United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 3:05 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on September 30, 2010

The Digit System Disclaimer!!!

The digit system is a method of building sets of numbers without regard for the actual numbers within the set. All numbers are made of one or more digits. The data below is calculated using a 5 of 39 lottery matrix which contains 575757 different combinations of 5 numbers.

The overall odds of winning a prize for this game = 1 in 8.7 for >=$1.00 prize

match 5 of 5 = 1 in 575757 match 4 of 5 = 1 in 3386.8 match 3 of 5 = 1 in 102.6 match 2 of 5 = 1 in 9.6 match 1 of 5 = 1 in 2.48 match 0 of 5 = 1 in 2.09

In a 5-39 matrix for any single drawing

278256 sets have 0 numbers 231880 sets have 1 number 59840 sets have 2 numbers 5610 sets have 3 numbers 170 sets have 4 numbers 1 set has 5 numbers

Pay attention to the first two lines above, 510136 sets of the 575757 have one or less of the numbers that will be drawn on any given day. The odds would say that you could expect to win on average $1.00 for every $8.70 you spend showing a loss of $7.70 not counting your time you have invested. For many this should be enought for you to quit playing the lottery, also many of you also pay a fee to read these post which should be included in overall cost but could be trimmed.

looking at the above data it should be very clear that only 11% the the total tickets have any chance of winning any prize. However if you remove the 2 of 5 matches because this is not really winning any return then the true prize paying tickets are reduced to 5781 or .01% or 1 in every 1000 tickets sold will put any money back in your pocket. The overall odds of winning any prize greater then $1.00 is 1 in 1000. So the true odds are not the 1 in 8.7 advertised but 1 in 1000. 99.9 percent of all tickets sold have no chance of winning anything so pocket the dollar and don't play.

There is a certian jackass roaming the fields here at LP that has accused me of lying to people. He would also like to make people think that nothing can be done to improve ones play. He has also acused me of trying to use LP as a means to sell my software which is a flat out lie in its self. He claims that a trail of evidence exist to prove this and that he has twarted my efforts and scuttled my ship so to speak. He is a legend in his own mind and nowhere else. He hides behind some simple math to prove that which he does not understand. When given a truth he ignores it and then replies with snears and thinks himself very smart which he is not. He will focus on small typo's and errors and make big of them trying to lead people away from the things he cannot explain. He has made no real attemp at anything. His tactics show nothing but the need to be seen or heard. He has offered nothing that has or will help anyone pick or play a better game.

I have shown that winning any amount above the dollar invested has a 1 in 1000 chance which are the true odds for the game. I will now prove that beating the odds for the game is quite possible. I do not say that you will win millions of dollars or get rich doing this. I hope you win and will show you how I play this system.

The next post will begin this process.

All Patient Players,

While we're waiting for RL-RANDOMLOGIC to post the next step in the winning process, I thought I would extend his analysis of the probabilities involved in a (5,39) Lotto game. I'll use his values from Missouri for the probabilities of winning each prize category and the Payouts:

match 5 of 5 = 1 in 575757 match 4 of 5 = 1 in 3386.8 match 3 of 5 = 1 in 102.6 match 2 of 5 = 1 in 9.6 match 1 of 5 = 1 in 2.48 match 0 of 5 = 1 in 2.09

We need to add two more columns for each category - the Payoff (If you Win) and the Expected Value, which is the product of the Probability and Payoff. We will ignore 0/5 and and 1/5, since they pay nothing.

The overall Expected Value (EV) of one $1 ticket is the summation of the individual values for each prize category. The Expected Value in terms of the 3 lesser prizes for 2, 3, OR 4 out of 5 correct choices is:

$00.2755 == ( $0.1042+0.0975+0.0738),which is about 28¢ on the Dollar.

Another way of looking at this is, UNTIL you win a 5/5 Jackpot in the Missouri Show Me 5, on average, you will lose approximately 72¢ for every Dollar you spend on tickets! *

Since Missouri pays fixed amounts for the 3 lesser prizes, we can be sure of the above calculations. So the 72¢ loss is a fact* no matter what we determine below regarding the Jackpot numbers.

If we assume the $142862 estimate of the "Average" jackpot listed in the Missouri Lottery Factbook is the sum of all jackpot payouts divided by the number of draws, we get the 24.81¢ EV above, and a total for the ticket of 52.36¢.

But, according to their claims, this is too low!

Either they are not paying back 63.7% in this particular game, OR, their Jackpot estimate is a mistake.

But regardless of what the Jackpot EV is, it should be clear that if you rely on 2, 3, and 4 out of 5 winners to sustain you while you wait for your Jackpot Win, you are going to have to BEAT THE ODDS by a factor of nearly FOUR(3.6) to ONE(1) just to BREAK EVEN!!! (100 / 27.55)

Have you ever seen a system for a (5,39) Lotto game that picked winning tickets for the 3 minor prizes at such a fantastic rate -- THREE to FOUR times better than Chance?

Perhaps the second installment of the system promised here back on September 30th will get us off on the path to such a system!

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 5:26 pm - IP Logged

A few years ago I purchased a wagering method that I still can't fully understand. I understand the fundamental parts, but his wagering method is where I am confused.

I may post his method in a new thread later, so someone here who is smarter than I can decode it and use it for all our benefit. But for now, I want to post an excerpt dealing with randomness, particularily to the discussion at hand.

Years ago I researched the author's name on the net but could not find any info whatsoever. I recently haven't done any research, so maybe something is out there, and I will check it out after this post. He is supposedly a math professer who has turned the common knowledge taught in Universities on it's head. His method is called "The Koycerin Method". Koycerin being his name. Most who read this will probably disagree, but in my opinion it stands true.

The excerpt doesn't go into the actual wagering method, but only explains his basic undestanding of a 50/50 chance scenario.

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 5:43 pm - IP Logged

Well isn't that funny. I just did a search on the method and there's one top listing but the site is promoting some casino, not the method.

So there still isn't anything on the net with pertaining to his method. He must be living in a cave somewhere....lol

But it's funny because there are 2 links in the list that refer to a system I posted here on Lottery Post a few years ago when I was know as pacattack05. Some guy created a site using the key words of "Koycerin wagering method" and LP was on the list....ha ha

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 6:33 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on October 7, 2010

A few years ago I purchased a wagering method that I still can't fully understand. I understand the fundamental parts, but his wagering method is where I am confused.

I may post his method in a new thread later, so someone here who is smarter than I can decode it and use it for all our benefit. But for now, I want to post an excerpt dealing with randomness, particularily to the discussion at hand.

Years ago I researched the author's name on the net but could not find any info whatsoever. I recently haven't done any research, so maybe something is out there, and I will check it out after this post. He is supposedly a math professer who has turned the common knowledge taught in Universities on it's head. His method is called "The Koycerin Method". Koycerin being his name. Most who read this will probably disagree, but in my opinion it stands true.

The excerpt doesn't go into the actual wagering method, but only explains his basic undestanding of a 50/50 chance scenario.

Here's the excerpt:

joker17,

You really surprise me bringing this up at this time. This has been dealt with ad nauseum in this thread and in Fooled By Randomness. Your mysteriously disappearing math professor turned wagering method salesman writes,

"Upon the first presentation of my discovery which we will refer to as 'Random Number Displacement' ... or ... RND, for brevity, the old belief, which is still the accepted rule of random numbers by most students, was suppose to show that regardless of what happened in the past (results), it would have no bearing on the future. In other words ... if a coin was flipped 10 times and heads came up 10 times, then the odds of heads showing on the 11th toss were the same as the first toss. It was this accepted belief,which I know is wrong, which caused me to question the other accepted belief regarding random numbers."

Surely you must remember all the discussion of this fallacy.

Please plug "The Gambler's Fallacy" (minus the quotes) into your Google search box and choose one of the tons of links you will get.

Think about this:

If I asked you what the probability is of flipping a coin Heads six times in a row, you would rightfully answer,

0.015625 == 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 == 1/64 == 1:64 == 1/2 to the 6th power

However, if you observed someone flip a coin, which you know to be fair, Heads, FIVE(5) times in a row AND THEN, ask you what the odds are that their next flip is Heads, what would you say? If you believe your "math professor" quoted above, you would probably say 1/64. But you would be wrong. Why? The probability of 2 events occuring "back to back" is the product of their individual probabilities. In this case, the coin has ALREADY been flipped 5 times Heads, so the probability of that "event" happening is NOW1.0, a CERTAINTY, ONE POINT OH, because it has already happened!! So, the probability of the next flip being Heads is the probability of what has already happened times the probability of flipping Heads ONCE again, OR

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 7:01 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on October 7, 2010

joker17,

You really surprise me bringing this up at this time. This has been dealt with ad nauseum in this thread and in Fooled By Randomness. Your mysteriously disappearing math professor turned wagering method salesman writes,

"Upon the first presentation of my discovery which we will refer to as 'Random Number Displacement' ... or ... RND, for brevity, the old belief, which is still the accepted rule of random numbers by most students, was suppose to show that regardless of what happened in the past (results), it would have no bearing on the future. In other words ... if a coin was flipped 10 times and heads came up 10 times, then the odds of heads showing on the 11th toss were the same as the first toss. It was this accepted belief,which I know is wrong, which caused me to question the other accepted belief regarding random numbers."

Surely you must remember all the discussion of this fallacy.

Please plug "The Gambler's Fallacy" (minus the quotes) into your Google search box and choose one of the tons of links you will get.

Think about this:

If I asked you what the probability is of flipping a coin Heads six times in a row, you would rightfully answer,

0.015625 == 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 == 1/64 == 1:64 == 1/2 to the 6th power

However, if you observed someone flip a coin, which you know to be fair, Heads, FIVE(5) times in a row AND THEN, ask you what the odds are that their next flip is Heads, what would you say? If you believe your "math professor" quoted above, you would probably say 1/64. But you would be wrong. Why? The probability of 2 events occuring "back to back" is the product of their individual probabilities. In this case, the coin has ALREADY been flipped 5 times Heads, so the probability of that "event" happening is NOW1.0, a CERTAINTY, ONE POINT OH, because it has already happened!! So, the probability of the next flip being Heads is the probability of what has already happened times the probability of flipping Heads ONCE again, OR

1.0 X (1/2) == 0.50 == 1/2 == 1:2

--Jimmy4164

Actually I haven't read the Fallacy, or the endless pages of the threads you mentioned. And I don't intend to either. I did read few pages back within this thread though.

My math is terrible, so when you show me all those equations, it goes right over my head.

You seem to have skipped the part about how the "Old Idea" would be true If the coin was only flipped once in a lifetime, but because it is flipped more than once, the odds continually climb against the occurrence happening again. You may think that If a coin was tossed 9 times heads, the odds of it being tossed a 10th time is still 50/50 , but what would YOU BET ON? That's the core of this method.

If you think you're smarter than a professor, then be my guest. I'm not gonna go on a long debate with this, i simply uploaded this because I thought it was interesting to show a different point of view.

I tend to believe his theory because of many reasons. One of them is because he writes as though he knows what he's talking about, and he also states in pages later on, that there a re a few professional gamblers who make a living by going into casinos and all they do is look for RND patterns to form in slots, or whatever game, and bet accordingly.

Based on the previous pages that i read in this thread, you seem to be the kind of person that thinks they know it all, but just because it's hasn't been proven or brought to light does NOT not mean a way to beat the odds can't exist.

There's an old saying. "Never listen to someone who isn't doing better than you".

I respect your knowledge in math and analyzation, but It's my belief that when someone comes to a site designed with forums for discussing various methods and strategies to overcome the odds, and puts down the poster who is trying to help others, shows me that the person's ego is getting the better of him/her. Just my opinion.

Texas United States Member #55889 October 23, 2007 5615 Posts Offline

Posted: October 7, 2010, 10:11 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on October 7, 2010

Actually I haven't read the Fallacy, or the endless pages of the threads you mentioned. And I don't intend to either. I did read few pages back within this thread though.

My math is terrible, so when you show me all those equations, it goes right over my head.

You seem to have skipped the part about how the "Old Idea" would be true If the coin was only flipped once in a lifetime, but because it is flipped more than once, the odds continually climb against the occurrence happening again. You may think that If a coin was tossed 9 times heads, the odds of it being tossed a 10th time is still 50/50 , but what would YOU BET ON? That's the core of this method.

If you think you're smarter than a professor, then be my guest. I'm not gonna go on a long debate with this, i simply uploaded this because I thought it was interesting to show a different point of view.

I tend to believe his theory because of many reasons. One of them is because he writes as though he knows what he's talking about, and he also states in pages later on, that there a re a few professional gamblers who make a living by going into casinos and all they do is look for RND patterns to form in slots, or whatever game, and bet accordingly.

Based on the previous pages that i read in this thread, you seem to be the kind of person that thinks they know it all, but just because it's hasn't been proven or brought to light does NOT not mean a way to beat the odds can't exist.

There's an old saying. "Never listen to someone who isn't doing better than you".

I respect your knowledge in math and analyzation, but It's my belief that when someone comes to a site designed with forums for discussing various methods and strategies to overcome the odds, and puts down the poster who is trying to help others, shows me that the person's ego is getting the better of him/her. Just my opinion.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: October 8, 2010, 2:20 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on October 7, 2010

Jimmy,

At one time I was in the service of this nation where each year each member is required to undergo a physical exam.

On such occasions the mettle of a man is tested in ways not essential to combat.

One particular young gentlemen, one of the strongest among us, was terrified of needles, passing out at the sight of the corpmen testing the spray.

Too, he was a particularly bright young fellow, choosing to become an accountant.

Yet for all his strength, for all the classes he had taken, and all the work he had done with numbers, he could not pass the simplest of test.

Since he couldn't see the numbers in some of the color blind charts, those who could had a problem.

And he would tell you so.

garyo1954,

Poor fellow.

Since RL-RANDOMLOGIC offered to decode the colorful charts for ALL to see on 9/30, it's such a shame he lurks in the shadows while others make pathetic attempts to divert attention from the question at hand.

At least joker17 was willing to admit he didn't understand the math. All you've managed to do is cobble together a poorly contrived mixed metaphor.

Why not sit back and wait for the proffered revelation in all its colorful brilliance.

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 3985 Posts Offline

Posted: October 8, 2010, 2:28 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on October 7, 2010

All Patient Players,

While we're waiting for RL-RANDOMLOGIC to post the next step in the winning process, I thought I would extend his analysis of the probabilities involved in a (5,39) Lotto game. I'll use his values from Missouri for the probabilities of winning each prize category and the Payouts:

match 5 of 5 = 1 in 575757 match 4 of 5 = 1 in 3386.8 match 3 of 5 = 1 in 102.6 match 2 of 5 = 1 in 9.6 match 1 of 5 = 1 in 2.48 match 0 of 5 = 1 in 2.09

We need to add two more columns for each category - the Payoff (If you Win) and the Expected Value, which is the product of the Probability and Payoff. We will ignore 0/5 and and 1/5, since they pay nothing.

The overall Expected Value (EV) of one $1 ticket is the summation of the individual values for each prize category. The Expected Value in terms of the 3 lesser prizes for 2, 3, OR 4 out of 5 correct choices is:

$00.2755 == ( $0.1042+0.0975+0.0738),which is about 28¢ on the Dollar.

Another way of looking at this is, UNTIL you win a 5/5 Jackpot in the Missouri Show Me 5, on average, you will lose approximately 72¢ for every Dollar you spend on tickets! *

Since Missouri pays fixed amounts for the 3 lesser prizes, we can be sure of the above calculations. So the 72¢ loss is a fact* no matter what we determine below regarding the Jackpot numbers.

If we assume the $142862 estimate of the "Average" jackpot listed in the Missouri Lottery Factbook is the sum of all jackpot payouts divided by the number of draws, we get the 24.81¢ EV above, and a total for the ticket of 52.36¢.

But, according to their claims, this is too low!

Either they are not paying back 63.7% in this particular game, OR, their Jackpot estimate is a mistake.

But regardless of what the Jackpot EV is, it should be clear that if you rely on 2, 3, and 4 out of 5 winners to sustain you while you wait for your Jackpot Win, you are going to have to BEAT THE ODDS by a factor of nearly FOUR(3.6) to ONE(1) just to BREAK EVEN!!! (100 / 27.55)

Have you ever seen a system for a (5,39) Lotto game that picked winning tickets for the 3 minor prizes at such a fantastic rate -- THREE to FOUR times better than Chance?

Perhaps the second installment of the system promised here back on September 30th will get us off on the path to such a system!

As Promised at that time(above):

"The next post will begin this process."

--Jimmy4164

-----------------------------------

* Assuming Quick Picks, of course!

Jimmy

So if I post the last lets say $100.00 of tickets that I have purchased for my 5-39 game and show

that I have beat the odds you have listed above then you will go away; I don't think that you will.

You will come back with some kind of remark that I must have spent thousands of dollars to produce

the winning tickets. Since I posted that I would post my winning tickets I have spent less than $100.00

total. here is a rough estimate of my play

Just going from memeory

$13.00 * 2

$9.00 * 2

$11.00 *1

$10.00 *1

$15.00 *2

two plays I did not win anything

one play I won back the same as I played

one play I lost $3.00

I have won around $400.00 total

I will finish this post in my own time. I have another life apart from this post and have

very little time to teach you as you are not a very high priority because you won't

accept anything I say. You might have been interesting some 500 years ago, back

when many thought the world was flat but I find your use of basic math a bore. Explain

how any of your post will help me win anything. I repeat, "odd are for loosers". I don't think

you know what this means but think about it. I told you, before the very first drawing

I knew what and how I would play. Why don't you look into this and report what you

find. Every calculation concerning the lottery you have posted was made by me 20+

years ago and was used as baseline values. You claim that a QP is as good a buy as

any other set and I say it is not. Calculate the values for the universe of numbers and

then using your basic skills tell me if you still think this is true. You see this whole

system is based on the number of digits that make up any given set

5-39 total universe of sets

7290 of 575757 have 8 different digits or .01266

82740 of 575757 have 7 different digits or .14371

229473 of 575757 have 6 different digits or .39856

199500 of 575757 have 5 different digits or .34650

53364 of 575757 have 4 different digits or .09268

3372 of 575757 have 3 different digits or .00586

18 of 575757 have 2 different digits or .00003

Actual sets drawn

5 of 760 have 8 different digits or .00658

117 of 760 have 7 different digits or .15395

291 of 760 have 6 different digits or .38289

267 of 760 have 5 different digits or .35132

76 of 760 have 4 different digits or .1

4 of 760 have 3 different digits or .00526

0 of 760 have 2 different digits or .0

Notice how close the drawings mimic the universe,

I tell people to play sets that have 5 and 6 total digits because they will have a chance of

winning 7.4 drawings out of 10.

Now if they play one set with 2 and one set with 3 and one set with 4 and one

set with 7 and one set with 8 then they could expect to have a chance of winning

only 2.7 draws in every 10.

In other words, playing any sets with less then 5 and greater then 6 digits have no chance

of winning 7.4 of every 10 drawings on average.

You think that I suffer from gamblers fallacy because I think that what has been drawn

is somehow related to what will be drawn. This is your fallacy, The drawings will always

follow the matrix. Ball drop, RNG does not matter. I can't predict which number will be

drawn and don't try. What I do is mimic the universe of possible sets as close as I can

in many many different ways. I care nothing for what is drawn concerning the numbers

I only care that the sets I play mimic the universe. The sets drawn are not random in this

regard but a selective sample. This is so simple I can't understand why you cannot see

this. I have prefected my play methods and tried to share this with others and for this

you have felt the need to trash this post. Don't bother trying to undermind this but accept

it for what it is. I know you will add everything togeather and make your old claim that every

set has the same odds of being drawn but save your thoughts because I don't believe it.

RL

Working on my Ph.D. "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not. Many great discoveries come while searching for something else