Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 5:07 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Robert Serotic Lottery Strategy books

Topic closed. 21 replies. Last post 9 years ago by eddessaknight.

Page 2 of 2
41
PrintE-mailLink
bobby623's avatar - abstract
San Angelo, Texas
United States
Member #1097
January 31, 2003
1394 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 5, 2007, 12:04 pm - IP Logged

"... without all the pencil and paper number exchange nonsense..."

I'm not sure what BobP is saying, but I think he needs to back up and consider the possibility that, in my humble opinion, more lottery players use paper and pencil methods to generate numbers than folks with computers.

There was a time when everyone used paper and pencil workouts.

Not everyone has computer skills. There are many folks who have the ability but not the desire. Still others just would rather 'get down and dirty,' so to speak, with lottery numbers and come up with sensible, no nonsense, schemes that work for 'them.'

I'm in the latter category, and I'm offended by someone saying that what I, and millions of others are doing, is nonsense.

Have a good day.

    BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
    Dump Water Florida
    United States
    Member #380
    June 5, 2002
    3103 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 5, 2007, 1:59 pm - IP Logged

    "... without all the pencil and paper number exchange nonsense..."

    I'm not sure what BobP is saying, but I think he needs to back up and consider the possibility that, in my humble opinion, more lottery players use paper and pencil methods to generate numbers than folks with computers.

    There was a time when everyone used paper and pencil workouts.

    Not everyone has computer skills. There are many folks who have the ability but not the desire. Still others just would rather 'get down and dirty,' so to speak, with lottery numbers and come up with sensible, no nonsense, schemes that work for 'them.'

    I'm in the latter category, and I'm offended by someone saying that what I, and millions of others are doing, is nonsense.

    Have a good day.

    Fair enough. I'm not talking about working out your numbers on paper, that's probably a better way to train your brain then pushing keys on a computer.

    What I am talking about is the process where you exchange your picks for the place holder pointer numbers on wheels.  This can be a time consuming mistake creation process.  Some wheel authors use letters instead of numbers like the old GH wheels (Lotto: How To Wheel A Fortune), I don't know which pointers are worse to work the exchange.

    Many people use the 4if6in18number42line wheel this means first exchangine your numbers for the numbers on 42 lines and then transfering those lines to play slips.  Whereas you can import this wheel into CoverMaster and make the number exchange in seconds, print the combinations and then copy them to the play slips. 

    I had no use for a computer until I realized it could be used for lottery, then I forced myself to learn from scratch.  The front loaded wheels I give away free on L-L are manual print, user decides whether to work them by hand or load them into a software like CoverMaster, Lottery Director, Lotto Pro, etc.

    BobP

      eddessaknight's avatar - nw paladin.jpg
      LAS VEGAS
      United States
      Member #47729
      November 22, 2006
      4498 Posts
      Online
      Posted: December 5, 2007, 8:28 pm - IP Logged

      here's the covers, no harm in posting them.

       

      Well naturally there's no harm done, on the contrary, the cover pix actually promote the books for the author, publisher and their varied proponents.

       

      EddessaKnight

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7310 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 5, 2007, 10:26 pm - IP Logged

        Fair enough. I'm not talking about working out your numbers on paper, that's probably a better way to train your brain then pushing keys on a computer.

        What I am talking about is the process where you exchange your picks for the place holder pointer numbers on wheels.  This can be a time consuming mistake creation process.  Some wheel authors use letters instead of numbers like the old GH wheels (Lotto: How To Wheel A Fortune), I don't know which pointers are worse to work the exchange.

        Many people use the 4if6in18number42line wheel this means first exchangine your numbers for the numbers on 42 lines and then transfering those lines to play slips.  Whereas you can import this wheel into CoverMaster and make the number exchange in seconds, print the combinations and then copy them to the play slips. 

        I had no use for a computer until I realized it could be used for lottery, then I forced myself to learn from scratch.  The front loaded wheels I give away free on L-L are manual print, user decides whether to work them by hand or load them into a software like CoverMaster, Lottery Director, Lotto Pro, etc.

        BobP

        I was looking for my copy of The Only Way to Win at Lotto and found GH's win-grid device, two free gifts and ads from Harvard Square Laboratory Systems. Found Sure Bet: The Art of Daily 3 Wheeling autographed by Robert Serotic and several issues of Lotto World. I forgot that Lotto World included individual state editions for $1.75 in 1995.

        "Many people use the 4if6in18number42line wheel"

        That wheel was in Lottery Expert for Windows and used it many times.

          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
          Dump Water Florida
          United States
          Member #380
          June 5, 2002
          3103 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 6, 2007, 12:41 am - IP Logged

          I was looking for my copy of The Only Way to Win at Lotto and found GH's win-grid device, two free gifts and ads from Harvard Square Laboratory Systems. Found Sure Bet: The Art of Daily 3 Wheeling autographed by Robert Serotic and several issues of Lotto World. I forgot that Lotto World included individual state editions for $1.75 in 1995.

          "Many people use the 4if6in18number42line wheel"

          That wheel was in Lottery Expert for Windows and used it many times.

          I'm still trying to figure out whether the Harvard Square 12 number lines were actually some kind of super system or just random generation.  I've got the GH win grid slider, what were the two free gifts?  Don't think I have Sure Bet, did go to the Serotic seminar but all he wanted to do was sell Versa Bet software. Check the Lotto World issues I'm the New Jersey Bureau Chief in some a columnist in some others.  Do you have any shaker boxes? Mine all became worthless (except as collectables) as the games changed.  I've got lotto dice and a ball with a funnel inside that releases balls into a slide, there's a little door on the bottom to remove the balls not in your game before shaking kinda like a cheap version of the millionare machine that doubled as a bingo machine.  BobP

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7310 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 6, 2007, 7:09 am - IP Logged

            I'm still trying to figure out whether the Harvard Square 12 number lines were actually some kind of super system or just random generation.  I've got the GH win grid slider, what were the two free gifts?  Don't think I have Sure Bet, did go to the Serotic seminar but all he wanted to do was sell Versa Bet software. Check the Lotto World issues I'm the New Jersey Bureau Chief in some a columnist in some others.  Do you have any shaker boxes? Mine all became worthless (except as collectables) as the games changed.  I've got lotto dice and a ball with a funnel inside that releases balls into a slide, there's a little door on the bottom to remove the balls not in your game before shaking kinda like a cheap version of the millionare machine that doubled as a bingo machine.  BobP

            Harvard Square sent me the Pick-3 and Pick-4 Number Blasters and if I ran a lottery, I would give them to all my customers. You enter all 10 digits starting with the most favored and if the number drawn has 3 different digits, you're guaranteed 2 out of 3 and 3 out of 4. In 72% of the Pick-3 drawings, players can say, "had I enter the digits a certain way", I would have won. The Pick-3 Blaster has 10 combos and the Pick-4 has 18. One of the Harvard Square professors, Alan Reiss was a contributor in many of Gail Howard's books.

            Robert Serotic's Sure Bet was a collection of Pick-3 perms. He sent a couple of "surprise gifts" too; one was Perm #100 and the other was 4if6 12 number wheel with an order form on the back. Though I never ordered one, the Loto-Master looked like a neat little gadget.

            I have a shaker device the Ohio Lottery gave away many years ago.

            If I had read your article on playing 3if5 wheels before I played one and trapped all 5 numbers, I would have saved myself lots of grief.

              eddessaknight's avatar - nw paladin.jpg
              LAS VEGAS
              United States
              Member #47729
              November 22, 2006
              4498 Posts
              Online
              Posted: December 6, 2007, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

              I can't post anything here, even though LSI Research Publishing inc. is defunct, Robert Serotic still holds the copyright and posting anything here would violate that copyright.

              Unhappy

              For everyone's edification on the limits of copywright:

              I am reposting an important message regarding why copwright laws cannot protect ostensibly 'Golden Fleece' systems, Holy Grails, etc. This is rather long but highly informative and significant for those interested in the realities of copywrites, but fair warning, the length of this talesman treatise may cause pain to some unacustomed readers lips Wink LOL

              EddessaKnight Sun Smiley

              ~

              "The basis for Copyright Law comes from the U.S. Constitution,
              Article 1, Section 8.23

              "
              The Congress shall have power… to promote the Progress of Science and
              useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
              exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
              ."


              The first statute, the general copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.,
              has been with us in one form or another since 1790 and grants copyright
              protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium
              of expression.”


              Congress has established the following standard for copyright protection:
              (a) Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship
              fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . . . Works of authorship
              include the following categories:
              (1) literary works;
              (2) musical works;
              (3) dramatic works;
              (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
              (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
              (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
              (7) sound recordings; and
              (8) architectural works.
              (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
              extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
              principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,
              explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.


              See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
              and/or
              http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html
              for basic copyright information.

              What is an original work? The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that
              "[o]riginal" . . . means only that the work was independently created by the
              author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at
              least some minimal degree of creativity, even if the work is not a “novel one.
              (originality requires both “independent creation plus a modicum of creativity”).
              And although constitutionally mandated, the threshold showing of originality is
              not a demanding one. (“To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely
              low; even a slight amount will suffice.”).

              However, even if a work is in some sense “original” under § 102(a), it still
              may not be copyrightable because § 102(b) provides that “[i]n no case does
              copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,
              procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
              regardless of [its] form.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).


              This provision embodies the common-law idea-expression dichotomy that
              distinguishes the spheres of copyright and patent law. “[U-]nlike a patent, a
              copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given
              only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself.”
              Mazer v. Stein, 347
              U.S. 201, 217 (1954); see also Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 101–02 (1880)
              (explaining that while a book describing a bookkeeping system is worthy of
              copyright protection, the underlying method described is not); Computer Assocs.
              Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 703 (2d Cir. 1992) (“It is a fundamental
              principle of copyright law that a copyright does not protect an idea, but only
              the expression of the idea.” No. 03-5400 Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control
              Components Page 7 ).

              In ascertaining this “elusive boundary line” between idea and expression, between
              process and nonfunctional expression, courts have looked to two other staples of
              copyright law—the doctrines of merger and scènes à faire. Where the “expression
              is essential to the statement of the idea,” CCC Info. Servs., Inc.v. Maclean Hunter
              Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61, 68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also Lotus Dev., 49 F.3d at
              816 (“If specific words are essential to operating something, then they are part
              of a ‘method of operation’ and, as such, are unprotectable.”)
              , or where there is
              only one way or very few ways of expressing the idea, Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos
              Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1519 n.27 (11th Cir. 1997), the idea and expression are
              said to have “merged.” In these instances, copyright protection does not exist because
              granting protection to the expressive component of the work necessarily would extend
              protection to the work’s uncopyrightable ideas as well. See Gates Rubber Co. v.
              Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd.,, 9 F.3d 823, 838 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Murray Hill
              Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312,319 n.2 (6th Cir. 2004)
              (noting that where idea and expression are intertwined and where non-protectable
              ideas predominate, expression is not protected); see generally Nimmer § 13.03[B-][3].

              I think you get the idea.

              A "system" in and of itself is NOT the subject of copyright. Why? For several
              reasons.
              1. Because it is an "idea." Facts, if you will. Facts are not the subject matter
              of copyright.
              2. Because it is a set of instructions - a method of operation. It can also be
              classified as a process or procedure. In any case - not protectable.

              Don't mis-interpret what I said here. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to
              copy a work and pass it around as the ENTIRE work does have copyright protection
              no matter how thin that protection may be. The e-book or whatever may be 20-30
              pages and the system or plan may only take up a page and a half. Clearly there
              is copyright in the entire work even if the boiler-plate language of how a game is played,
              what the rules are, inclusion of advice on MM, etc. seems to be the same as you read
              in dozens of other plans. If it was written in the author's words, it's his. Better put,
              his expression of the rules, etal, are his. Not the rules, etal, themselves.

              Congress, in its infinite wisdom, also included "Fair Use Rights' in the law with regard
              to works covered by copyright.

              To quote the Stanford Web page listed above: "Fair use is a copyright principle
              based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of
              copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example,
              if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a
              portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom,
              copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work."

              "Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation,
              the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair
              use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable
              for damages." Words to take to heart. The law was written ambiguously and only
              a qualified court has the power to say what is or isn't 'fair use'. And let me tell
              you that no two judges probably would rule the same way on the same set of facts.
              That is clearly evidenced by three sets of opinions by three levels of courts (trial
              court, the appeals court and the Supreme court) on the same matter.

              Also see the "Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors" at:
              http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

              One of those factors explained there is the effect of the use upon the potential
              market. Therein lies the rub. Paul Punter buys a 'system' touted to be THE HOLY
              GRAIL. He read through 4-5 Web pages of advertising fluff. Each page made the
              system more and more enticing and when he got to the end Paul Punter was
              totally convinced that he could do battle with the casinos day after day and
              in a year have enough in wins to retire or at least semi-retire. And if he ever
              ran out of money, well - he could do it all over again! Ya, that's the ticket,
              he thought! And, hey, IT"S GUARANTEED!!! IRON-CLAD GUARANTEE!!!

              Sadly, when the plan arrived as an attachment to an e-mail it was not all it was
              cracked up to be. It was a bit hard to read and not really written all that well.
              Still, Paul Punter read it and re-read it and once he had fully digested it, Paul
              grabbed his bankroll and out the door he flew heading to the nearest casino. One
              half an hour later Paul Punter's life's bankroll was now the property of the casino.
              He followed the plan religiously. What happened?

              What happened was he was duped.

              Now Paul does an Internet search and finds a few forums such as V.I.P., Gambler's
              Glen and Let's Talk Winning (too bad he didn't use due diligence before hand).
              Now outraged by his loss and lack of any sort of response from the seller when
              Paul inquired about the promised "iron-clad guarantee" Paul Punter posts the
              plan at the various forums and includes commentary about the whole experience.
              Maybe Paul was careful to only post the mechanics of the plan to show why he lost.
              Maybe he posted the whole thing. Paul also quoted a few lines from the Web page
              ad that induced him as well just to show the "promises."

              Does posting the actual facts "affect the potential market" for the seller/author?
              Maybe, maybe not.

              Are those facts even the subject of copyright law?

              Absolutely not. At least if we are to read the dozens of decided court cases on the subject.

              Is Paul Punter's post a comment or criticism? It most certainly is. Ergo, 'Fair Use.'

              Is Paul Punter likely to get sued?

              Probably not.

              Why?

              Because to prosecute a copyright suit in federal civil court (the only place where
              you can have such a suit heard) could easily cost $30,000 (many times it is more)
              and not many system sellers are willing to do that knowing that the court judgment
              may not be worth the paper it is written on if Mr. Punter can't pay. And if Paul Punter
              were to demand a jury trial (as is his Constitutional right) the seller's lawyer would
              probably tell him to forget it. Why? Aside from explaining and have the jury grasp
              the complexity of intellectual property law (difficult at best), juries tend to side with
              those folks who were, in essence, "ripped off." Juries do have a innate collective
              sense of right and wrong. If the seller insisted on prosecuting, the lawyer would
              surely demand all his fees up-front. That could be a bar to prosecution all by itself.
              Trust me, this won't be a contingency fee case...not by a long-shot.

              Another reason to stay the hell out of court is that in intellectual property
              cases the LOSER pays everything (the court, upon petition, has the right to
              make such an award and determine how much the award should be). Should
              the seller lose he may well be on the hook for all the legal expenses incurred by
              the defendant. Bad enough to have to pay your lawyer $30,000 in fees and
              costs but then to be assessed another $24,000 to $28,000 to cover the defendant's
              legal costs may well not be worth the risk. If anything, system sellers should be
              aware of the risk to reward ratio and like any table game the outcome - it is 50/50
              at best. I think because of the nature of such a case the House Advantage
              goes to the defense side making it far less than a 50/50 proposition.
              Any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that any case, once it gets
              to court,is always a crap-shoot - no matter how strong you feel your case
              may be.

              As of this writing very few 'system sellers' have even bothered to register their
              work(s) with the Copyright Office. Why do you think that is? Well, for starters,
              they would have to provide the Library of Congress with TWO suitable copies
              of the entire work. Once there, anyone can read the book, treatise, whatever.
              In essence, get the plan for free. In order to file a copyright infringement suit,
              it is a legal prerequisite that the copyright holder/owner formally register the work
              with the U.S. Copyright Office. To so much as threaten suit w/o having formally
              registered the work(s) in question could be a dire mistake. That *could* be
              construed as an abuse of process. Some courts don't take that lightly - especially
              if it is done by a member of the Bar. Or someone posing as a lawyer!

              Now comes Jack Pot, a prolific author and seller of systems for all kinds of
              gambling games found at your local casino. He knows that once he sells the
              first copy to an end user, the whole world may well know at least the crux his latest
              "holy grail" by the end of the day due to the WWW, Usenet, etc. if not the entire tome.
              So he cleverly tries to borrow an idea from software sellers...he'll either 'license' the
              plan or get the purchaser to agree, in writing, to not divulge it nor re-sell it.

              Had Jack Pot done some simple research he'd have easily found out that he only
              has "first-sale" rights. Once he has sold it, it can then be resold or given away or
              destroyed. He has no more control of it. That is to say while he still retains all
              the intellectual rights embodied in the work, he can't control the physical copies.
              Software companies found that out a long time ago. See:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
              for an easy to read overview of that issue. That's federal law explained there and
              it just about trumps anything clever folks can conceive. While an e-book cannot
              be classified as "software" it has similar properties being that it is composed of
              1's and 0's and can only function or be read within a computer. Therefore, like a
              computer program, it can be lawfully sold if it is wiped off the computer from whence
              it came and the seller of that copy disposes of all other lawfully made copies.
              If it is a paper version then it goes without saying that the purchased
              copy can be re-sold, given away or destroyed.

              As to the licensing plan...scrap that. While the federal courts are semi-split on that
              issue, virtually every state has codified re-sale rights within their state Uniform
              Commercial Code (UCC) and that is due to the software companies under-handed
              tactics to avoid the first-sale doctrine (think anti-UCITA).
              Again, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
              for a list of seminal cases on the subject.

              Okay but what about the written agreement? Probably not worth the paper or the
              electrons it is written on. State and federal courts have ruled that even if a
              purchaser made such an agreement to get the merchandise in the first place, it
              isn't enforceable because the law ALLOWS anyone to dispose of their property as
              they see fit. That covers virtually any purchase of any type of good, be it a book,
              record, CD, sofa, table, motor vehicle, etc. Court cases abound with agreements
              to not resell. Subject matter of a no-resale agreement or buy-back clauses include
              agreements to resell back to an artist a one-of-a-kind work of art; resell back to a
              breeder a dog that was purchased, etc. The non-complying folks were sued. The
              plaintiff's (the suers) lost. The courts ruled that in all the cases once you own it, via
              full and complete payment (take title), it is yours to do with what you will because
              both the Federal law as well as individual state laws are clear on the matter.

              Then we also have to cover what happens if the property is lost, accidentally
              destroyed (fire/theft)? What happens in the very few jurisdictions where such a clause
              or agreement is lawfully binding (depending on the express language of the
              contract and the subject matter, itself) and the party to the contract dies?
              Well, the contract expires when the maker dies even if the original contract
              language binds all heirs because they were not privy to the contract.
              Basically, the only folks bound by such agreements - where heirs and assigns are
              covered - are on-going enterprises or perpetual entities such as corporations.

              Oh, and if Jack Pot lists and sells the plan for $100 and that is the standard price and
              then turns around and sells a few for $50 because he needed some fast cash he may
              be in violation of the Clayton Act.

              That may sound silly at first glance and the Act was surely aimed at large manufacturers
              and wholesalers when it was passed by Congress but laws passed by Congress have
              a way of getting expanded. Anyone familiar with the Rico Act knows that. In layman's
              parlance such an expansion of law is called the law of unintended consequences.

              Anyway, during the discovery phase of any trial the defense lawyers will be demanding
              a copy of the sales records (and the seller better have good records) because surely
              Jack Pot will state a claim for diminished sales among other claims. If such a disparity
              (as stated above) is found, the defense may well threaten the seller with a formal complaint
              a Clayton Act violation. Even if that wouldn't turn out to be the case (consideration denied
              by the court or the U.S. Attorney) it will mean a few grand more in Jack Pot's lawyer's
              pocket since JP's lawyer will certainly advise and possibly defend on the issue.

              No one posting here is in anyway encouraged to reveal or divulge a 'for-sale'
              system or method - regardless of circumstance - even though it is probably lawful to
              do so. Just because something may be legal to do that doesn't mean it should be
              done. At the same time folks should feel free to discuss systems or methods in general
              terms...."