Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 24, 2017, 8:11 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

The Tree of Knowledge--Cracking The Code

Topic closed. 39 replies. Last post 11 years ago by Rip Snorter.

Page 3 of 3
11
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
New Mexico
United States
Member #12305
March 10, 2005
2984 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 23, 2006, 11:47 pm - IP Logged

If one were to find a way to win at P4 mathematically (and from I am reading here that is what many of us are trying to accomplish) one would be eligible for the Noble Prize in Mathematics.  Choas would no longer be choas; it would be understood and mathematically explained.

One would find him or herself unindated with Ph. D.'s in mathematics from Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Standford,  Mississippi State University just to mention the better schools in this country.  Research institutions from coast to coast would pay any fee you asked just to come and deliver a speech. 

Reporters from CNN would trample your lawn, destroy your flower bed, bend your shrubs and generally tear down your house until you came out for an interview.

Dignitaries from every country would hound you for a photo op.  You would be hosted royally in every country in the world.  Presidents from all the democaries would seek your advice from garbage collection to astrophysic research.

So if I were the one to find the "Lotto Code" I would keep my mouth shut.  Win when I needed money; deny any knowledge of such a system; advocate that random numbers are choatic and will never be understood; post bitter and demeaning messages on LP to those of you who think they could discover forthemselves my secret.

Yes, sir.  That is what I would do.

Gasmeterguy

Interesting post.  The only weak place in the reasoning I can find in it are a few pre-suppositions. 

First being that someone would believe the code had been broken.  That seems unlikely in the extreme.  There's too much momentum, too much investment in there not being a code to be broken. 

The investment's in every avenue of human endeavor.  Finance, security, mass-culture, 'common sense', all the physical anchors humans use to reassure themselves the ground's solid beneath their feet, the education they spent much of their lives acquiring, the spiritual faith they choose to adopt, and the one that over-rides all else.  The self-demand that they already know everything worth knowing, and all that they know is true.

Human beings need that above all else.  More than they need to win lots of money.  They'd far prefer to be assured they're right than to be wealthy.

So, if a code exists it will be discovered, buried, rediscovered, buried ad infinitum.  Those who discover it can shout it from the rooftops can do so with impunity and go back to just being quietly wealthy. 

There's something akin to justice in all that.

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

 

    emilyg's avatar - cat anm.gif

    United States
    Member #14
    November 9, 2001
    31553 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 24, 2006, 12:47 am - IP Logged

    i would keep the info to myself and i wouldn't get greedy so i could continue to milk it as long as i possibly can.....

    I like that approach partially. But I believe in the natural law of sharing responsibly. I would share the benfits of the knowledge and make others who can be responsibole get a piece of the action, but I would keep the code to myself.

    Which leads me to my next question: How do you go about sharing the benfits of the knowledge with others? Take LP. What would be the best way to ensure that LP members get some of the action without attracting too much attention, if a code were cracked? 

     

    as huppy suggested - pm's

    love to nibble those micey feet.

     

                                 

      Avatar
      New Mexico
      United States
      Member #12305
      March 10, 2005
      2984 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 24, 2006, 1:03 am - IP Logged

      GASMETERGUY,

      You seem to suggest that understanding the nature of chaos or randomness enough to apply the knowledge to winning lotteries, a player would have to have the intellect of someone with a Ph.D in Mathematics or/and Physics.  I couldn't see anyone with such knowledge being satisfied to just win a few pick4 games.

      I agree they'd have no reason to stop there. 

      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

       

        luckieStarr's avatar - darven
        philadelphia,PA
        United States
        Member #27080
        November 26, 2005
        507 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 24, 2006, 1:10 pm - IP Logged

        I know people who play $100.00 on the big 4...and no problems... they hit and play consistently and win...!  How much more betting and winning would cause concern...who knows...people lose a lot of money playing...BIG!!...to offset...big wins!

        Leaving  Keep It In until It Wins!

          Avatar
          NY
          United States
          Member #23835
          October 16, 2005
          3502 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 24, 2006, 2:51 pm - IP Logged

          i would keep the info to myself and i wouldn't get greedy so i could continue to milk it as long as i possibly can.....

          I like that approach partially. But I believe in the natural law of sharing responsibly. I would share the benfits of the knowledge and make others who can be responsibole get a piece of the action, but I would keep the code to myself.

          Which leads me to my next question: How do you go about sharing the benfits of the knowledge with others? Take LP. What would be the best way to ensure that LP members get some of the action without attracting too much attention, if a code were cracked? 

           

          A natural law of sharing responsibly? What on earth would that be? If the secret was revealed it would spread unbelieveably fast, and if you simply share your winnings you'll either have to limit yourself to modest gifts or risk serious consequences. If a friend or relative gave me $100 bucks twice for no obvious reason I'd get pretty curious why they suddenly got so generous. If they gave me $250 three times I'd know there's something unusual going on. Do you really want to deal with the questions that come with giving a significant amount of money to people?

          Sharing with people from any online forum would be mostly foolish.  If you particularly like two or three posters perhaps you could tell them you'd hit pick 4 and give them $250 because you picked the numbers based on something they'd said, but after that you might as well actually ask for grief in a post. Chewie stopped posting and a bunch of people seem to think it's because he won the lottery and slipped off into anonymity. What do you think would happen if you offered $250 to 10 people here?

            Avatar
            NY
            United States
            Member #23835
            October 16, 2005
            3502 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 24, 2006, 2:59 pm - IP Logged

            Gasmeterguy

            Interesting post.  The only weak place in the reasoning I can find in it are a few pre-suppositions. 

            First being that someone would believe the code had been broken.  That seems unlikely in the extreme.  There's too much momentum, too much investment in there not being a code to be broken. 

            The investment's in every avenue of human endeavor.  Finance, security, mass-culture, 'common sense', all the physical anchors humans use to reassure themselves the ground's solid beneath their feet, the education they spent much of their lives acquiring, the spiritual faith they choose to adopt, and the one that over-rides all else.  The self-demand that they already know everything worth knowing, and all that they know is true.

            Human beings need that above all else.  More than they need to win lots of money.  They'd far prefer to be assured they're right than to be wealthy.

            So, if a code exists it will be discovered, buried, rediscovered, buried ad infinitum.  Those who discover it can shout it from the rooftops can do so with impunity and go back to just being quietly wealthy. 

            There's something akin to justice in all that.

            Jack

            I think you may have misinterpreted his post, or perhaps the entire nature of the world and exactly what peoplewill believe. I don't believe for an instant that anybody can successfully predict the outcome of pick 3 or pick 4 well enough to profit in the long run. That doesn't mean I believe it's completely impossible, only that it's not possible now.

            100 years ago the weather could only be predicted a short time before it happened. Today we can predict the weather as much as a few months in advance, but the more long range the predictions are the more general the predictions are or the more inaccurate they are. Think about hurricane season versus the chance of rain on Thursday. Predicting the outcome of a lottery drawing is similar to predicting the weather. You observe the current conditions, consider the various things that will act on the current conditions and predict future conditions. Weather is a little bit complicated because of the myriad influences, but it's child's play compared to predicting which balls will pop out of a mixing machine, and that's assuming you know the order in which they'll be introduced to the machine.

            I'm assuming that's about what  Gasmeterguy is getting at. To reliably predict the outcome you'd need to have a far better understanding of physics and chaos than we currently have and the ability to apply that knowledge to the real world. Most educated people don't believe you can predict the outcome of th elottery, but plenty of people believe you can predict the weather. All you'd need to make them believe is a solid track record and admitting that it's not really some secret code. The one benefit he forgot to mention is the huge income you'd be able to command as the world's most accurate weatherman.

              Avatar
              New Mexico
              United States
              Member #12305
              March 10, 2005
              2984 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 24, 2006, 5:11 pm - IP Logged

              I think you may have misinterpreted his post, or perhaps the entire nature of the world and exactly what peoplewill believe. I don't believe for an instant that anybody can successfully predict the outcome of pick 3 or pick 4 well enough to profit in the long run. That doesn't mean I believe it's completely impossible, only that it's not possible now.

              100 years ago the weather could only be predicted a short time before it happened. Today we can predict the weather as much as a few months in advance, but the more long range the predictions are the more general the predictions are or the more inaccurate they are. Think about hurricane season versus the chance of rain on Thursday. Predicting the outcome of a lottery drawing is similar to predicting the weather. You observe the current conditions, consider the various things that will act on the current conditions and predict future conditions. Weather is a little bit complicated because of the myriad influences, but it's child's play compared to predicting which balls will pop out of a mixing machine, and that's assuming you know the order in which they'll be introduced to the machine.

              I'm assuming that's about what  Gasmeterguy is getting at. To reliably predict the outcome you'd need to have a far better understanding of physics and chaos than we currently have and the ability to apply that knowledge to the real world. Most educated people don't believe you can predict the outcome of th elottery, but plenty of people believe you can predict the weather. All you'd need to make them believe is a solid track record and admitting that it's not really some secret code. The one benefit he forgot to mention is the huge income you'd be able to command as the world's most accurate weatherman.

               KYFloyd:  I think you may have misinterpreted his post,

              I replies:  I might have misrepresented his post, or mightn't have.  He'd have to be the one to determine that and tell us what he intended.

              KYFloyd: or perhaps the entire nature of the world and exactly what peoplewill believe. I don't believe for an instant that anybody can successfully predict the outcome of pick 3 or pick 4 well enough to profit in the long run.

               I replies:  That was precisely my point.

               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
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3502 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 25, 2006, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

                Actually, by focusing on half  of what I said and ignoring the other half I think you're proving my belief that you're misunderstanding what people will believe. You're definitely showing that you've either misunderstood my point or you're simply ignoring it. If somebody claims that they've found that past drawings predict future drawings I agree that very few people will believe them, but that's not the same as claiming that you've refined the ability to use current conditions and the forces that act upon them to predict future conditions. That's what the weather analogy is about. The weatherman doesn't say it might rain tomorrow because it rained last week. He says it might rain tomorrow because it's raining west of here and the wind will blow that rain east.

                For all I know, somebody might actually have developed the ability to accurately predict future drawings, but as far as I know, nobody has done even a halfway decent job of exlaining and substantiating such a claim. When somebody presents a sound exlanation and  reasonable proof that it works people will be ready to believe them, just as they'll believe in many things that were previously laughable.

                  RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                  mid-Ohio
                  United States
                  Member #9
                  March 24, 2001
                  19904 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 25, 2006, 3:31 pm - IP Logged

                  The weathermen in my area predict by percent.  They know from the past that weather conditions in Indiana traveling a certain direction and speed have produced certain weather conditions in Ohio a certain percent of the time.  The closer the weather gets, the more accurate their predictions.  Some people think they can predict the outcome of lottery drawings using a similar strategy.

                  Some day someone may win a lottery using that strategy, but I doubt if they will be anxious to share more than their general strategy.  Too many people come here looking for others to share the particulars of their systems or programs.  I don't do that and I doubt if anyone else does it if they really think their program/system really works.

                   * 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: July 25, 2006, 3:45 pm - IP Logged

                    Actually, by focusing on half  of what I said and ignoring the other half I think you're proving my belief that you're misunderstanding what people will believe. You're definitely showing that you've either misunderstood my point or you're simply ignoring it. If somebody claims that they've found that past drawings predict future drawings I agree that very few people will believe them, but that's not the same as claiming that you've refined the ability to use current conditions and the forces that act upon them to predict future conditions. That's what the weather analogy is about. The weatherman doesn't say it might rain tomorrow because it rained last week. He says it might rain tomorrow because it's raining west of here and the wind will blow that rain east.

                    For all I know, somebody might actually have developed the ability to accurately predict future drawings, but as far as I know, nobody has done even a halfway decent job of exlaining and substantiating such a claim. When somebody presents a sound exlanation and  reasonable proof that it works people will be ready to believe them, just as they'll believe in many things that were previously laughable.

                    Actually, by focusing on half  of what I said and ignoring the other half I think you're proving my belief that you're misunderstanding what people will believe.

                     There's plenty of evidencial history to give us an idea of what people will believe.  Finding what they won't believe is considerably more difficult, though it usually falls into one of several catagories:

                    1. They (the majority) won't believe whatever is generally thought by their peers to be unbelievable,
                    2. They won't believe what they've been taught by teachers to be untrue,
                    3. They won't believe what they've been told by religious leaders is untrue,
                    4. They won't believe what they've been told by political leaders is untrue.
                    5. They won't believe what scientists have told them is untrue.

                    In general there'll be a mix, a juggling in each, weighing and balancing to come up with individual refutations of physicial, spiritual, intellectual phenomena.

                    What they can mostly be depended upon not to do is base their non-belief on personal experience and observation except in isolated instances.

                    You're definitely showing that you've either misunderstood my point or you're simply ignoring it.

                     Possibly.

                     If somebody claims that they've found that past drawings predict future drawings I agree that very few people will believe them, but that's not the same as claiming that you've refined the ability to use current conditions and the forces that act upon them to predict future conditions.

                    My point also.  Selective belief and rejection of belief based upon preconcieved, ironclad repudiation of a concept.   It assumes, not based on evidence, but rather based on nothing more than 'belief', that something's true.

                    For all I know, somebody might actually have developed the ability to accurately predict future drawings, but as far as I know, nobody has done even a halfway decent job of exlaining and substantiating such a claim.

                     Two entirely different issues.  One depends on observation and evidence.  The other depends upon understanding the phenomenon behind that evidence.

                    For the evidence on this issue, look at the Yesterday Winners page of the LP Predictions page day-by-day for the past two weeks.

                    We mightn't know how, mightn't know why.  But what you see on those pages day-by-day provides a high degree of evidence that some people are doing precisely what it's believed can't be done.

                    They most aren't 'making money' on it, by the imaginary payoffs in the LP system.  However, every time you see a 4 of 6 on a pick 6 game, a 4 of 5 on a pick 5 game, it was contained within a maximum of 50 prediction combinations.

                    Draw your own conclusions.

                    Otherwise, I agree with you.

                    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