on every lottery website.

the reason I did the same thing is pretty simple: to help as many people as possible to understand the mathematics of the lottery

Do you really think anyone cares that you... [ More ]

Reply #181

Ronnie316 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:30:44 GMT

Funny how he has nothing to say when the shoe is one the other foot

Reply #180

Ronnie316 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:28:53 GMT

Reply #179

rdgrnr — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:25:25 GMT

KY Jelly Floyd is CAPTAIN Obvious.

He likes to tell lies about members when they're gone for awhile and he thinks they ain't coming back too.

Ain't that right, KY Jelly

Reply #178

Ronnie316 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:19:59 GMT

Blah, Blah, Blah, KY,

btw, when the conditions for a safe jump are met, people jump safely all the time...... Dah........

Reply #177

rdgrnr — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:13:42 GMT

And then there are some people who don't know the difference between the obvious and the theoretical.

But just like to run their mouths anyway.

Kinda like you.

Yap, yap, yap...

Reply #176

Ronnie316 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:06:30 GMT

KY loves to state the obvious.

Reply #175

rcbbuckeye — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:55:51 GMT

I understand what you are saying, and it's valid. Obviously, I or no one else would play 600 numbers in a minimum number of lines.

And, again, I never said there would be a guarantee of having the winning combination. It's just a way to reduce the odds. I believe it's a better way to play than just buying a bunch of QP's. Now if I'm only playing one line (which I do when playing MM or PB), then a QP is just as good as anything else. But for a strategy, to me, it's about looking for ways to ga... [ More ]

Reply #174

KY Floyd — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:04:25 GMT

6 winning numbers can fall on no more than 6 lines. Therefore the game is reduced to a 6/36.

Forget the math for a moment and try some simple logic. Any pick 6 game will produce results in which all 6 winning numbers can appear on no more than 6 lines if all of the possible numbers are played once. It doesn't matter whether it's 6 of 36 or 6 of 600. Would you suggest that playing all of the possible numbers makes the game effectively 6/36 whether there are 36, 48, 54 or 600 possible numbers... [ More ]

Reply #173

KY Floyd — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:06:12 GMT

Some people would probably tell you that if you jumped off of something 1000 feet high you would die. Of course they don't really know, since you haven't ever done it, so you'd be foolish to believe them.

Reply #172

jimjwright — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:49:44 GMT

Steve Player is saying select 2 different numbers such as 1, 2 then he has a chart that tells you the 54 combos to play.

So lets do it the hard way, the following are pairs that can be made from 10 numbers with no duplicates:

(1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (1,7) (1,8) (1,9) (1,0)

(2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (2,6) (2,7) (2,8) (2,9) (2,0)

(3,4) (3,5) (3,6) (3,7) (3,8) (3,9) (3,0)

(4,5) (4,6) (4.7) (4.8) (4.9) (4.0)

(5,6) (5,7) (5,8) (5,9) (5,0)

(6,7) (6,8) (6,9) (6,0)

(7,8) (7,9) (7,0... [ More ]

Reply #171

jimmy4164 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 02:05:02 GMT

RJOh,

Brad Duke can make all the claims he wants, but his claims don't prove a thing. In fact, solid theoretical and simulated evidence, over centuries, has proved that his claims are worthless, regardless of whether he believes them or not.

Since you asked questions here, I hope you will take the time to read and understand the answers. I've read enough of your posts to suspect that you know and understand exactly what I talk about in my posts here, but that, like BobP, you probably have... [ More ]

Reply #170

onlymoney — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:59:14 GMT

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. When you say two different numbers, do you mean individual numbers or combos, 3 digits grouped

Reply #169

onlymoney — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:53:29 GMT

And the numbers I presented reflects that.

Reply #168

jimjwright — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:44:46 GMT

This particular system is to predict two different numbers for the next draw.

Jimmy

Reply #167

onlymoney — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:41:18 GMT

My whole point in bringing up Steve Player systems is don't you think if you want to be a lottery advantage player it would be to your benefit to know what the odds are in accurately predicting 2 different digits in a pick 3 game? Its not 1 in 5 does anyone besides me want to provide the answer?

To predict one number in any position is 1 in 10.

To predict two numbers in any position is 1 in a 100.

Reply #166

jimjwright — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:54:19 GMT

It would still be nice to know what the actual algorithm used is.

The random numbers are generated on the Lottery Post Web server, using an advanced cryptographic library . It would be nice to know the name of that advanced cryptographic library that he uses if this site was actually a gambling site. Since his random generator is not used to make money it's not really necessary.

I used a modified Mersenne Twister as my pseudorandom number generator in the program. If interested you can se... [ More ]

Reply #165

Ronnie316 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:43:24 GMT

As far as QuickPick terminal I can't compare without seeing how they generate their random numbers.

Todd has told us the QPs are pseudo random combinations generated at the local terminals.

ABOUT THE LP QP generator..............

https://www.lotterypost.com/quickpicks

The Quick Picks Generator is unlike ordinary random number generators you may find on the Internet.

The random numbers are generated on the Lottery Post web server, using an advanced cryptographic library that pro... [ More ]

Reply #164

jimjwright — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:19:28 GMT

I wouldn't waste my money on his systems either. I got on his mailing list because at one time CoinToss mentioned him so I wanted to see what systems he was trying to sell. As I see it its costing him money to send me his newsletters and catalog when I have no intention of buying any of his systems. Of course you can just go his web site and get the same information but that's not costing him anything except potentially traffic.

A conspiracy theorist could say he was actually working for the... [ More ]

Reply #163

maximumfun — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:10:57 GMT

From Yoho's original post: To maximize your chances of winning a jackpot, you should spend your whole lottery allowance on a singledraw. Note,

your whole LOTTERY ALLOWANCE, not all your money, lol. NEVER spend more money on the lottery than you can afford. With that said, its better if you bought

52 tickets for a single draw than if you bought 1 ticket per week for a year.

now you are requiring me to do math... 52*2 = 104 tickets of PB purchased per year/1 per draw... 104*2 = 208... [ More ]

Reply #162

CajunWin4 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:08:12 GMT

99.9 % of Steve Players Systems uses Pair Tracking for his Systems for Pick 3 , Pick 4 and Pick 5 type games .

Reply #161

onlymoney — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:04:26 GMT

Sometimes Steve gives out enough info in his sales letters which allow me to decipher the system. I've done it before on one of his system for P-5 games.

This one looks like it can be figured out based on what you wrote here. I'm willing to bet that the rest of the system is similar to his other systems involving progressive wagering. So the meat of the system can probably be figured out without spending hundreds.

The possible pairs are 00 through 99. Let's pick one pair, 15.

150-151-15... [ More ]

Reply #160

CajunWin4 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:03:45 GMT

Steve Players Systems is not Worth the Cost and Paper written on !!! Lottery Post has many Great Systems to use and that really Work .Why would you want to waste your money on Bunk Systems

Reply #159

LottoBoner — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:56:49 GMT

Hi Jim.

Nice code you have up there.

To pick 2 digits correctly every five days is not so easy from experience. There are times when it seems easier than other times, but that would mean that you cant play this system every day, or even every week for this matter as you would have to be sublimely patient. And I dont think a $54 bet is a sign of patience.

Also curious to what FUD is?

For Ur Discretion

Reply #158

jimjwright — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:19:32 GMT

I just received a newsletter from Steve Player outlining a new system for Pick3.

It basically says you can win $1,900,000.00 in ten days playing your state Pick 3 game.

All you have to do is pick any 2 different digits correctly for the next draw, and he will provide you the 54 combos to play.

Then he says it gets better that you have 5 chances to get the 2 digits correctly and still make money with this system.

It only costs a person $54 to start, then as long as you can pick 2 digi... [ More ]

Reply #157

jimjwright — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:47:05 GMT

I can't quantify alot to your satisfaction with current program without additional modifications. But I don't really see the point in doing that because additional FUD will just be asserted. A person either wants to learn and gain knowledge or they don't. Its up to each individual.

As far as QuickPick terminal I can't compare without seeing how they generate their random numbers. The random number generator is the most important piece of the puzzle and without access to its guts I would just... [ More ]

Reply #156

Ronnie316 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:13:54 GMT

This one will have me laughing all day. Thanks RJOh

Reply #155

RJOh — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:11:37 GMT

Brad Duke claimed his lottery program helped him win a PB jackpot. Why would anyone interested in winning a lottery jackpot write a program simulating playing and trying to win a lottery is a waste of time? Anybody can lose a lottery without a simulation program showing them how.

I hope more players like Brad Duke come forward, we've had enough losers come forward with their claims. We need a simulation program that simulate winning, not losing. The blind can't lead the blind and neither can... [ More ]

Reply #154

Ronnie316 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:05:17 GMT

The sets I like? Your comprehension skills seem to be fading jim. When was I ever a part of the test

Reply #153

jimmy4164 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:00:21 GMT

Your speed reading needs to be improved, Ronnie. His test group A was pruned to include only the sets you like. Why not write your own program and see what YOU get.

Reply #152

Ronnie316 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:50:19 GMT

For each game 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group A and 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group B.

So two randomly generated groups produced the same results. Wow, that proved a lot.

Reply #151

jimmy4164 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:40:06 GMT

Jimjwright,

Thanks for a great piece of work. Hopefully, one of the doubters will write their own program and have the courage and honesty to report the results. Unfortunately, as you can see from BobP's latest post, he will not give up easily. He will try to cast any doubt he can on your program because the truth about this matter can't help but cut into his royalty checks.

--Jimmy4164

Reply #150

BobP — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:01:51 GMT

Jimmy: Thank you for this. Some people on LotteryPost are amazing!

Question:

You say, For Test Group B the 8 tickets were just randomly generated with at least 1 duplicate

number in play but in general had alot more duplicates in play.

Can you kind of define alot sort of give us the mode for the majority of draws? I ask because the

number of uniques has a direct relationship to how many B sets have all 6 winning numbers where

a jackpot win is possible. For example . .

Reply #149

jimjwright — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:01:52 GMT

I wrote a lottery simulator program to test the premise for a 6/48 game. I created two test groups A B.

For each game 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group A and 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group B.

For Test Group A the 8 tickets had all 48 numbers in play or no duplicate numbers.

For Test Group B the 8 tickets were just randomly generated with at least 1 duplicate number in play but in general had alot more duplicates in play.

The following picture depicts the

Reply #148

Stack47 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 04:58:48 GMT

You say you tried quickpicks, but how many times? Once? Twice? Maybe three times? That's not statistically significant.

What is statistically significant, is the fact in MM 97.5% of all QPs will not win a prize.

Just because you never had all the winning numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

All forms of gambling are based on betting conditions will be met. Roulette players don't bet on Black because they believe the outcome will be Red, 0, or 00. The probabilities against the mee... [ More ]

Reply #147

PlayToWin47 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 04:36:27 GMT

It also seems to me that it is less likely that the consecutive set of numbers ... or any set of numbers with such a REGULAR / DEFINED pattern such as (2-4-6-8...) or (5-10-15-20...) would ALL hit ... but again keep in mind that each of the two sets (consecutive vs. non-consecutive) do still have the same odds ... a calculation of the number set.

Reply #146

onlymoney — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:51:17 GMT

chance within chance is very less.

What does that mean?

formatting is so scrwed up on this forum when someone quotes your post, you can't read it properly.

I have no problems at all. What type of computer, how old is it, and what browser are you using

Reply #145

jaggudada — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:42:11 GMT

When you say don't buy the same ticket twice, I assume you meant for the same game, don't buy the same set of numbers. If you meant don't buy same numbers(like how some people buy birthdays over and over gain) for different draws then according to your own logic, every set of a number is a mathematic possibility.

Yes I agree mathematicaly speaking 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 11,12,13,14,15,16 or all numbers drawn below 10 so on and so forth have the same chance(mathematically) but chance within chance is... [ More ]

Reply #144

ZANBAB1 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:38:58 GMT

6 consective #S verses non consectitive are at a much greater odds to hit

Reply #143

Pick4ologist — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:16:29 GMT

How bout filling out 12 lines with all the digits and then letting quick pick choose the other fill ins. Sill u guaranteed to have all digits on all your lines. But same time u have craftiness of CPU terminal. Good luck. God bless goodnight

Reply #142

yoho — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:03:59 GMT

I am replying to your post, because frankly, it sounds to me like BobP himself doesn't believe in his strategy, he's only using crafty words to trick people.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm sorry if I am. But the amount of crafty logical fallacies to mislead people makes me believe so.

Either way, here's the thing. You say you tried quickpicks, but how many times? Once? Twice? Maybe three times? That's not statistically significant. Just

because you never had all the winning... [ More ]

Reply #141

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:51:43 GMT

In Texas Lotto, the most common occurance I have found so far is that the majority of draws will have a single digit number in the first position (duh!), and out of 6 decades in the game, 4 decades plays the most often.

But hey, it's something QP's won't get you, at least on purpose.

Reply #140

RJOh — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:34:57 GMT

Once you know all the winning numbers are among the numbers you are going to play, it's just a matter of finding the best ways to combine them.

I've been studying Ohio's 6/49 games and have found that better than half the winning combinations have some unique characteristics and I try to pick combinations with those characteristics. As of yet, I haven't take the time to figure out the number of possible combinations with those characteristic so I can't really say if they cover only a small g... [ More ]

Reply #139

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:06:02 GMT

I have tried both QP's and playing self picks when buying tics for the work pool. There are 11 of us so I buy 11 tics each draw when we play MM or Texas Lotto. When I have bought 11 QP's I never had all 5 or 6 winning numbers among the 11 lines. So, obviously, no chance at a jackpot. When I play all the numbers, at least I know I have all the winning numbers in play.

Reply #138

BobP — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:25:33 GMT

Talking about a reduced field is confusing and meaningless.

In lottery, wheeling / cover design reduced field is a common term for conditional play.

Actually in my example I use first person buys 8 quick picks, second person buys 8 lines with all the numbers.

And yes the person who buys 8 lines with all of the winning numbers will find they can not win a jackpot the

moment in the draw when they find winning numbers on more then one line. The point of the strategy is

simpl... [ More ]

Reply #137

yoho — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:50:07 GMT

I don't deny that no more than 6 lines will contain all the winning numbers.

I do however, deny the other two claims.

Talking about a reduced field is confusing and meaningless. The only clearcut way to solve this problem is to find the total probability of all 8 tickets, and

It is definitely neither 8:1,947,792 nor 6:1,947,792.

Though 6 lines contain all the winning numbers, these lines are dependent. This makes a big difference.

For example, the probability o... [ More ]

Reply #136

sully16 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:56:11 GMT

go with your first instinct

Reply #135

BobP — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:01:41 GMT

Any 8 unique lines in 6/48 are 8 in 12,271,512.00 or 1 in 1,533,939.00

However when 8 lines in 6/48 have all the game's numbers among them . . .

Do you deny no more then 6 lines can contain winning numbers?

Do you deny a reduced field is created that is to all extents and purposes a 6/36 game?

By your reasoning how is this not 8 in 1,947,792.00 or 1 in 247,474 or if you prefer 6 in

1,947,790.00 both beat 1 in 1,533,939. going into the draw.

BobP

Reply #134

yoho — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:48:57 GMT

This is how you've been fooled. You keep mentioning odds of a 6/36 game, but no one was asking you that. It's completely irrelevant.

I'm asking you, what do you think your chances of winning the jackpot are, given that you buy 8 lines with BobP's strategy?

If you think it's 1:1,947,792, then I'm afraid your strategy is worse than quickpicks, because the chances for winning with 8 random quickpick lines are

1:1,533,939.

P.S tonight's lotto 6/49 in Canada will have the f... [ More ]

Reply #133

rcbbuckeye — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:28:22 GMT

I have perused Bob's website many times.

Reply #132

jimmy4164 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:26:58 GMT

Rcbbuckeye,

If, in addition to the normal payouts, the Texas Lottery offered bonuses for tickets of 9 lines matching the most numbers, your strategy MIGHT be a good one. Unfortunately, they don't. Your goal in Lotto is to maximize your matches on 1 line, not 9.

Note that I emphasized might above. The person whose self selections or QuickPicks that happen to match the drawn numbers on multiple lines will beat you even at that game.

Check out the Match-6 game in Pennsylvania. You'll love... [ More ]

Reply #131

rcbbuckeye — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:15:23 GMT

6 winning numbers can fall on no more than 6 lines. Therefore the game is reduced to a 6/36.

Odds of a 6/36 game are 1 in 1,947,792.

In Texas our lotto game is 6/54. Odds for that game 1 in 25,827,165.

Playing each number randomly (because we don't know which numbers will be drawn) one time over 9 lines means all the numbers drawn will land on no more than 6 lines, hopefully less.

Nothing magical. Just a strategy to reduce the odds from 25,827,165 to 1,947,792.

If I buy 9 QP's ins... [ More ]

Reply #130

CinCin — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:36:12 GMT

Thanks PTW47

Reply #129

PlayToWin47 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:19:29 GMT

Excellent post!!! I agree

Reply #128

yoho — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:35:27 GMT

The fallacy in reviewing the system is the insistance of taking it line by line as those odds never

change, each line has an equal chance of being drawn. The difference is between having a chance

to win a jackpot in every draw in a reduced 6/36 field versus quicks picks where a post review finds no chance of winning a jackpot in most draws.

There is no fallacy there. We can do that as much as we want, it's a common technique in mathematics. You can say line 1 has an x% chance with... [ More ]

Reply #127

yoho — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:21:41 GMT

It's not that we , can't understand. We understand completely what you're trying to say now, or at least I do.

However, YOU don't understand that your idea is flawed. Repeating your reasoning again and again doesn't help. You need to address the flaws that I

have pointed out in your system. If you cannot explain them, your idea is flawed, simple as that. Repeating your reasoning again and again in different

words does not make your idea correct.

You don't have to mention th... [ More ]

Reply #126

CinCin — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:29:59 GMT

Everyone might have a different strategy, and who is to say one person's strategy is wrong or right? Until a person can PROVE their strategy works with multiple winning tickets, I think I will stick to what I feel works for ME. I think it's kinda great we don't all think alike and are approaching the same goal from different angles.........Hopefully one of us, someday, will get it right...

Good Luck Everyone

Reply #125

jimmy4164 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:13:27 GMT

Stack47,

This is really getting BORING!

You're confusing Number of Winning Tickets with Return On Investment!

At the LP Prediction boards, these are called Hit Ratio and Prize ratio, respectively. You obviously use these strategies in your Predictions at LP as evidenced by your Prediction Statistics. However, have you looked at your Prize Ratios lately?

https://www.lotterypost.com/predictions-statistics.asp?i=34230

They are squarely in the Middle Of The Pack, no better and no... [ More ]

Reply #124

Stack47 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:10:46 GMT

Get a grip, Jimmy.

BobP was comparing strategies to purchasing QPs.

Two people walk into a lottery ticket store. One purchases 8 Quick Picks. The other purchases 8 randomly generated lines conditional on all the 6/48 numbers being among the 8 lines, nothing more.

Let's compare strategies by me using a 4 if 4 of 28 number abbreviated wheel using Ronnie's 28 numbers in tomorrow's MM drawing and you purchase 5000 QPs. I'll post my combos and you can scan your tickets and then we'll compa... [ More ]

Reply #123

jimmy4164 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:36:25 GMT

BobP,

All strategies balance out, no way to prove they help or harm chances long term.

Wrong!

There definitely ARE ways to prove that, long term, betting strategies will NOT help, NOR will they harm, your Return On Investment. They have been presented here many times. Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore or reject them.

The last line of your last paragraph above is only true when you are referring to the number of hits you receive, not to your return, or prize ratio, as it's... [ More ]

Reply #122

rcbbuckeye — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:20:09 GMT

Bob,

If they can't understand after that explanation, they have no hope of figuring it out.

Good job.

Reply #121

CajunWin4 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:06:43 GMT

Excellent Post BobP

Reply #120

BobP — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:55:02 GMT

The fallacy in reviewing the system is the insistance of taking it line by line as those odds never

change, each line has an equal chance of being drawn. The difference is between having a chance

to win a jackpot in every draw in a reduced 6/36 field versus quicks picks where a post review finds no chance of winning a jackpot in most draws.

Look at it this way.

Two people walk into a lottery ticket store.

One purchases 8 Quick Picks.

The other purchases 8 randomly g... [ More ]

Reply #119

PlayToWin47 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:03:48 GMT

BobP wrote...

snip Does this provide better odds of a win then any randomly selected set of 6 lines? Well yes when the randomly selected set of lines does not have all the winning numbers among them, the set that does have all the winning number must have better odds of winning then the set that can't win.

Please keep in mind... Any system may make it easier to win (or at least seem easier), but the odds are a simply a calculation of the number set, including the number of plays that you... [ More ]

Reply #118

BobP — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:30:23 GMT

No one is trying to trick anyone.

From a lottery player's perspective, one wants to eliminate some of the ways to lose. Such as not

having all the winning numbers among lines played.

One of the ways to prevent this is to put all the numbers into play.

Doing so in the minimum number of lines helps to keep playing costs within reason.

Lottery strategy is based on exchanging chances to win for a better chance to win when the strategy

proves correct. All strategies bala... [ More ]

Reply #117

BobP — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:53:13 GMT

There is a link to my website in my profile. Todd gave me permission for a single thread in Systems to give away free copies of my book to LotteryPost members, I gave away hundreds. My site is a lottery directory that includes links to software and systems. Those that have affiliate offers I sign up for, but it isn't necessary to be listed. Most listings are in the author's description, I don't try to push any of them. When people ask for things that are among the free stuff on my site I've post... [ More ]

Reply #116

jimmy4164 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:51:39 GMT

He used to provide links here to get people to go there for free stuff. Just Google Robert Perkis Lotto.