Welcome Guest
You last visited December 4, 2016, 7:09 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Fooled by Randomness

Topic closed. 297 replies. Last post 6 years ago by jimmy4164.

 Page 15 of 20

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 3:19 pm - IP Logged

"All I can hope for is that a majority of the several thousand [estimate] people who have viewed this thread don't share the beliefs of the few vocal posters who are really confused."

You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet. And hopefully you have stopped that one foolish player out of several thousands that actually considered playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for the next 33.5 years from making that bad bet.

"Thanks for the clarification.  Stack47 apparently wasn't in error on THAT particular point."

If you take a closer look what I said, you'll see I agreed on most of your points because they were all based on the same type of bad bets. Betting that a three digit number will repeat, it will skip 1 drawing, skip 2, betting your birthday, or any other three digit number for 33.5 years are all the same type of bad bets.

"I'm getting ready to throw in the towel here."

If you keep on assuming you're the only person here that knows a bad bet and keep on showing the same type of bad bets, that's an excellent idea.

Stack47,

I'm trying to remain civil in these discussions even though you and others are not.

However, I only have so much patience for ignorance.

"You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet."

You either have a short memory, or read selectively.  If you check my posts, you will find that I have on many occasions stipulated that I was not proposing any of the patterns used for illustrative purposes be used as betting schemes.  What you can't seem to comprehend is that betting on arbitrary patterns such as yesterday's winner, the reverse of the winner from 2 days ago, or the primary pick of a TTT calculation, etc., etc., etc., result in the same losses.  Namely, over 33.5 years, straight bets win in the majority of cases approximately 8 to 16 times.  What you are missing completely are the implications of these results to your way of thinking.  If you are patient, you will see that the betting patterns are going to evolve to a point where they can rightfully be called one of your so called "Systems."

I could make 100 passes over the 33.5 year results applying a RNG daily with a different seed for each of the runs, with the same results, but you would reject the results as some sort of lie or trick.  The approach I'm taking forces you to accept my results because they can be verified by anyone wishing to challenge them at the PA website.

In the meantime, if you, or anyone else can define a Pick-3 Straight betting "System" that is sufficiently specified that any programmer here can translate it into the programming language of their choice, and it is profitable when applied to the 33.5 year PA Results, I will gladly stop boring you with my stepwise attempt to open your eyes.

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19817 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 4:12 pm - IP Logged

In the meantime, if you, or anyone else can define a Pick-3 Straight betting "System" that is sufficiently specified that any programmer here can translate it into the programming language of their choice, and it is profitable when applied to the 33.5 year PA Results, I will gladly stop boring you with my stepwise attempt to open your eyes.

--Jimmy4164

Good luck with that idea.  The only persons that would even attempt to do that would be someone who plays PA pick3 and if they're winning then they aren't likely to give out enough information for anyone to write a program that does the same thing.  You're slick but you're not going to trick anyone into giving up their information that easy, if you want a program that does that then you're going have to write it yourself starting from scratch.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 8:32 pm - IP Logged

In the meantime, if you, or anyone else can define a Pick-3 Straight betting "System" that is sufficiently specified that any programmer here can translate it into the programming language of their choice, and it is profitable when applied to the 33.5 year PA Results, I will gladly stop boring you with my stepwise attempt to open your eyes.

--Jimmy4164

Good luck with that idea.  The only persons that would even attempt to do that would be someone who plays PA pick3 and if they're winning then they aren't likely to give out enough information for anyone to write a program that does the same thing.  You're slick but you're not going to trick anyone into giving up their information that easy, if you want a program that does that then you're going have to write it yourself starting from scratch.

RJOh,

"You're slick but you're not going to trick anyone into giving up their information that easy, if you want a program that does that then you're going have to write it yourself starting from scratch."

No RJOh, I'm not slick in that regard, but I might be a little stupid to waste so much time on this.  The fact is, I am in no way attempting to steal secrets that would allow me to perfect a winning "system," because such a system does not exist!  If I'm trying to be slick, it's to get the specifications of a system that most people know and understand, so that I can test it as they never have, and reveal it's performance over time.  PMs I've received tell me that twedk's TTT never was a great performer, but an accepted approach, nonetheless.

Would you be willing to help me completely specify that TTT, one which is apparently not expected to do much more than break even, if that?  Then we would all at least know the Expected Value of that system, for a fact!

Something you alluded to, as do many others, is that Pick-3 is a loser, that you can't make money with it.  Pick-5 and up are where it's at.  Isn't this the general consensus?  If a Pick-3 can't be predicted well enough to make money, why then would a Pick-5 or 6 be predictable?  Isn't a game based on 5 selections from 39 balls taken 1 at a time WITHOUT REPLACEMENT, no more than an expansion of the simpler game of 3 selections from 10 balls taken 1 at a time, WITH REPLACEMENT?

If the 3 machines used in the Pick-3 are the same, isn't the act of moving to the 2nd and 3rd machines for the 2nd and 3rd selections tantamount to reinserting each selected ball back into one(1) machine?

If you feel beating a Pick-3 is hopeless, why would you expect a Pick-5 NOT to be?  Seriously.

Anyone else?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 30, 2010, 8:41 pm - IP Logged

P.S.

RJOh,

You shouldn't be concerned about other people learning the details of twedk's TTT since the Daily Number in PA (a Pick-3) is NOT paramutuel, so they will pay ALL of us with winning tickets!

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7297 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 1:00 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

I'm trying to remain civil in these discussions even though you and others are not.

However, I only have so much patience for ignorance.

"You certainly made your point playing the same amount on the same number in every drawing for 33.5 years is a bad bet."

You either have a short memory, or read selectively.  If you check my posts, you will find that I have on many occasions stipulated that I was not proposing any of the patterns used for illustrative purposes be used as betting schemes.  What you can't seem to comprehend is that betting on arbitrary patterns such as yesterday's winner, the reverse of the winner from 2 days ago, or the primary pick of a TTT calculation, etc., etc., etc., result in the same losses.  Namely, over 33.5 years, straight bets win in the majority of cases approximately 8 to 16 times.  What you are missing completely are the implications of these results to your way of thinking.  If you are patient, you will see that the betting patterns are going to evolve to a point where they can rightfully be called one of your so called "Systems."

I could make 100 passes over the 33.5 year results applying a RNG daily with a different seed for each of the runs, with the same results, but you would reject the results as some sort of lie or trick.  The approach I'm taking forces you to accept my results because they can be verified by anyone wishing to challenge them at the PA website.

In the meantime, if you, or anyone else can define a Pick-3 Straight betting "System" that is sufficiently specified that any programmer here can translate it into the programming language of their choice, and it is profitable when applied to the 33.5 year PA Results, I will gladly stop boring you with my stepwise attempt to open your eyes.

--Jimmy4164

8/28/10:

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

8/30/10:

You just repeated what I said only worded it differently; I know making the same bet on the same number for 33.5 or 67 years is a bad bet  as is making the same bet on 2, 10, or 100 numbers. Tell us something we don't already know!

"What you can't seem to comprehend is that betting on arbitrary patterns such as yesterday's winner, the reverse of the winner from 2 days ago, or the primary pick of a TTT calculation, etc., etc., etc., result in the same losses."

Why is it every time I say it's a bad bet, you either tell me I'm wrong or can't comprehend and then go on to say exactly the same thing?

I know it's bad bet, but you're wrong about the same losses because the data you provided said not all of patterns had the same number of hits in 33.5 years. When I said "Payoff odds are determined by the amount wagered.", you said "Wrong. Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered. " and then after you were showed your error, you agreed I was correct.

"I'm trying to remain civil in these discussions even though you and others are not."

You're being silly because you keep on saying I'm wrong when I agreed with you. Everybody knows betting the same amount on the same 3 digit number in every drawing for 33.5 is a bad bet.

But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a "losing wager".

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 8:33 am - IP Logged

8/28/10:

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

8/30/10:

You just repeated what I said only worded it differently; I know making the same bet on the same number for 33.5 or 67 years is a bad bet  as is making the same bet on 2, 10, or 100 numbers. Tell us something we don't already know!

"What you can't seem to comprehend is that betting on arbitrary patterns such as yesterday's winner, the reverse of the winner from 2 days ago, or the primary pick of a TTT calculation, etc., etc., etc., result in the same losses."

Why is it every time I say it's a bad bet, you either tell me I'm wrong or can't comprehend and then go on to say exactly the same thing?

I know it's bad bet, but you're wrong about the same losses because the data you provided said not all of patterns had the same number of hits in 33.5 years. When I said "Payoff odds are determined by the amount wagered.", you said "Wrong. Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered. " and then after you were showed your error, you agreed I was correct.

"I'm trying to remain civil in these discussions even though you and others are not."

You're being silly because you keep on saying I'm wrong when I agreed with you. Everybody knows betting the same amount on the same 3 digit number in every drawing for 33.5 is a bad bet.

But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a "losing wager".

"But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a 'losing wager'".

Sorry Stack47.  You're confused.  There is no Santa Claus.

When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets.

The VALUE in the lottery is the entertainment and anticipatory excitement it provides for people, as well as the remote chance of a Jackpot Hit.  These are the reasons I don't buy Pick-3 & 4 tickets.  Although in long term investment terms, they are no worse bets than the large Jackpot games, I'm not entertained or excited much by the prospect of winning \$500 or \$5000 when I will likely have to wait years and/or spend twice that amount to enjoy the winning experience.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7297 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:10 pm - IP Logged

"But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a 'losing wager'".

Sorry Stack47.  You're confused.  There is no Santa Claus.

When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets.

The VALUE in the lottery is the entertainment and anticipatory excitement it provides for people, as well as the remote chance of a Jackpot Hit.  These are the reasons I don't buy Pick-3 & 4 tickets.  Although in long term investment terms, they are no worse bets than the large Jackpot games, I'm not entertained or excited much by the prospect of winning \$500 or \$5000 when I will likely have to wait years and/or spend twice that amount to enjoy the winning experience.

You're being silly because you keep on saying I'm wrong when I agreed with you. Everybody knows betting the same amount on the same 3 digit number in every drawing for 33.5 is a bad bet But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a "losing wager".

"Sorry Stack47.  You're confused."

If only choosing pick-3 numbers were easy as predicting what Jimmy will say next.

"When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets."

Who evaluates a \$1 lottery wager as an investment?

When a player wagers \$1 on a pick-3 number straight, there are only two possible results; lose the \$1 or win \$499. There is no investment, it's called a gambling bet where a win or lose outcome is known shortly. Talk about being confused.

"These are the reasons I don't buy Pick-3 & 4 tickets."

Sounds similar to the reasons against state lotteries when they were placed on the state ballots. Arkansas is the newest state lottery. but even after the majority of the people voted for a lottery, there are still some calling it a bad bet. It's starting to look like you're crusading against lotteries, but the lotteries are here to stay and players will keep on making bets regardless of your opinions.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:24 pm - IP Logged

All your data is based on making the same bet in every drawing and you're trying to show that making those types of bets can't win in the long run. But it's old news because one only has to look at the long term probability of the same thing happening to know what's a bad bet.

"Wrong.  What you should have noticed, but apparently haven't, is that NO MATTER WHAT SCHEME we devise to pick numbers in a FAIR Pick-3 game, the average number of hits of Straight bets in 33.5 years is going to be clustered mostly in the range [8...16]."

You just repeated what I said only worded it differently; I know making the same bet on the same number for 33.5 or 67 years is a bad bet as is making the same bet on 2, 10, or 100 numbers. Tell us something we don't already know!

Payoff odds are determine by he amount wagered.

"Wrong.  Payoff AMOUNTS are determined by the amount wagered."

This time you're saying I'm wrong because I inadvertently left out the "d" on determined?

"No. By the time the PA Daily Number game was started in 1977, 16 years had already elapsed since my first college level course in Probability & Statistics."

I thought you had a sound understanding of mathematics when I said if you wager \$27 on one drawing and cash a ticket for \$500 the payoff odds would be 17.5 to 1 and showed why. The actual win is \$473 so you get \$17.50 for every dollar you wagered.

For some reason you keep assuming all players make the same wager on the same number in every drawing making it impossible to show a profit and keep on showing the same statistics. I'm not an everyday pick-3 player but when I do play, I don't play the same number over and over again and I don't think very many everyday player do either.

From the PA pick-3 predictions:

Member  Prize Ratio  Wagers  Winnings
1.RodsPicks2316.98%\$530\$1,680
2.milo405303.92%\$204\$620
3.gpollard263.63%\$660\$1,740
4.fastscratcher10226.56%\$128\$290
5.Blessed77111212.64%\$174\$370
6.getmoney007173.72%\$236\$410
7.C.A.167.52%\$388\$650
8.astr8today70155.45%\$9,874\$15,350
9.diamondpalace153.03%\$14,356\$21,970
10.fletcherprez138.66%\$4,774\$6,620

Don't know if Diamondplace or asr8today70 played the same three digit numbers every day but they certainly could have made a profit playing for real!

Stack47,

Please check out this earlier post...

Here's an excerpt:

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

jimjwright,

Do you know what a normal bell-shaped distribution curve looks like?  How far out in the right hand tails of these distributions do you see the TOP 11 over the last 30 days and the TOP 18 lifetime shown above?  As you should know, we can't answer that question without knowing HOW MANY PEOPLE IN TOTAL these 11 and 18 are a subset of, and even more important, what were the prize ratios of the BOTTOM 50 and the OVERALL AVERAGE.  Do you know?

In the limited information displayed above,  I see nothing that can't be explained by the characteristics of a typical Random Distribution.

Are you REALLY persuaded that there is more useful information in today's Draw beyond its value as a SEED for a Random Number Generator?

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

...and then, Stack47,

please publish here the COMPLETE list of lifetime Prize Ratios for the date above,

including the length of the "lifetime" for each of the predictors.

That way, we'll ALL be able to calculate the Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation

of these results, to see just how lucky these TOP predictors really were!

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19817 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:39 pm - IP Logged

Would you be willing to help me completely specify that TTT, one which is apparently not expected to do much more than break even, if that?  Then we would all at least know the Expected Value of that system, for a fact!

Sorry Jimmy, I don't do pick3, besides if a system doesn't work its users can figure that out without any help.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:46 pm - IP Logged

Would you be willing to help me completely specify that TTT, one which is apparently not expected to do much more than break even, if that?  Then we would all at least know the Expected Value of that system, for a fact!

Sorry Jimmy, I don't do pick3, besides if a system doesn't work its users can figure that out without any help.

But wouldn't you be just a little curious to discover if that TTT, still actively discussed at twedk's Thread, can produce winnings beyond what Chance would predict regardless of how it does financially?

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:53 pm - IP Logged

Would you be willing to help me completely specify that TTT, one which is apparently not expected to do much more than break even, if that?  Then we would all at least know the Expected Value of that system, for a fact!

Sorry Jimmy, I don't do pick3, besides if a system doesn't work its users can figure that out without any help.

I have this desire to see a workout.  I want to see something that resembles the prediction board for each and every system posted here.  I have a desire for facts.  How close is a system to working?

Amount won from \$1 straight tickets
Amount of \$1 tickets played
Profit/loss

Amount won from \$1 box tickets
Amount of \$1.00 tickets played
Profit/loss

If it is a jackpot game, amount won \$1 tickets
Amount of \$1.00 tickets played
Profit/loss

Don't you have that desire for details?

I know you don't play pick3/4 but if someone should come up with a system for your jackpot game of choice and it shows break-even over 33 years vs your experiments showing a \$1,000 loss over the same period, wouldn't you be interested in knowing that?

The average person cannot do a workout over a long length of time to form a solid opinion for their system.  I have an enquiring mind that needs to know!

Of course, I realize whether the workout is 1 yr, 5 yrs or 33 yrs, it does not mean it will follow the same win percent in the future but it is way better than nothing.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19817 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 12:58 pm - IP Logged

But wouldn't you be just a little curious to discover if that TTT, still actively discussed at twedk's Thread, can produce winnings beyond what Chance would predict regardless of how it does financially?

Not at all.  I don't play pick3 or pick4 and I don't track them either.  Analyzing any game takes a lot of time so I only do it for the games I play when I'm playing them.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19817 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 1:12 pm - IP Logged

I have this desire to see a workout.  I want to see something that resembles the prediction board for each and every system posted here.  I have a desire for facts.  How close is a system to working?

truecritic,

A lot of members would like to see that but workouts take time and for them to be understood every step taken has to be explained and maybe even backed up with data from previous drawings.  From what I've read on the Internet, there are those who have written books about it, so the information is available to anyone who really want it but I don't expect you would be satisfied if it came from a fellow LP member.  LP members have made attempts to explain V-track, Tic Tac Toe and other pick3 systems in the past and players still don't understand them enough to know if they work or not.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 31, 2010, 1:42 pm - IP Logged

You're being silly because you keep on saying I'm wrong when I agreed with you. Everybody knows betting the same amount on the same 3 digit number in every drawing for 33.5 is a bad bet But I'm willing to bet you'll again say I'm wrong and say it's a "losing wager".

"Sorry Stack47.  You're confused."

If only choosing pick-3 numbers were easy as predicting what Jimmy will say next.

"When evaluated as an investment, ALL lottery bets are bad bets."

Who evaluates a \$1 lottery wager as an investment?

When a player wagers \$1 on a pick-3 number straight, there are only two possible results; lose the \$1 or win \$499. There is no investment, it's called a gambling bet where a win or lose outcome is known shortly. Talk about being confused.

"These are the reasons I don't buy Pick-3 & 4 tickets."

Sounds similar to the reasons against state lotteries when they were placed on the state ballots. Arkansas is the newest state lottery. but even after the majority of the people voted for a lottery, there are still some calling it a bad bet. It's starting to look like you're crusading against lotteries, but the lotteries are here to stay and players will keep on making bets regardless of your opinions.

Stack47,
Well, I knew it had to happen eventually.  Reading between the lines above, I can see you're starting to cave.  You're too smart to go on indefinitely under the spell of that powerful fallacy, the one we've talked about so much here!  But I'm disappointed.  It appears you're going to take the evasive stance old Dean Esmay outlines here, rather than a more courageous one.  But, at least the fog may be lifting for you.

The Brainteaser That Changed My World
April 17, 2002

"If you go through life forming and sharing opinions, it is a rock-solid certainty that you will be wrong about something. The more opinions you have, the more that will happen. The bigger the issue, the more spectacularly wrong you're likely to be.

In my mid-20s, I stumbled on a brain teaser that, literally, changed how I viewed the world. As melodramatic as it sounds, I haven't been the same since. And, as with so many other things in this world, it's all Jerry Pournelle's fault...

None of us really likes to admit being wrong. One of the most seductive ways to avoid that is to change our opinions retroactively. We say, 'No, no, you just misunderstood, you thought I was saying X when I really said Y.' Or, even worse, sometimes we just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of us.

Not that genuine misunderstandings don't happen. But a lot of people, when caught out as wrong, will say it didn't happen. Instead, they conveniently shift their position, but act like they didn't. It's almost as if we rewrite our memories, and by so doing rewrite the history of what we did or said. It's a pathology that's common to the human animal. Opinionated bloviators such as myself are particularly prone to the affliction. I don't claim to be cured, but I think I'm able to recognize the symptoms and, hopefully, manage the disease tolerably...."

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/000013.html

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7297 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 1, 2010, 10:54 am - IP Logged

Not at all.  I don't play pick3 or pick4 and I don't track them either.  Analyzing any game takes a lot of time so I only do it for the games I play when I'm playing them.

"I don't play pick3 or pick4 and I don't track them either."

I told him at least five times playing the same number every day the entire history of any pick-3 game is a bad, bet but he keeps on saying I was wrong or confused. You may have to tell him you don't play the games or track them a few more time before it finally sinks in.

 Page 15 of 20