West Concord, MN United States Member #21 December 7, 2001 3675 Posts Offline

Posted: July 11, 2010, 10:41 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on July 11, 2010

i guess that means jade isn't willing to answer my question either.

not that i usually let someone off the hook on something they should be accountable for, but "doug" has bigger fish to fry than anything having to do with the lottery, so this marks the 1st time i have ever bowed out of a challenge myself since i have been at LP.

jade / doug, i wish you well man.

praying for you

self destructive thinking / behavior is a choice......no matter what has happened to you in your life.

don't buy into that lie that you "have to"

VISION

Vision,

It's not you.

Your involvement is greatly appeciated.

He opened this whole thing up when he asked, "Or am I nuts?"

Well, nobody knows about 'Nuts' than me, but I will get to the questions at hand when the time presents itself.

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

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

light on my feet United States Member #356 May 20, 2002 2744 Posts Offline

Posted: July 11, 2010, 10:50 pm - IP Logged

i agree, having not read the "statistics" myself, and accepting for face value what someone else stated, that sounds about right, that "most people" percentage-wise buy quick picks.

that part isn't what i am personally contending against.

my deal is the randomness of it all, against the "theory" that anyone has the ability to manufacture a "better" outcome than any other methodology, including the higher percentage of QP wins.

i "argue" the QP angle, because it is "brainless" on purpose.

takes the human element completely out of it, so long as the lottery random generator has "integrity".

i personally don't care how a person wins 'numbers wise'. all i care is don't sell it like you "made it happen", because integrity wise, that ain't true.

it's random

i know, it's kicking a dead horse, but it's still worth repeating.......that no one can even master the pick3 over time

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

Posted: July 12, 2010, 12:37 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by four4me on July 9, 2010

To each his own.... i think the average player chooses q picks because they have no knowledge of wheels or systems. Lots of sales of q picks might include pools where the group purchases quick picks.

I've been in pool where 10 people pitched in 10 bucks for 100 q picks when i asked the group if they wanted to create a wheel for the next pot they were like Huh! what are you talking about... I explained how a wheel works and they chose q picks over any wheeling attempt every time i suggested it.. They strongly believed that 100 quick picks would yield a wider dispersement of numbers.

If more people actually chose their numbers rather than buy Q picks then that group would win more but in the real world system players are few and far between the average ticket purchaser.

Then there is the third group of players who only purchase the same picks every time.... and the mom and pop players that choose numbers based on family numbers birthdays and such this group wins sometimes and will brag about how they chose their picks. Some people might call this a system but in actually it's not... it's just luck.

"If more people actually chose their numbers rather than buy Q picks then that group would win more..."

There is no need to speculate about the truth or falsity of this statement. A computer simulation could easily be written to determine if there is any difference in the outcomes of the 2 approaches. This being the case, I would assume that at least one proponent of wheel systems would have written such a simulation. Do you know of any?

MD United States Member #1701 June 18, 2003 8360 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 12:50 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on July 12, 2010

"If more people actually chose their numbers rather than buy Q picks then that group would win more..."

There is no need to speculate about the truth or falsity of this statement. A computer simulation could easily be written to determine if there is any difference in the outcomes of the 2 approaches. This being the case, I would assume that at least one proponent of wheel systems would have written such a simulation. Do you know of any?

Please don't take what i said any other way than what i said.... more people picked their numbers rather than bought qpicks would equal more winners who chose their numbers rather than bought quick picks it's common sense.

If you looking for wheeling systems lottery post has some and BobP has some on here

United States Member #68002 December 10, 2008 477 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 1:01 am - IP Logged

RANDOM NUMBERS/GAMES OF CHANCE

Yeah so the lottery games are random but some players know that there are patterns,variables,cycles etc.. that are exploitable maybe not on a regular basis but enough that you can TILT the odds more in your favor or provide a handicap that increases your chances of winning,and if your really good at it you can win more than the average player.

light on my feet United States Member #356 May 20, 2002 2744 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 1:34 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LotteryTechInc on July 12, 2010

RANDOM NUMBERS/GAMES OF CHANCE

Yeah so the lottery games are random but some players know that there are patterns,variables,cycles etc.. that are exploitable maybe not on a regular basis but enough that you can TILT the odds more in your favor or provide a handicap that increases your chances of winning,and if your really good at it you can win more than the average player.

if the lottery has the built in security measures as i described earlier, it would be impossible to identify "patterns, cycles, and variables" in ball drawings where they switch out the balls and machines every draw.

lottery balls all weigh the same weight, therefore they are "untrackable" by design, negating the possibility of "patterns" to exist.

each ball by design has the same equal chance to draw. the only "bias" possible, would be what i would like to refer as "compromised balls". there, i said it.

the only possible way any person could "read" a future pattern into the lottery drawing, is if they had inside knowledge of which balls had been "compromised", and because ball sets are switched out every draw, and the general public has ZERO knowledge which ball set/machine combo they are using, a person would have to know when those balls were played, etc.

i would love to hear how any person can pick a "pattern" out of that scenario.

lottery balls have no "memory". they cannot speak to one another, so as to remind #4 that his turn is up. they have no idea which one is "due", etc

ball draws are completely unpredictable.

mechanical draws, that's at least a possibility, because it is possible to pick up patterns in a flawed computer program

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

Posted: July 12, 2010, 2:03 am - IP Logged

It can be proven with a high degree of certainty with a computer simulation and with 100% certainty with probability theory that if you play a lotto game long enough, your winnings (or losses) will average out to the same number, regardless of whether you choose the numbers randomly or use some sort of systematic approach. In the case of a simple game of Pick-3, buying straight tickets, your losses, over time, in most states, will be 50% of the amount you spend on those tickets. What you CAN accomplish with a system is to effect the PATTERN of your winnings(losses.) Let's assume you buy ten(10) $1 Straight Win tickets each day in a Pick-3 daily number game. If you always buy nothing but ten(10) $1 tickets with the same number on each ticket every day, you will expect to hit once every 1000 days, and on those winning days you will win $5000(10*500). However, if you buy ten different $1 tickets each day using either QPs or your choice, by any means, you will expect to have ten(10) wins over 1000 days, each win netting you $500, for a total of $5000(10*500). Keep in mind, the cost of playing this game for 1000 days is $10,000. So your net loss is $5000! Now, if you still don't believe this, you will have to wait for another day, as it is past my bedtime!

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

Posted: July 12, 2010, 2:06 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on July 12, 2010

if the lottery has the built in security measures as i described earlier, it would be impossible to identify "patterns, cycles, and variables" in ball drawings where they switch out the balls and machines every draw.

lottery balls all weigh the same weight, therefore they are "untrackable" by design, negating the possibility of "patterns" to exist.

each ball by design has the same equal chance to draw. the only "bias" possible, would be what i would like to refer as "compromised balls". there, i said it.

the only possible way any person could "read" a future pattern into the lottery drawing, is if they had inside knowledge of which balls had been "compromised", and because ball sets are switched out every draw, and the general public has ZERO knowledge which ball set/machine combo they are using, a person would have to know when those balls were played, etc.

i would love to hear how any person can pick a "pattern" out of that scenario.

lottery balls have no "memory". they cannot speak to one another, so as to remind #4 that his turn is up. they have no idea which one is "due", etc

ball draws are completely unpredictable.

mechanical draws, that's at least a possibility, because it is possible to pick up patterns in a flawed computer program

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 3:21 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Delta Draw on July 9, 2010

No you are not nuts.

In fact you look at things too rationally and let facts speak for themselves.

The thing that throws the QP’s out for me are the duplicate sales of QP’s sets (winners and losers) when there are not enough sales to indicate one entire pool of combinations is exhausted. Duplicate losers and multiple winners on low sales tells me dumb luck is not involved. Three people have shared a QP win on a small jackpot. The sales and the prize payout would indicate that no less than two complete pools of QP combinations were sold. Neither happened.

DD

LP is the biggest site for players to meet in and there are less than 100,000 members. I would venture to say that the systematic play is a small percentage of all playslip betting. By systematic I mean bets that are made using something more than favorite numbers, played faithfully. To look at the sales is not enough to determine if QP’s are statistically superior to true systems. One point to note is the lack of advertising for systematic play and the advertising for QP’s.

"Thething that throws the QP’s out for me are the duplicate sales of QP’ssets (winners and losers) when there are not enough sales to indicateone entire pool of combinations is exhausted."

It appears that you don't understand how random picks and probability work. It's not necessary for all combinations to be used before some are repeated. All that's necessary is selling enough that probability guarantess that they start repeating.

Let's imagine that the first 1,757,116 QP's are sold with none of the combinations repeating. Since there are 175,711,536 possible combinations, 1% of them would have been played at that point. As sales continue and another 1,757,116 QP's are sold we should expect that 1% of them will repeat combinations from the first 1,757,116. That would mean that 17,571 combinations have now been played twice. It also means that another 1,739,545 combinations have been played, totaling 1.99%. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 1.99% of them, 34,966 will repeat combinations that were already played. There are now 52,537 combinations that have been played twice, and 3% of combinations have been played once. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 3% of them will be repeats, bringing the total number of repeats to about 105,000. As sales continue the process repeats, with ever larger numbers of combinations repeating. At the same time, some of the combinatins that have repeated twice will repeat a 3rd time, and so on.

You can very readily see the same process at work by dealing cards. With 13 cards in each suit you need to deal at least 13 cards to use each face value once, but if you deal 13 cards you are almost certainly going to be missing some values while others repeat. Deal 25 cards and you will almost certainly have 3 of at least one value.

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 3:26 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on July 10, 2010

I read the entire thread you linked and granted I'm not very smart but I didn't see an answer to my question.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I play and will play numbers from any and every source without preference. I couldn't care less what methods others use to play a game. I honestly don't care which method could be proven superior because I play the way I wanna play because I enjoy it. Lottery is a hobby for me, not a job. I would like to see a definitive answer on this question though just to satisfy my curiosity. And because an answer (your answer) is definitive to you doesn't make it that to me.

I'd just like an answer to this question because my mind understands common sense better than esoteric mathematical equations:

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?

I don't know how you could come up with anything conclusive without knowing and applying that information.

Or am I nuts?

You didn't see the answer because it wasn't there. All he did in that thread was spend a lot of effort, and use a bunch of complicated math to show what we already know from a different perspective. We already know that the 70/30 (give or take) split in sales results in a similar 70/30 split in winners. All he did was solve for how many prizes we should expect from QP's for each winning SP.

If 70 QP's are sold for every 30 SP's then for each individual SP sold there are 70/30, or 2.333 QP's sold. For an 80/20 split it's 4 QP's for each SP. That's where he gets his 1 SP = 4QP's schtick.

You can call it smoke and mirrors or a steaming pile of bull manure, but either way it's 1 "answer" = nothing useful.

United States Member #81843 October 31, 2009 856 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 8:15 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on July 12, 2010

"Thething that throws the QP’s out for me are the duplicate sales of QP’ssets (winners and losers) when there are not enough sales to indicateone entire pool of combinations is exhausted."

It appears that you don't understand how random picks and probability work. It's not necessary for all combinations to be used before some are repeated. All that's necessary is selling enough that probability guarantess that they start repeating.

Let's imagine that the first 1,757,116 QP's are sold with none of the combinations repeating. Since there are 175,711,536 possible combinations, 1% of them would have been played at that point. As sales continue and another 1,757,116 QP's are sold we should expect that 1% of them will repeat combinations from the first 1,757,116. That would mean that 17,571 combinations have now been played twice. It also means that another 1,739,545 combinations have been played, totaling 1.99%. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 1.99% of them, 34,966 will repeat combinations that were already played. There are now 52,537 combinations that have been played twice, and 3% of combinations have been played once. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 3% of them will be repeats, bringing the total number of repeats to about 105,000. As sales continue the process repeats, with ever larger numbers of combinations repeating. At the same time, some of the combinatins that have repeated twice will repeat a 3rd time, and so on.

You can very readily see the same process at work by dealing cards. With 13 cards in each suit you need to deal at least 13 cards to use each face value once, but if you deal 13 cards you are almost certainly going to be missing some values while others repeat. Deal 25 cards and you will almost certainly have 3 of at least one value.

Hi Floyd, Good name BTW.

I read your posts here and am flattered that someone who knows the lottery inside and out would go to bat to sooth RidgeRunner’s angst.

You are expert on all things lottery as revealed in the many threads you participate in. I would say your insights are exceptional. In fact, way above-board.

Thank you for confirming how the lottery front office looks at the game and the distribution of Quick Picks. You just have not come out and directly said, that the perception of a buyer of Quick Picks is not purchasing a 1: 175,711,536 chance. In fact you support the reasoning for multiple winners DOCUMENTED and multiple losers DOCUMENTED. Nice front office rationalization to buy QP’s. The better to sell them with, my dear!

I enjoyed the deck of cards analogy. In fact I had to use the bathroom because it was that good. You admit there is an Ace to King and in four suits: the deck is 52 in count. We are buying the Ace to King and do not want another suit. At least that is the perception of the buyer who thinks they have a 1:n chance to win. That’s what is advertised. We don’t want the whole deck dealt from a shoe of four decks, joker. The random event is not truly random in a fair way.

So,… you are supposed to deal the Ace to King but throw in the joker that there are four suits to the lottery pool. That goes hand in hand that an incomplete pool could be sold even if the sales covered all the combinations. I interpret that as being as many as four different pools are sold before one pool is complete. I understand that at some point someone will hit it and that explains multiple winners and multiple losers. What will the lotteries say to the old grannies that can’t read that in the fine print? It’s not published? (yet?) You deal from four suits when we want (EXPECT, ANTICIPATE) one. At least that is what we think when we buy QP’s when sales are big and someone is anticipated to win. Sweet! We all lose and the jackpot grows in leaps and bounds! More fuel for the next selling frenzy.

Nice double bump to address Ridgerunner after he almost kicked his dog over the thread. You confirm his disbelief. He admits he is at a loss understanding what was presented and you hold his hand."There, there ridge."

I knew I would step on some toes here to get real confidence artists to pipe in (flush), after all,… this is just entertainment. I liked the spin but it failed in a flush.

Thanks for playing and going to bat for all the lotteries.

Texas United States Member #55889 October 23, 2007 5588 Posts Offline

Posted: July 12, 2010, 8:32 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on July 12, 2010

"Thething that throws the QP’s out for me are the duplicate sales of QP’ssets (winners and losers) when there are not enough sales to indicateone entire pool of combinations is exhausted."

It appears that you don't understand how random picks and probability work. It's not necessary for all combinations to be used before some are repeated. All that's necessary is selling enough that probability guarantess that they start repeating.

Let's imagine that the first 1,757,116 QP's are sold with none of the combinations repeating. Since there are 175,711,536 possible combinations, 1% of them would have been played at that point. As sales continue and another 1,757,116 QP's are sold we should expect that 1% of them will repeat combinations from the first 1,757,116. That would mean that 17,571 combinations have now been played twice. It also means that another 1,739,545 combinations have been played, totaling 1.99%. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 1.99% of them, 34,966 will repeat combinations that were already played. There are now 52,537 combinations that have been played twice, and 3% of combinations have been played once. Sell another 1,757,116 QP's and 3% of them will be repeats, bringing the total number of repeats to about 105,000. As sales continue the process repeats, with ever larger numbers of combinations repeating. At the same time, some of the combinatins that have repeated twice will repeat a 3rd time, and so on.

You can very readily see the same process at work by dealing cards. With 13 cards in each suit you need to deal at least 13 cards to use each face value once, but if you deal 13 cards you are almost certainly going to be missing some values while others repeat. Deal 25 cards and you will almost certainly have 3 of at least one value.

"It's not necessary for all combinations to be used before some are repeated."

You explained as well as can be explained. If people choose not to believe it, or just can't understand it, so be it.

I think at the heart of the matter is there are those who just believe that the lotteries are deliberately cheating people.

If I really thought that, I sure wouldn't be throwing my money after it. LOL.