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

Posted: January 15, 2011, 5:34 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 15, 2011

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".

Stack47 says, 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".

I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts. If this is true, what about the effects of the millions of others who may be hoping for a different outcome?

You just don't get it. I have dealt at LP (with you nipping at my heels) with every question you ask or allude to above. I guess I should take consolation in the fact that you won't give up. Maybe there is hope.

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

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.”

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: January 16, 2011, 12:59 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 15, 2011

Stack47 says, 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".

I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts. If this is true, what about the effects of the millions of others who may be hoping for a different outcome?

You just don't get it. I have dealt at LP (with you nipping at my heels) with every question you ask or allude to above. I guess I should take consolation in the fact that you won't give up. Maybe there is hope.

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

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.”

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

Please don't quickly fire back an unsupported and meaningless reply.

(Which is what you keep doing.)

--Jimmy4164

"I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts."

Nope it means in 1796 Laplace would have never thought in his wildest dreams that 229,421,186 tickets would some day be bought on one MM drawing. Nor thought there would be a Lottery Post where players show their positive thinking with hundreds of posts about how they plan on spending their winnings.

In 1796 not very many people could afford to spend $1 twice a week playing either PB or MM, but today millions of people play $2 or $4 dollars a week and they gladly do it for short time to dream about a possible life changing windfall. The odds against them are irrelevant because they already know them, but they aren't bucking the odds, they are buying a couple of hours to dream. The lotteries are selling dreams for a dollar and don't expect anyone to wager $3168 two and/or four times a week for a year playing their Challenge numbers.

"You just don't get it. I have dealt at LP (with you nipping at my heels) with every question you ask or allude to above."

You haven't offered much useful or helpful information to a group of people looking for better ways to play lottery games. I was hoping you could prove me wrong with your Challenge statistics but in the end you proved what we already knew.

Quote the Raven on 9/17: "Unless or until someone can do better than 3+0 in the Challenge: Betting $3168 seems kinda foolish!"

I don't have the statistics and I'm not taking poll, but it's obvious the consensus agrees wagering $3168 four times a week for a year on the Challenges is a bad bet for a number of reasons. If you would just agree your statistics based on imaginary wagers proved what we all already knew, we could move on.

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

Posted: January 17, 2011, 3:29 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 16, 2011

"I suppose this means you think you can have an effect on the balls in the draw by directed thoughts."

Nope it means in 1796 Laplace would have never thought in his wildest dreams that 229,421,186 tickets would some day be bought on one MM drawing. Nor thought there would be a Lottery Post where players show their positive thinking with hundreds of posts about how they plan on spending their winnings.

In 1796 not very many people could afford to spend $1 twice a week playing either PB or MM, but today millions of people play $2 or $4 dollars a week and they gladly do it for short time to dream about a possible life changing windfall. The odds against them are irrelevant because they already know them, but they aren't bucking the odds, they are buying a couple of hours to dream. The lotteries are selling dreams for a dollar and don't expect anyone to wager $3168 two and/or four times a week for a year playing their Challenge numbers.

"You just don't get it. I have dealt at LP (with you nipping at my heels) with every question you ask or allude to above."

You haven't offered much useful or helpful information to a group of people looking for better ways to play lottery games. I was hoping you could prove me wrong with your Challenge statistics but in the end you proved what we already knew.

Quote the Raven on 9/17: "Unless or until someone can do better than 3+0 in the Challenge: Betting $3168 seems kinda foolish!"

I don't have the statistics and I'm not taking poll, but it's obvious the consensus agrees wagering $3168 four times a week for a year on the Challenges is a bad bet for a number of reasons. If you would just agree your statistics based on imaginary wagers proved what we all already knew, we could move on.

Stack47,

You said, "I don't have the statistics and I'm not taking poll, but it's obvious the consensus agrees wagering $3168 four times a week for a year on the Challenges is a bad bet for a number of reasons. If you would just agree your statistics based on imaginary wagers proved what we all already knew, we could move on."

So what was it you already knew? If betting all combinations of 12 WBs and 4 PBs twice a week was such a "bad bet," how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted? (Excluding Jackpots.)

adelaide sa Australia Member #37136 April 11, 2006 3316 Posts Offline

Posted: January 17, 2011, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

personally i would do a 4 if 5 hit wheel. makes it $152 a draw. for 4 +pb or mb if you get all 5 in the 12

or just $38 if you keep only playing with only 1 pb number. but isnt this the fun of picking 12 numbers, something we wpould never wheel oursleves? and seeing who gets lucky?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: January 18, 2011, 12:03 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 17, 2011

Stack47,

You said, "I don't have the statistics and I'm not taking poll, but it's obvious the consensus agrees wagering $3168 four times a week for a year on the Challenges is a bad bet for a number of reasons. If you would just agree your statistics based on imaginary wagers proved what we all already knew, we could move on."

So what was it you already knew? If betting all combinations of 12 WBs and 4 PBs twice a week was such a "bad bet," how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted? (Excluding Jackpots.)

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

"how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted?"

If by "chance" you mean how the Challenge played vs a like number of RNG QPs, the answer is obvious. Though it's highly unlikely impossible a group of that size would ever play that way, It proves wheeling a specific set of numbers give a player a slight advantage over playing a like number of QPs.

Didn't you know that before you started the statistics?

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

Posted: January 18, 2011, 2:10 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 18, 2011

"how do you account for the FACT that the Challenge players did marginally BETTER during 2010 than Chance predicted?"

If by "chance" you mean how the Challenge played vs a like number of RNG QPs, the answer is obvious. Though it's highly unlikely impossible a group of that size would ever play that way, It proves wheeling a specific set of numbers give a player a slight advantage over playing a like number of QPs.

Didn't you know that before you started the statistics?

Stack47,

You said,"...It proves wheeling a specific set of numbers give a player a slight advantage over playing a like number of QPs."

I'm afraid you really don't understand the meaning of the two "ROI" collumns and their subtotals below. Please take a closer look...

The numbers in the Expected collumns are calculated from the published probabilities for the game and the total tickets "purchased."

JACKPOT 0.042 0.325 0 0.000 Total Return 0.499 0.214

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

Excluding Winlotta's one Second Prize 5+0 hit resulting in Four $200K prizes, the average player won 11.7¢ for each $1 spent on tickets. Counting Winlotta's big win, this increases to 21.4¢. This is the reason I said the Challenge players did marginally better than Chance (Expected.) Notice how closely alligned the Actual values for the smaller prizes are to the Expected ones. Those who laughed at restricting Powerball selections to 4 numbers per draw must be scratching their heads wondering how the total number of Actual Powerball hits are so close to Expected.

You would have to tally this Challenge for a lot longer than one year to see the Actual values for the (5+0) and (5+1) categories converge to the Expected.

Do you see why? Do the numbers make more sense now?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7344 Posts Offline

Posted: January 18, 2011, 8:42 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by savagegoose on January 17, 2011

personally i would do a 4 if 5 hit wheel. makes it $152 a draw. for 4 +pb or mb if you get all 5 in the 12

or just $38 if you keep only playing with only 1 pb number. but isnt this the fun of picking 12 numbers, something we wpould never wheel oursleves? and seeing who gets lucky?

You can get a 4 if 5 guarantee using 12 numbers by using only 35 combinations. Add one more combo and play each bonus number 9 times. Another practical and useful wheel is 3 if 4 of 12 with 12 combos and it's highly balanced. Someone could play all 12 numbers and all four bonus numbers for as little as $4.

JACKPOT 0.042 0.325 0 0.000 Total Return 0.499 0.214

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

Excluding Winlotta's one Second Prize 5+0 hit resulting in Four $200K prizes, the average player won 11.7¢ for each $1 spent on tickets. Counting Winlotta's big win, this increases to 21.4¢. This is the reason I said the Challenge players did marginally better than Chance (Expected.) Notice how closely alligned the Actual values for the smaller prizes are to the Expected ones. Those who laughed at restricting Powerball selections to 4 numbers per draw must be scratching their heads wondering how the total number of Actual Powerball hits are so close to Expected.

You would have to tally this Challenge for a lot longer than one year to see the Actual values for the (5+0) and (5+1) categories converge to the Expected.

Do you see why? Do the numbers make more sense now?

--Jimmy4164

If you played 3168 QPs, you could expect to get 51.31 bonus number matches. The Challenge players can expect to match 1 bonus number once every 9.75 (39/4) drawings. However since one bonus number match in the Challenge has 792 matches, Challenge players would average 81.23 (792/9.75) bonus number matches for every 3168 tickets played for a year and have a slight advantage over QPs.

A better and more practical way of looking at it would be to play 39 combos using each of the 39 bonus numbers once and compare it to 39 QPs. One set of 39 combos would match the bonus number in 100% while the other would do slightly less. A player would have to buy 62 QPs before they could expect to get all 39 bonus numbers. The problem is either way would be a losing bet over a long period of time so it really proves nothing.

The only advantage to playing a 4 if 5 guaranteed wheel playing the Challenge picks vs QPs is if the 5 numbers are matched giving a 1 in 9.75 chance of matching 4 + 1 or even 5 +1 with a 4 + 0 guarantee. You could get the same matches playing QPs but there would be no statistical advantage because the chances are always exactly the same.

My opinion that it would give a wheel player a slight advantage is based on RJ's calculations in the first example and mine in the other two. Before we go any farther, you'll need to explain your method of determining the expected wins of a like number of QPs.

"Do you see why? Do the numbers make more sense now?"

I never said your numbers or calulations made no sense; I said because they are based on wagers that nobody would make, the statistics are useless. Since the Challenges are played every drawing, the size of the jackpot is irrelevant. I don't know if any of Challenge players actual play their numbers but it's easy to assume some of them might have played them when the MM jackpot reached $380 million, but even then it was probably for less than $100.

Beautiful Florida United States Member #5709 July 18, 2004 20238 Posts Online

Posted: January 18, 2011, 11:24 am - IP Logged

Jimmy,

The stats that you've provided are informative, but in my opinion are not realistic for the average bettor here at LP.

Of the (12) numbers put forth in the challenge, it would cost $35.00 to wheel a 4 if 5 abreviated wheel, or $20.00 for a 4 if 5 Key wheel. I have done both and faired very well but not a jackpot as of yet.

I don't know of anyone who could or would spend $3,168 dollars every Jackpot draw per week. I would think if you based your stats on a player spending $35.00 per draw, It would give every player a different perspective how they would fare (vs) an imaginary perspective.

Just my opinion...

" You can not control the Wind, but you can direct the Sail "

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19900 Posts Offline

Posted: January 18, 2011, 2:00 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by MADDOG10 on January 18, 2011

Jimmy,

The stats that you've provided are informative, but in my opinion are not realistic for the average bettor here at LP.

Of the (12) numbers put forth in the challenge, it would cost $35.00 to wheel a 4 if 5 abreviated wheel, or $20.00 for a 4 if 5 Key wheel. I have done both and faired very well but not a jackpot as of yet.

I don't know of anyone who could or would spend $3,168 dollars every Jackpot draw per week. I would think if you based your stats on a player spending $35.00 per draw, It would give every player a different perspective how they would fare (vs) an imaginary perspective.

United States Member #13130 March 30, 2005 2171 Posts Offline

Posted: January 18, 2011, 2:16 pm - IP Logged

People are less random than chance. I expect most challenge players would remove at least 2 numbers from the prior drawing from their choice set for the next draw. The odds favor successfully throwing out 2 "bad" numbers vs throwing out a good number (or two).

"12 from 59" becomes "12 from 57 (or less)". The difference is amplified when they get 2+1 or better because of the full wheeling of the set.

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 18, 2011, 3:19 pm - IP Logged

After a few thousand Powerball ticket purchases, it makes very little difference how you made your selections. The various subsets mentioned above will fair just as well as any. However, the bottom line is spelled out pretty clearly today in RJOh's post in the Mathematics Forum.

"PB with its posted odds and payouts expect to only payout $34,112,290 in smaller prizes when it sells 195,249,054 chances to win its jackpot which is only 17.5% of the money spent on those tickets. Unless a regular and consistent player wins the jackpot, he should never expect to recover more than 20% of the money he spends on tickets."

Thanks RJ!

All I'm trying to do is make people aware that they cannot view the lottery as a means to earn a living. Increasing your weekly outlay for the Powerball from $25 to $50 will double your chances of winning the Jackpot, which means you will be likely to hit the Jackpot ONCE in 75,000 YEARS, rather than having to possibly wait 150,000 YEARS to win one buying only 25 tickets per week! However, if you're a struggling breadwinner on unemployment, this $25 per week difference could make or break you when your food or utility bills come due.

These daunting odds don't preclude someone winning a small (or large) fortune after only buying a few tickets, and of course, this is what we all hope for!

adelaide sa Australia Member #37136 April 11, 2006 3316 Posts Offline

Posted: January 18, 2011, 3:34 pm - IP Logged

yeah well were on a board with 100k members, i think its pretty apparent that winning the big one is a lot gharder than anyone gives due credit for. i think one thing this challenge does, is give people an unbderstanding of how long their odds really are. seeing a $3k a week bet on the 12 numbers produces pretty limited results.

once the 12 are wheeled down a little, the cost hits an area people can resonably afford. its been an eye opener for me,.