Welcome Guest
You last visited December 8, 2016, 1:03 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Statistically Speaking - QP's and PP's

Topic closed. 1161 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Todd.

 Page 3 of 78
New Member
London
United Kingdom
Member #93634
July 4, 2010
24 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 9:53 am - IP Logged

I seldom use Quick Picks anymore.  I developed a system back in early 2008 which I still use today.  Basically, what my system does is divide the lottery draws into two sets.  One set is of the draws that fall into a certain pattern where Ball 1 falls into certain range, Ball 2 falls into a certain range, etc. and even the sum of all Balls falls into a certain range.  The other set is of the draws that don't fall into this pattern.  I try to size each set to about 50%.  The first set I call normal draws, and the second set I call anomalies or aberations.  Then I also rate the Balls or Numbers from Hot to Cold and choose only "Warm" for my draws.

Basically what it comes down to is this.  I'm aiming for a microscopic bullseye on a gigantic target.  And like with any system, I have my hits and misses.  I've never won the jackpot, but I have come close a few times.  On the Arizona Pick 5, I've gotten 4 out of 5 several times, each time winning \$500.00.  And on the Arizona Pick 6, once I got 5 out of 6 which won me \$2,000.00.  I guess that the fact that I have come so close a few times gives me encouragement to keep trying.

What I've found out about Quick Picks is this.  I get many more anomilies or aberations than I do normal draws.  And it's gotten to the point that I really don't trust Quick Picks anymore.  Sometimes I will pick a few QP's in the middle or at the end of the numbers that I pick.  Which brings me to another point.

Do you wonder if the order in which your play slips are played makes any difference?  If I'm drawing QP's along with my own numbers, then, yes, I do.  But then I feel somewhat idiotic when asking the sales clerk to enter my playslips a certain way, and then if they don't enter them a certain way, which upsets me, then I get kinda upset, which makes me feel even more idiotic.  Usually what I do is hold back a play slip of QP's to be drawn at the end of my "run" which I hand to the sales clerk after they've run the others, saying, "Oh, and could you run these, too?"  I usually have a wry smile on my face when I do this which puzzles the sales clerk.

Your system looks interesting and the fact that you have some success with it proves something. Have you considered playing more lines within each group of numbers ?

I am trying a slightly similar system where I randomly divide all the numbers into 2 unequal groups of say, 15/49 and 24/49; betting heavy on the smaller group and basically cover every number nearly twice over in the larger group.

Unlike the game of roulette, I believe every number in a lottery draw must be played at least once to stand any chance of winning any prize.

Harbinger
D.C./MD.
United States
Member #44103
July 30, 2006
5583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 10:23 am - IP Logged

Self deprecating again? I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to understand exactly what that means but I think I stopped doing it when I got married.

So your answer to my question is: "It says 1 to 4,  1 self pick has the efficacy of 4 QP's." Isn't that more of a conclusion than an answer to my question?

And no, I've never been a justice. My only experience in that realm has been in the evasion process when I found it conducive to the maintenance of liberty.

Yes, it is an answer,  like on a test,  a relevant statistics test.   Your question is like a test wanting an answer that gives a correct conclusion or solution to the question.

From the Wikipedia:

Generally, an answer is a reply to a question or is a solution, a retaliation, or a response that is relevant to the said question.

In law, an answer was originally a solemn assertion in opposition to some one or something, and thus generally any counter-statement or defense, a reply to a question or response, or objection, or a correct solution of a problem.[1]

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 11:04 am - IP Logged

Yes, it is an answer,  like on a test,  a relevant statistics test.   Your question is like a test wanting an answer that gives a correct conclusion or solution to the question.

From the Wikipedia:

Generally, an answer is a reply to a question or is a solution, a retaliation, or a response that is relevant to the said question.

In law, an answer was originally a solemn assertion in opposition to some one or something, and thus generally any counter-statement or defense, a reply to a question or response, or objection, or a correct solution of a problem.[1]

Ok, let me make absolutely sure I understand this because I'm starting to think I'm a lot stupider than I thought I was.

This was my question with a follow up:

Do Player Pick tickets produce more winners/jackpots as a percentage of tickets sold compared to Quick Picks on the same basis? If so, do they do it consistently?

1 Player Pick ticket has the efficacy of 4 Quick Pick tickets.

OK, now to me that's still a conclusion (we could parse all day, let's not) rather than an answer to the question but I'll take your word for it that you have answered my question.

I would, however, like to ask you if you could answer the same question(s) with a simple yes or no.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

--Edmund Burke

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 11:26 am - IP Logged

Ok, let me make absolutely sure I understand this because I'm starting to think I'm a lot stupider than I thought I was.

This was my question with a follow up:

Do Player Pick tickets produce more winners/jackpots as a percentage of tickets sold compared to Quick Picks on the same basis? If so, do they do it consistently?

1 Player Pick ticket has the efficacy of 4 Quick Pick tickets.

OK, now to me that's still a conclusion (we could parse all day, let's not) rather than an answer to the question but I'll take your word for it that you have answered my question.

I would, however, like to ask you if you could answer the same question(s) with a simple yes or no.

We're going to let you spin on this one.

It's much more fun watching that, than trying to explain the obvious.

Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
Any gain or loss is your responsibility.

Order is a Subset of Chaos
Knowledge is Beyond Belief
Wisdom is Not Censored
Douglas Paul Smallish
Jehocifer

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 11:33 am - IP Logged

QP's are good in that they give the player a chance with a random set of numbers which could possibly be drawn in any order. PP's can actually be "tailored" around what's going on with the current draw, last draw, and so forth which ultimately gives the player much better odds of actually winning.

QP's have a tendancy to be very "lazy" when it comes to providing quality sets of numbers, although, they do produce lucky winners every now and again.

In terms of efficiency, PP's will always be much more efficient due to 100% control of the numbers selected by the player.

Disclaimer: The opinions shared here are solely mine and are not designed to influence anyone in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

L.L.

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 11:56 am - IP Logged

We're going to let you spin on this one.

It's much more fun watching that, than trying to explain the obvious.

Thanks for the help buddy.

Oh, and the condescending attitude too, appreciate it. I'm obviously too far beneath your level for you to trifle with.

Who's we by the way, when you say "we're" going to let you spin?

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

--Edmund Burke

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10351 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 12:50 pm - IP Logged

When, despite all the calulations, communiques with the No Such Agency think tank and the super secret CIA crack the lottery code project in Langley, someone who has done all that hits 5 + 1 only to split their jackpot with one or more other players who had the same set of numbers on a QP, or several people who got them off of a fortune cookie, then what?

It appears that, a few current very active threads considered, the one conclusive thing we can say is the bigger a person's ego is the less likely they are to play quick picks.

For the number of memebers here, the insistence on a system that produces winners, and an absolute lack of a won jackpot via such a system........well, like some sports announcers say in a close game situation, "We'll let the crowd tell you what happens".

Balls! cried the Queen, I could bre King if I had to!

And the King laughed and laughed and laughed because he had two!

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 3:14 pm - IP Logged

When, despite all the calulations, communiques with the No Such Agency think tank and the super secret CIA crack the lottery code project in Langley, someone who has done all that hits 5 + 1 only to split their jackpot with one or more other players who had the same set of numbers on a QP, or several people who got them off of a fortune cookie, then what?

It appears that, a few current very active threads considered, the one conclusive thing we can say is the bigger a person's ego is the less likely they are to play quick picks.

For the number of memebers here, the insistence on a system that produces winners, and an absolute lack of a won jackpot via such a system........well, like some sports announcers say in a close game situation, "We'll let the crowd tell you what happens".

Balls! cried the Queen, I could bre King if I had to!

And the King laughed and laughed and laughed because he had two!

I see what you've been dealing with now Coin.

I tell the guy I have no preference, no dog in the fight and I politely ask for a simple answer explaining that I'm stupid.

And what does he do? He gets an attitude because he can't answer the question.

I didn't realize I'd become an enemy just for asking a question.

So what have I learned from him?

Here's what I learned: It's not that he won't give me an answer, it's that he doesn't have an answer.  It's that he can't give me an honest answer that fits his wishful thinking. That's what I learned.

Another loudmouth blowhard.

All talk.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

--Edmund Burke

United States
Member #81843
October 31, 2009
856 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 3:22 pm - IP Logged

I just don’t get it. Time and again certain members want poof and when it is delivered with anything more than a failed false Ben Franklin Decision chart, it is challenged. Here is a guy who did not like a Franklin decision and he is still a loser:

But what does Quick Pigs, a BBQ and Bag Balm have to do with this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2002/10/21/smallb2.html

As for   “It appears that, a few current very active threads considered, the one conclusive thing we can say is the bigger a person's ego is the less likely they are to play quick picks.”

Who is WE? Are ‘WE’ more concerned about ego or facts? If the facts do not have any relevance in an answer, then it is EGO that needs to MAN-UP. When facts are delivered to the unwashed masses, the common clay, the morons and get tread under foot with an attack of “your ego is showing”, it is nothing less but pearls before the swine. Don't let your EGO be insulted by facts.

http://artofmanliness.com/2009/08/17/how-to-make-a-decision-like-ben-franklin/

Thank you for this thread. I am convinced that there are people slow to speech that are taking this in and are deciding for themselves what action is best for them. CT, your monkey is showing a monkey-shine.Go watch some more TV. EGO has proven to be the flaw of many a military stratagist: Hitler, Napoleon, etc.

Love those Quickie-Piggies!! Go porkrhind!

DD

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10351 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 3:23 pm - IP Logged

Indeed, rdgrnr. AND puts up a post about answering questions. That's certainly one for the "You gotta be whackin' me file".

To all number selectors, it's said a picture is worth a thousand words, and it's also said that one "did" beats 10,000 "gonnas".

In things lotto we can say that one did (wininng a jackpot) beats tens or hundred of millions of gonnas (my numbers are gonna....)

When you gotta shoot, shoot don't talk

- Eli Wallach, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

Harbinger
D.C./MD.
United States
Member #44103
July 30, 2006
5583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 3:53 pm - IP Logged

Jade is math.  In college I studied it for the engineering,  thru differential eqs. Laplace,  integral calc. vector stuff.  I respect Jade's mathematical prowess,  his equations are impeccable.   There is no funny stuff with his variables,  derivations,  substitutions (inserting actual values),  and  results.  He got me motivated to get out the books on more than one occasion.

Since there are people out there that have won using self picks,  means it does happen and is possible, notice 40% JP's or so are self picked,  it is a system whatever it may be,  it is still not QPied.  Not everybody that has systems is on LP.  I know a DC daily 6 JP 6 of 6 winner \$250K not QP'd but self picked. I know a MD lotto winner not QP'd (6 of 6  \$1.5M) but self picked from the 90's.    There are those here on LP that believe in fortune cookies,  lottery terminals,   and that they are somehow w/o ego HA!   The odd thing that doesn't get mentioned,  is that there are no QP jackpot winners either.  Playing QP's is a system that may never pay a dime,  most everybody that plays QP's eventually stop because they die or get fed up before they hit for more than \$150.00.

The demanding attitude of "prove it to me"  will not happen for a jackpot if it does happen.  Get my drift?   There is no obligation of anybody here on LP to divulge a jackpot hit.  There have been numerous posts of self pick system predicting results,  that do way better than terminal generated numbers.  And again I will restate again this year alone several people here have hit 5 of 5 6 of 6 on the prediction boards.  This is all conveniently ignored.

Hitting a Jackpot repeatedly is not going happen,  but the odds,  that it will,  are increased significantly using your own picks.

Did you know when they sparked up the first nuke Trinity they didn't know whether or not they would ignite the Earth's atmosphere into a unstoppable chain reaction?

United States
Member #81843
October 31, 2009
856 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 3:58 pm - IP Logged

Good post J.

"Did you know when they sparked up the first nuke Trinity they didn't know whether or not they would ignite the Earth's atmosphere into a unstoppable chain reaction?"

Did you know that would have ended the war also?

DD

Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
United States
Member #73904
April 28, 2009
14903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 4:33 pm - IP Logged

Jade is math.  In college I studied it for the engineering,  thru differential eqs. Laplace,  integral calc. vector stuff.  I respect Jade's mathematical prowess,  his equations are impeccable.   There is no funny stuff with his variables,  derivations,  substitutions (inserting actual values),  and  results.  He got me motivated to get out the books on more than one occasion.

Since there are people out there that have won using self picks,  means it does happen and is possible, notice 40% JP's or so are self picked,  it is a system whatever it may be,  it is still not QPied.  Not everybody that has systems is on LP.  I know a DC daily 6 JP 6 of 6 winner \$250K not QP'd but self picked. I know a MD lotto winner not QP'd (6 of 6  \$1.5M) but self picked from the 90's.    There are those here on LP that believe in fortune cookies,  lottery terminals,   and that they are somehow w/o ego HA!   The odd thing that doesn't get mentioned,  is that there are no QP jackpot winners either.  Playing QP's is a system that may never pay a dime,  most everybody that plays QP's eventually stop because they die or get fed up before they hit for more than \$150.00.

The demanding attitude of "prove it to me"  will not happen for a jackpot if it does happen.  Get my drift?   There is no obligation of anybody here on LP to divulge a jackpot hit.  There have been numerous posts of self pick system predicting results,  that do way better than terminal generated numbers.  And again I will restate again this year alone several people here have hit 5 of 5 6 of 6 on the prediction boards.  This is all conveniently ignored.

Hitting a Jackpot repeatedly is not going happen,  but the odds,  that it will,  are increased significantly using your own picks.

Did you know when they sparked up the first nuke Trinity they didn't know whether or not they would ignite the Earth's atmosphere into a unstoppable chain reaction?

I asked him a question and he got all indignant because he thinks he's better than everybody else.

He doesn't want his dogma questioned.

Another liberal idiot with a big mouth.

You tried to answer my question Jarasan, I respect that.

I got no respect for an idiot phony like jade.

For the record, I never asked anybody to "prove" anything. I just asked a simple question as a neutral party on the subject.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

--Edmund Burke

United States
Member #81843
October 31, 2009
856 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 5:02 pm - IP Logged

Look for the slow Quick Pigs

DD

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 10, 2010, 5:22 pm - IP Logged

I asked him a question and he got all indignant because he thinks he's better than everybody else.

He doesn't want his dogma questioned.

Another liberal idiot with a big mouth.

You tried to answer my question Jarasan, I respect that.

I got no respect for an idiot phony like jade.

For the record, I never asked anybody to "prove" anything. I just asked a simple question as a neutral party on the subject.

i dunno.  can't form that kind of opinion of him yet,  cuz i haven't had any "one on one" time with jade.

but,  tapping into jade's impressive mathematical skills,  you can tell,  if there is one person at LP that has the "statistical skeleton" to be able to build a body of believability,  as far as being able to map out the possibility of a system working, by being repeatable,  it's  jade.

that being said,  it's a stupendous waste of time to go into intricate mathematical equations in order to arrive at a "maybe",  when walking up to the front door,  and ringing the door bell will do the trick.

so,  jade,  in any game,  are you  able to make a consistent profit off of your "system"?

when i said it must be "repeatable",  i wasn't inferring jackpot jackpot jackpot,   but rather a fair indicator that someone actually has something.

by anyones definition,  the kind of "system" systems players in here allude to should be able to produce multiple hits.

a one hit here, a one hit there proves nothing, other than luck.

******************************************************************************************

plus,  "if" a system works,  it's PROFITABLE.

meaning ----->  you consistently make more than you spend.

unless a system does that on a consistent basis,  they don't have squat.

"theories" pay nothing in cash  (i need to trademark that)

********************************************************************************************

this is the point where the systems players loose their ability to speak simple plain english in terms that every person on the planet can understand....

does your  "system"  provide you consistent income, instead of consistent outgo ?

to be perfectly integrity fair,  "one big hit" on a system isn't necessarily an indicator that system had some teeth.

it can purely mean you got lucky once

the only way anyone can push their chest out about systems ruling the lottery planet,  is that someone can prove consistentcy,  repeatability,  sustainability,  and most important profitability.

care to answer the question jade?     (and no, i am not busting your chops as they say).  i am asking you,  because i believe out of everyone here......you could)

because in watching LP for 8 years.......no one has demonstrated the above yellow highlighted edict

respectfully,  VISION

"i am .........."meant to"

P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

 Page 3 of 78