Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 22, 2017, 3:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Proving a system works

Topic closed. 31 replies. Last post 11 years ago by pacattack05.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
Dump Water Florida
United States
Member #380
June 5, 2002
3114 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 10, 2005, 12:27 am - IP Logged

I suspect if a system were ever to be challenged in court, the "experts" would explain why it couldn't work, without even once attempting to try it.

A system based on past draw history could appear to work because it would be salted like a fake gold mine.  I remember Lightning Bolt had one system that was all the Pick-3 numbers from the past year, in back testing it was always correct prior to filtering.

Often systems do work in spurts, so for a time a system can ride high and appear to work in reasonable tests until it hits a dry spell . . .  most work like a rollercoaster especially if they start off with a good win, but like entropy the highs and lows get smaller until it winds down to no profit at the end.

Considering the money we pay for some of these systems, it should play at a profit or at least test to show it could play at a profit.  There is a big difference between winning every time and winning often enough to make a profit, though there may be several ways to work the data and not all paths lead to profit, still working backwards, it should be possible to find a way you could have won. BobP



    United States
    Member #17555
    June 22, 2005
    5582 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 10, 2005, 12:42 am - IP Logged

    If you are consistently winning atleast a thousand dollars a day clear, without the lottery authorities picking up on you, and can prove it, you've got a system.

    No need for me to write 17 paragraphs about this.

    It's simple as that. Period!

    Have a nice day to all.......

    " California Love "

    " Gin and Juice "

      Avatar
      New Mexico
      United States
      Member #12305
      March 10, 2005
      2984 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 10, 2005, 8:35 am - IP Logged

      I suspect if a system were ever to be challenged in court, the "experts" would explain why it couldn't work, without even once attempting to try it.

      A system based on past draw history could appear to work because it would be salted like a fake gold mine.  I remember Lightning Bolt had one system that was all the Pick-3 numbers from the past year, in back testing it was always correct prior to filtering.

      Often systems do work in spurts, so for a time a system can ride high and appear to work in reasonable tests until it hits a dry spell . . .  most work like a rollercoaster especially if they start off with a good win, but like entropy the highs and lows get smaller until it winds down to no profit at the end.

      Considering the money we pay for some of these systems, it should play at a profit or at least test to show it could play at a profit.  There is a big difference between winning every time and winning often enough to make a profit, though there may be several ways to work the data and not all paths lead to profit, still working backwards, it should be possible to find a way you could have won. BobP


      Interesting supposition.  Some of it might be true.

      Jack

      Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

      It's about number behavior.

      Egos don't count.

       

      Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

       

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19901 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 10, 2005, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

        Playing the lottery is gambling.  If a system could guarantee a win most of the time, it wouldn't be gambling.  When one gambles, one accept the possibility of losing and courts recognize that.  I doubt if any court would hear a complaint about a lottery system not producing a winner. 

        Besides, most systems are sold with a disclaimer that the product is to be used for entertainment only.  When one gamble using the product, the contract is voided.

         * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
           
                     Evil Looking       

          Avatar
          New Mexico
          United States
          Member #12305
          March 10, 2005
          2984 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 10, 2005, 1:24 pm - IP Logged

          I agree.  My point was that any meaningful discussion of 'proof' has to begin with a lot of mutual acceptance of the starting point.  In criminal court, the assumption is innocence until proven guilty.  In civil court the assumption is neutrality, but with a bias in favor of the accuser having to support the claim with a preponderance of evidence, the burden of the defendant being to discredit the claim of the accuser.

          In science the proof of a theorem presumes neutrality and a neutral examination of evidence.

          'Proving' a lottery system is unlike any of these, and the characteristics proof would demonstrate would depend on the reasons for proving it, as well as precisely whom the proofs were intended to convince.  The assumption with most LP members would be that the system was 'guilty' and that no amount of evidence could prove it otherwise.  The reason is that such a system would undermine firmly held belief structures of most users, including your own.

          But any developer of a successful system has no reason to prove it to anyone.  And anyone who feels the need to prove a system to LP users probably by definition has one that doesn't work, or has one that's up for sale, which throws the preponderance of evidence in favor of it not being successful, or nobody'd need to sell it.

          Just my take on it.

          Jack

          Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

          It's about number behavior.

          Egos don't count.

           

          Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

           

            JAP69's avatar - alas
            South Carolina
            United States
            Member #6
            November 4, 2001
            8797 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 10, 2005, 5:34 pm - IP Logged

            You are right when you say that having an automated system that spits out a number and will come up with the winning number enough times for profit then why expose it or sell it.

            In the 3 game having the system that picks one number to play straight only requires a hit once evry 500 draws before you loose money. If you have a system that spits out more than one number the figure for profit will need adjusting.

            When creating a system it will need to be programed to have the same exact number spit out for that state in that states games.

            I do not think it is that hard to program a system to have the same number spit out.

            Simplify,Simplify, Simplify

            Oo'Ka

              Avatar
              New Mexico
              United States
              Member #12305
              March 10, 2005
              2984 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 10, 2005, 7:22 pm - IP Logged

              I do not think it is that hard to program a system to have the same number spit out.

              I think you're probably right.

              Jack

              Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

              It's about number behavior.

              Egos don't count.

               

              Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

               

                BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                Dump Water Florida
                United States
                Member #380
                June 5, 2002
                3114 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 11, 2005, 12:39 am - IP Logged

                I agree.  My point was that any meaningful discussion of 'proof' has to begin with a lot of mutual acceptance of the starting point.  In criminal court, the assumption is innocence until proven guilty.  In civil court the assumption is neutrality, but with a bias in favor of the accuser having to support the claim with a preponderance of evidence, the burden of the defendant being to discredit the claim of the accuser.

                In science the proof of a theorem presumes neutrality and a neutral examination of evidence.

                'Proving' a lottery system is unlike any of these, and the characteristics proof would demonstrate would depend on the reasons for proving it, as well as precisely whom the proofs were intended to convince.  The assumption with most LP members would be that the system was 'guilty' and that no amount of evidence could prove it otherwise.  The reason is that such a system would undermine firmly held belief structures of most users, including your own.

                But any developer of a successful system has no reason to prove it to anyone.  And anyone who feels the need to prove a system to LP users probably by definition has one that doesn't work, or has one that's up for sale, which throws the preponderance of evidence in favor of it not being successful, or nobody'd need to sell it.

                Just my take on it.

                Jack

                Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.

                a) "It's nonsense,"
                b) "It is not important,"
                c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
                d) "I thought of it first."


                BobP

                  Avatar
                  New Mexico
                  United States
                  Member #12305
                  March 10, 2005
                  2984 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 11, 2005, 8:08 am - IP Logged

                  Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.

                  a) "It's nonsense,"
                  b) "It is not important,"
                  c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
                  d) "I thought of it first."

                  BobP

                  Clarke was correct, but it's the institutional, the human personality side of science he's describing.  The pure scientific approach would be to

                  observe a phenomenon, gather as much evidence as possible to explain the phenomenon,

                  formulate a theory based on the evidence, and

                  test the theory in as many ways as possible to prove, or to disprove the theory. 

                  Afterward, to massage or alter the theory as needed based on whatever new evidence emerges.

                  Frequently, that's not the way it works.  But that's the ideal method.

                  But if the intent is understanding lottery numbers and devise a method for predicting them, you're talking about an engineering problem that might utilize a scientific approach, but if there's a clear intent to accomplish an end, it's engineering, not science.  The approach overlaps and is sometimes confused, even by scientists losing touch with their identities, but the two are fundamentally different.

                  But the engineering problem for understanding and predicting lottery numbers only applies at a personal level.  Not on LP, as you'd expect.  The expectation would be that everyone on LP would have a clearly defined intent of an engineering nature.  That every person who visits the site would come with the objective of understanding the numbers and finding a method for predicting them. 

                  That goal would involve open-mindedness and preparedness to abandon predispositions whenever those predispositions are antithetical to the intent.

                  Instead,  the reverse is true. 

                  The example that comes readily to mind was BL.  Guy came to LP and announced on a thread or two that he'd 'broken the lottery code'.  Offered up some morsels and trickled out a bit of info, but nothing substantive. 

                  Over the next several days he was insulted, vilified, and generally smiten from every direction by the LP posters.  So he announced several hours before the draw that 18-20 numbers would hit one night on MM. 

                  Here's where the difference between LP users and any open-mindedness and intent to find an approach to understand number behavior is profoundly illustrated.  The members posting on the thread ran foot-races to get in ahead of the draw to insult the guy, to proclaim him a failure.  They wanted to be down on record as having recognized him for a fraud.

                  So, that night when his prediction hit 4+1, it had been demonstrated to him in as many ways as possible that he wasn't among friends with a common purpose.  He was surrounded by antagonists, whom he'd have no reason to assist.

                  Nevertheless, he hung around for a few draws, swamped by demands that he explain whatever system he had. 

                  The approach of a group with hopes of understanding would have been entirely different. 

                  You say you've broken it?  Tell us all about it that you're willing to tell.  You predict these numbers for tonight?  Okay.  Let's see what happens.  Hey, wow!  Sounds as though you're onto something.  Can you give us any more directions to further our own searches on this goal?  We don't expect you to give it all away.  Just give us a few pieces of guidance to help us discover where to find what you've found.

                  Doing what he did one time didn't prove his system.  None of us know whether it was just luck.  And we did our best to make sure that remained so.

                  The intent of the bulk of LP users isn't to conquer a problem.  It's to reinforce and reiterate all our preconcieved notions about how things are and what brilliant folks we are as individuals for already understanding it all.

                  Just my take on things.

                  Jack

                   

                  Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                  It's about number behavior.

                  Egos don't count.

                   

                  Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

                   

                    Avatar
                    New Mexico
                    United States
                    Member #12305
                    March 10, 2005
                    2984 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 11, 2005, 5:31 pm - IP Logged

                    It's worth revisiting that thread occasionally as an opportunity to learn something about ourselves:

                    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/108827?q=biglooooser

                    It might be we could have all learned a lot if we'd taken a different approach to BL. 

                    As it is, we can learn only about ourselves and try to forget the big one that got away.  Or maybe it was just a tree stump or old tire we hooked into.  We'll never know, and we have ourselves to thank.

                    Jack

                    Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                    It's about number behavior.

                    Egos don't count.

                     

                    Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

                     

                      Tenaj's avatar - michellea
                      Charlotte NC
                      United States
                      Member #17406
                      June 18, 2005
                      4054 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 11, 2005, 6:51 pm - IP Logged

                      TypeHow many times have you guys having this conversation hit in the last 3 days?

                      Just curious. 

                      takeemtothebank


                        United States
                        Member #17555
                        June 22, 2005
                        5582 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: October 11, 2005, 7:14 pm - IP Logged

                        TypeHow many times have you guys having this conversation hit in the last 3 days?

                        Just curious. 

                        I bought 1000 tickets on the number 808, yesterday in Florida. A half a million tax free.

                        I'm getting new shoe laces for my sneakers tommorrow. And a brand new pillow case.

                          Avatar
                          New Mexico
                          United States
                          Member #12305
                          March 10, 2005
                          2984 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: October 11, 2005, 7:14 pm - IP Logged

                          I haven't played during the last three days, Tenaj.

                          I assume the reason you're asking involves the fact that the people posting on the thread seem to believe that to 'prove' a system numbers need to be posted before the draw, and watch them hit or miss.  Or, a means of communicating profit/loss needs to be provided.

                          The fact is, you never made any bones about your unwillingness to do this from the first blog entry.  You told it exactly as you intended to tell it.  I don't see you as an issue.  You offered what you offered and told what that offer was in concise terms from the beginning.  If you varied from that, you did so in favor of players, as opposed to varying on the side of withdrawal.

                          You had no reason to prove your system unless you wished to, which you didn't.  You had no obligation to do anything other than what you did.  You  offered some numbers, some people played them and some of those won using them. Then you decided not to do it anymore and you quit.  No big deal either way.

                          I don't have a problem with your approach, though I never won anthing on it and never played it.  You did exactly what you said you'd do.

                          Fact is, I appreciate you bring the Lottery Bible into the focus of LP users, particularly me.  Maybe sometime it will come in useful.

                          'Nuff said.

                          Jack

                          Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                          It's about number behavior.

                          Egos don't count.

                           

                          Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

                           

                            Tenaj's avatar - michellea
                            Charlotte NC
                            United States
                            Member #17406
                            June 18, 2005
                            4054 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: October 11, 2005, 7:28 pm - IP Logged

                            I haven't played during the last three days, Tenaj.

                            I assume the reason you're asking involves the fact that the people posting on the thread seem to believe that to 'prove' a system numbers need to be posted before the draw, and watch them hit or miss.  Or, a means of communicating profit/loss needs to be provided.

                            The fact is, you never made any bones about your unwillingness to do this from the first blog entry.  You told it exactly as you intended to tell it.  I don't see you as an issue.  You offered what you offered and told what that offer was in concise terms from the beginning.  If you varied from that, you did so in favor of players, as opposed to varying on the side of withdrawal.

                            You had no reason to prove your system unless you wished to, which you didn't.  You had no obligation to do anything other than what you did.  You  offered some numbers, some people played them and some of those won using them. Then you decided not to do it anymore and you quit.  No big deal either way.

                            I don't have a problem with your approach, though I never won anthing on it and never played it.  You did exactly what you said you'd do.

                            Fact is, I appreciate you bring the Lottery Bible into the focus of LP users, particularly me.  Maybe sometime it will come in useful.

                            'Nuff said.

                            Jack

                            Big GrinI was just wondering if the people who had the most to say and the strongest opinions were the ones who were hitting.  It's what I figured. 

                            takeemtothebank

                              Avatar
                              New Mexico
                              United States
                              Member #12305
                              March 10, 2005
                              2984 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: October 11, 2005, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

                              I dunno, Tenaj.  You've been posting frequently lately and some of the opinions you expressed so strongly they were deleted.  Maybe you can look inside yourself for the answer to your question.

                              Jack

                               

                              Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                              It's about number behavior.

                              Egos don't count.

                               

                              Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser