Welcome Guest
You last visited January 23, 2017, 1:46 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Topic closed. 82 replies. Last post 6 years ago by jimmy4164.

 Page 4 of 6
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 11:07 am - IP Logged

How far from Expected values would Actual values have to be before they were considered useful?

It really makes no difference when you consider the logistics of playing 3168 personal picks.  Having a different set of 3168 combinations for each drawing would mean filling out 634 new play slips for every drawing which if one ever had the time to do it once would probably never do it again.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 1:54 pm - IP Logged

It really makes no difference when you consider the logistics of playing 3168 personal picks.  Having a different set of 3168 combinations for each drawing would mean filling out 634 new play slips for every drawing which if one ever had the time to do it once would probably never do it again.

Jimmy said:

"I would say that your expected losses of (329472-57328) \$272,144 should not necessarily be considered losses, but the price you would have to pay for 329,472 chances to win the Jackpot."

The real price is convincing a clerk to run the 634 playslips twice a week while the line behind you keeps getting longer and longer.

Jimmy said:

"It just occured to me that MadDog's Powerball Challenge is a golden opportunity for system players to strut their stuff without giving up any of their secrets."

It's ironic that RJ's probability chart showed on average there should be 51.31 bonus ball matches by playing 3168 QPs but matching one out of the 4 bonus balls will have 792 matches by playing with Jimmy's imaginary money. In PB playing the Challenge way (using Jimmy's endless imaginary funds), it's a 1 in 8 chance of matching the bonus ball so on average Challenge players should expect 99 bonus number matches a drawing.

Jimmy's statistics were for a year so if he doubts RJ's probability, he should buy 3168 QPs twice a week for a year and prove him wrong.

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jimmy for proving that a systems play could produce almost twice as many bonus number hits as QPs.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 2:46 pm - IP Logged

Stack47, RJOh,

You must think I am the only one who will notice that you are [not so] cleverly evading the questions posed above.

I think not.

You must also think your prior claims that you can beat the odds will be forgotten.

I think not.

I made the request, "I'm sure I am not the only one who would be fascinated to read just how YOU would spend \$3168 on one Powerball draw.  Of course, I don't expect you to give up any trade secrets; just impress us by estimating how much better you would do."

I hope you surprise us and admit that when faced with the work of bigger minds than all of ours, you finally see the light and now understand that your previous errors in thinking were the result of the illusions discussed in the study pointed to HERE.
(I presume you're still reading it.)

I sincerely hope you do not take the path that Dean Esmay would probably predict for you based on your most recent statements.

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

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions, rather than quickly fire back an unsupported and meaningless reply.

--Jimmy4164

I learned from my earliest postings at LP that a lot of people here mistrust Random Number Generators.  Therefore, I avoided as much as possible using them while trying to make a point.  I had hoped that by using the picks of the participants in MadDog's Challenges over a long enough period of time, [many of them chosen in a systematic way,] the results would finally convince [some] staunch believers in an advantage to system play that it really doesn't matter how they choose their numbers.

It would appear I was wrong.  What has happened is that a vocal group of believers in their ability to "beat the odds" has latched on to the boring refrain that, "No one would bet \$3168 on one draw and only use 12 WBs and 4PBs," and several variations on this theme.  And they won't give it up.  RJOh is confusing in that he seems to understand the probabilities quite well, but still persists in believing that an "edge" is possible.  The MOST vocal, Stack47, even goes so far as to allude to an ability to stay ahead of the game with "real money" bets while dismissing "imaginary" bets as a waste of time.  He conveniently  refrains from posting in theChallenges, so he can claim anything he wishes.  No matter what I present, they can't seem to pull back to see this picture from afar, using the 8 million+ tickets "purchased" as a Random pool of tickets from which some interesting observations could be made.  They can't seem to comprehend that 137 people collectively choosing numbers over 104 drawings can be viewed in any way one wishes, if one is able to think in the abstract.  All they can do is imagine REAL people filling out ridiculous numbers of betting slips and/or holding up lines at lottery terminals.

Actually, I detect some backing off from prior claims of abilities to produce winnings well beyond what probability theory would support.  This fits right in with Dean Esmay's assessment of such situations:

"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

Perhaps I should view this hedging as a good thing.  It might indicate that I've helped a few people to see things more clearly.  It's OK with me if they can't or won't admit it publicly, as long as they remember what they've learned when dealing in the real world, like while serving on juries or parole boards, or diagnosing patients.

(You'll see no such hedging over in the Pick-3 and Lottery Systems Forums!)

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study.

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 7:37 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

You said,  "Do you really need to see a years worth of Challenge statistics to know that had players individually or collectively spent \$3168 per drawing playing only 12 wps with only 4 bonus numbers they would have lost lots of money?"  This rhetorical question implies that you believe that had players been able to use their \$3168 to buy 3168 Powerball tickets twice a week without the constraints of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, they would have lost less money, or maybe even come out ahead over the year's play.  Inasmuch as the 137 players pretty much won/lost what is to be expected theoretically by chance, I'm sure I am not the only one who would be fascinated to read just how YOU would spend \$3168 on one Powerball draw.  Of course, I don't expect you to give up any trade secrets; just impress us by estimating how much better you would do.

Let me do some of the mundane calculating for you.  3168 tickets/draw times 52 weeks times 2 draws/week results in an "investment" of \$329,472 over a year.  Assuming you don't hit the Jackpot (A fairly reasonable assumption, don't you think?), the table below tells ME that your expected winnings for the year would be 0.174 times \$329,472 or \$57,328.  I would say that your expected losses of (329472-57328) \$272,144 should not necessarily be considered losses, but the price you would have to pay for 329,472 chances to win the Jackpot.  Come on, at least give us a ballpark hint as to how much better you would do with all that money to bet.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Some related and interesting reading:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/lottery-nonsense-8694

2010/12/29

01/02/2010  Thru  12/29/2010

All Draws for 2010

137 Participants

Total Ticket Costs         \$8,271,258
Total Winnings             \$1,772,590

Overall Gain/Loss         -\$6,498,668

Expected      Actual
Category       #Wins        ROI*     #Wins     ROI*

0 WB + PB     133991       0.049    124791    0.045
1 WB + PB      66990       0.032     64153    0.031
2 WB + PB      10508       0.009      9275    0.008
3 WB           23037       0.019     27240    0.023
3 WB + PB        606       0.007       432    0.005
4 WB             435       0.005       428    0.005
4 WB + PB         11.438   0.014         0    0.000
5 WB               1.610   0.039         4    0.097
-----              -----
Total (Excl Jackpot)       0.174              0.214

JACKPOT            0.042   0.325         0    0.000

* ROI is The Amount Won Per Dollar Spent on Tickets.

I asked: "Do you really need to see a years worth of Challenge statistics to know that had players individually or collectively spent \$3168 per drawing playing only 12 wps with only 4 bonus numbers they would have lost lots of money?"

And Jimmy answered with: "This rhetorical question implies that you believe that had players been able to use their \$3168 to buy 3168 Powerball tickets twice a week without the constraints of MadDog's Powerball Challenge, they would have lost less money, or maybe even come out ahead over the year's play."

After mouths of calculations that showed had the Challenge players wagered an imaginary \$3168 twice a week for a year, your statistics showed collectively they would have lost over \$6 million imaginary dollars. I don't know where you're coming from but almost all the LP members and probably most of the lottery players every where would consider a \$6 million loss "lots of money"; whether it's Dollars, Euros, Yen, or even Jimmybucks.

You can read my question any way you like, but it means nobody needs your useless statistics to know playing that way would result in a loss of "lots of money". It doesn't claim, imply, nor allude anything else but a loss of "lots of money".

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 7:49 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

You must have missed my link to this thread when you posted this question in the (Details) Thread:

"Since you apparently missed it, I'll ask again. Have you asked any of the Challenge players if and how they play their predictions?"

I didn't miss it; I ignored it.  That question has been asked, reasked, answered, reanswered, and hashed over many times, in many threads.  I have no need or desire to ask it again.  If you do, be my guest.

"I'm assuming the idea of most system players is to match the actual drawing results. Should they throw out their systems just because their picks never match your simulated 10,000 years of drawings?"

You're forgetting that simulations can be of varying forms.  One such design might be what you allude to here.  However, if you are more comfortable applying bets to historical data, you could use your computer to calculate your bets based on your system, whatever it is, and do just that.  Of course, in that case, you won't have 10,000 years worth of data to work with!  You should remember that I backtested quite a few Pick-3 patterns in the Fooled by Randomness thread in Lottery Systems.

As for throwing out systems, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.  It depends on what the system means to you.  If you have fun building your set of bets, why stop?  Systems are not going to make you lose any more than QPs!  My wife has a system that's based on the old simple substitution of numbers for letters cipher.  She sometimes challenges me to figure out what words are represented by her Powerball sets.  I know she's upset with me when she plays  [ 01 05 08 12 15 +19 ]

--Jimmy4164

I asked Jimmy: "Have you asked any of the Challenge players if and how they play their predictions?"

And Jimmy replied: "I didn't miss it; I ignored it.  That question has been asked, reasked, answered, reanswered, and hashed over many times, in many threads.  I have no need or desire to ask it again.  If you do, be my guest."

I was just interested in asking that one player you claimed actually wagered \$3168 playing their Challenge numbers a couple of questions. It would be very interesting to see how long it took them to accurately fill out 364 playslips, the look on the clerks face when the handed them the tickets, how long it took to run the playslips through the machine, and how many dirty looks and nasty comments they got from the people standing behind them in line.

That's all.

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy,

You're are responding as if Stack47 and RJOh are the same member.  I can't speak for Stack47 and all I've ever said is I prefer picking my own numbers because I have control over which numbers I play.  I believe I can do no worst than QP's and chances are I will do better based on my experiences.  If anyone is interested in how I'm doing, I've been posting a sampling of the combinations I play on the prediction board for years.

I'm sure you would be fascinated to read how I would spend \$3168 on one PowerBall drawing, but it's never going to happen because that's more than I spend on all the games I play in a year and I consider myself a big spender.   The most I've ever dreamt of spending on a lottery drawing is \$200 but in reality the most I've ever actually spent was \$50 years ago when I went in with nine other co-workers to buy \$500 worth of tickets for Ohio Super Lotto.  Right after I retired, MegaMillions and PowerBall weren't played in Ohio so some of my former co-worker gave me \$550 to drive to Indiana to buy some PowerBall QP tickets for them.  That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Playing lotteries is entertainment for me so all those articles you post links to are of little interest to me.  Hopefully someone else may have some interest in them, after all LP is about sharing ideas.

What was the buying of that many tickets like?
Did the clerk(s) and anyone behind you flip out?

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 8:49 pm - IP Logged

Apparently, Stack47 doesn't understand the study done by the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists since he chose to take the route of replying with a meaningless response rather than study and comment on it.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study.

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2011, 10:24 pm - IP Logged

What was the buying of that many tickets like?
Did the clerk(s) and anyone behind you flip out?

When I first started buying PowerBall tickets in Indiana I would head for the first gas station over the boarder and would have to wait in line with other Ohioans buying bunches of (QP) tickets so clerks in the area were used to selling a lot of tickets to long lines when the PB jackpots were large.  When I bought tickets for co-workers I had started going to New Haven which was a little farther inland so there usually weren't any lines and the clerks of those stations were happy to get the extra business plus I usually top off my gas tank for the trip back home.

It was the same way in Michigan when I bought BigGame tickets at a truck stop just north of the boarder on route 23.  They usually printed out a bunch of QP ahead and hired an extra clerk when the BG jackpots got large.

Now that MegaMillions(BigGame) and PowerBall are sold in most states, long lines and people buying \$500 worth of tickets for their friends and co-workers isn't that common any more, every body can buy their own tickets locally.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2011, 2:00 am - IP Logged

When I first started buying PowerBall tickets in Indiana I would head for the first gas station over the boarder and would have to wait in line with other Ohioans buying bunches of (QP) tickets so clerks in the area were used to selling a lot of tickets to long lines when the PB jackpots were large.  When I bought tickets for co-workers I had started going to New Haven which was a little farther inland so there usually weren't any lines and the clerks of those stations were happy to get the extra business plus I usually top off my gas tank for the trip back home.

It was the same way in Michigan when I bought BigGame tickets at a truck stop just north of the boarder on route 23.  They usually printed out a bunch of QP ahead and hired an extra clerk when the BG jackpots got large.

Now that MegaMillions(BigGame) and PowerBall are sold in most states, long lines and people buying \$500 worth of tickets for their friends and co-workers isn't that common any more, every body can buy their own tickets locally.

You must be getting old too as this sounds like a "good old days" story.

It reminds me of my time generating random numbers and filling out betting slips for my co-workers too.  The betting slip part was what I hated.  I tried unsuccessfully to program a dot-matrix printer to produce slip replicas but was eventually able to do it when we got an Adobe Postscript printer.  It also required a cooperative lottery clerk as my slips were the wrong color and thickness and rejected by some of them (clerks not terminals.)

I'm surprised that lotteries haven't decided to accomodate players with "Wheel" tickets, like the racetracks do.  They're effectively doing this when selling Box tickets for various games.  Maybe they will some day.  Then, if we could afford it, we could buy all 3,168 combinations of MadDog's Challenge and get it on one piece of paper!

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19903 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 12, 2011, 2:50 pm - IP Logged

You must be getting old too as this sounds like a "good old days" story.

It reminds me of my time generating random numbers and filling out betting slips for my co-workers too.  The betting slip part was what I hated.  I tried unsuccessfully to program a dot-matrix printer to produce slip replicas but was eventually able to do it when we got an Adobe Postscript printer.  It also required a cooperative lottery clerk as my slips were the wrong color and thickness and rejected by some of them (clerks not terminals.)

I'm surprised that lotteries haven't decided to accomodate players with "Wheel" tickets, like the racetracks do.  They're effectively doing this when selling Box tickets for various games.  Maybe they will some day.  Then, if we could afford it, we could buy all 3,168 combinations of MadDog's Challenge and get it on one piece of paper!

"You must be getting old too as this sounds like a "good old days" story. "

I'm old enough to have been retired for a few years and to have played PowerBall and MegaMillions even longer but I wouldn't describe those times as the "good old days" because weather like the snow storm we're having now would have prevented me from traveling out of state to play those games.  Besides buying tickets for friends and co-workers created problems for the persons buying the tickets if they won big.  Today is much better with everyone buying their own tickets locally and when Ohio add the megaplier to its MM play slips this Friday it will be even better.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2011, 11:57 am - IP Logged

Apparently, Stack47 doesn't understand the study done by the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists since he chose to take the route of replying with a meaningless response rather than study and comment on it.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study.

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

--Jimmy4164

I don't need to read the opinions of the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists to know wagering \$3168 two or four times a week for a year would be a bad bet. And I'm pretty sure even they would say your statistics are useless information.

Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?

After all this is a lottery website.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2011, 12:05 pm - IP Logged

"You must be getting old too as this sounds like a "good old days" story. "

I'm old enough to have been retired for a few years and to have played PowerBall and MegaMillions even longer but I wouldn't describe those times as the "good old days" because weather like the snow storm we're having now would have prevented me from traveling out of state to play those games.  Besides buying tickets for friends and co-workers created problems for the persons buying the tickets if they won big.  Today is much better with everyone buying their own tickets locally and when Ohio add the megaplier to its MM play slips this Friday it will be even better.

I worked with a guy that drove to PA to buy lottery tickets before Ohio even had a lottery. Some in my area of Ohio drove to WV to stand in line for a couple of hours to play the Big Game when lottery retailers were scarce.

It was only about a year ago when PB and MM states started adding the other game so I suppose in Jimmy's mind, 2009 was the "good old days".

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2011, 1:10 pm - IP Logged

Apparently, Stack47 doesn't understand the study done by the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists since he chose to take the route of replying with a meaningless response rather than study and comment on it.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study.

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

--Jimmy4164

"I'm still waiting for someone to comment [intelligently] on this study."

Hadn't RJ and I made our observations there would be no discussion because it looks like nobody else cares. Without our input this thread and the "Details" thread would be no different than some of the members' threads that respond to themselves to pad their posting stats.

On November 23 in the "Details" threat I responded to a post Jimmy had made on September 19.

"Unfortunately, I guess we won't be seeing any of RL-RANDOMLOGIC's picks here at the Challenge in the near future.  Technical problems."

I said: "And it's been over a month without any feedback (positive or negative) about your statistics."

It's now been four months without any positive feedback. The only support you claim to have is studies from outside sources that add no value to lottery topics. Without any positive feedback in over 4 months (including none after your report was completed) isn't it about time you give it up?

It reminds of the people that ask Congress to fund millions of dollars a study on the affect of Snail Darters in the backwater streams when a dam is built to provide power. Those minnows are doing fine without the study and so are the Challenges without your useless statistics.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 13, 2011, 1:27 pm - IP Logged

I don't need to read the opinions of the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists to know wagering \$3168 two or four times a week for a year would be a bad bet. And I'm pretty sure even they would say your statistics are useless information.

Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?

After all this is a lottery website.

Stack47 says, "Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?"

Why?  Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no "HELPFUL TOOL."  I've suggested this many times since posting here, and I now see even RL-RANDOMLOGIC has joined me.  He also doesn't seem to be making outrageous claims that measuring digit frequencies can give him an edge any more.  Maybe Don Catlin finally convinced him!

It is silly to believe that because short samples of lottery draws often don't conform to the long term statistics that you can increase your winnings by making your selections using hindsight.

This is NOT a boxing match!  Neither is it a renovation project.

Lotterypost.com has all the tools you should ever need.

You also say, "I don't need to read the opinions of the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists to know..."

Given that their research deals precisely with what is under discussion here, your response is unconvincing, to say the least.

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

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

(Which is what you keep doing.)

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 15, 2011, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says, "Why not post links to lottery or gaming websites where members may find a helpful tool like the majority of other LP members do?"

Why?  Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no "HELPFUL TOOL."  I've suggested this many times since posting here, and I now see even RL-RANDOMLOGIC has joined me.  He also doesn't seem to be making outrageous claims that measuring digit frequencies can give him an edge any more.  Maybe Don Catlin finally convinced him!

It is silly to believe that because short samples of lottery draws often don't conform to the long term statistics that you can increase your winnings by making your selections using hindsight.

This is NOT a boxing match!  Neither is it a renovation project.

Lotterypost.com has all the tools you should ever need.

You also say, "I don't need to read the opinions of the British and Israeli Experimental Psychologists to know..."

Given that their research deals precisely with what is under discussion here, your response is unconvincing, to say the least.

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

It is principally at games of chance that a multitude of illusions
support hope and sustain it against unfavourable chances.
(Laplace, 1796)

The idea that beliefs about probability show systematic
biases is somewhat older than experimental psychology.
Throughout his “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,”
Laplace (1796) was concerned with errors of judgment
and even included a chapter concerning “illusions
in the estimation of probabilities.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

I hope you make the effort to thoroughly absorb this study and its conclusions.

(Which is what you keep doing.)

--Jimmy4164

Speaking of Tools, which is it?

"Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no "HELPFUL TOOL."

"Lotterypost.com has all the tools you should ever need.

Or are you saying while LP has lots of tools, none of them are helpful?

If I want to find which digit in the first digit position in a pick-3 game most followed the digit "1" over a specific period of time, I have a tool that will show which digit. If I want to find how many times the digits "1" and "2" were in the winning combination over a specific period of time, I have that tool too. Any tool is designed to do a specific thing but to get the full potential, it's better to use the correct tool; do you use a butter knife to cut down a tree or a pair of scissors to mow two acres of grass?

Had you based your Challenge statistics on realistic wagers, there would probably be many comments and maybe a discussion about several methods (tools) for waging their Challenge predictions. If you can't find a helpful tool maybe somebody has ideas to build the right tool.

Even a system that never predicts the winning numbers can be a helpful tool.

"Because other than selection methods that spread your losses out by capturing many small prizes rather than waiting for a few large ones, there is no "HELPFUL TOOL."

After further review that statement makes no sense because the reason for lowering the losses by collecting smaller prizes is to chase the a large win at a reduced cost. If a player plans on wagering \$40 a week chasing MM, it certainly would be much better if the cost averaged out to be only \$20 a week.

BTW, your quotes crack me up!

It's obvious that Laplace had been dead for many years when Norman Vincent Peale wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking" and never heard the term "A dollar for a dream".

 Page 4 of 6