United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4084 Posts Offline

Posted: January 20, 2011, 10:38 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 20, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

It looks to me like you are comparing patterns in the distribution of winning tickets to those expected with truly Random Quickpicks. Below, I hope I can convince you this is not a fruitful endeavor because it ignores important questions and facts.

"You may say, so what, this has no effect on the final set as it can be any number within the matrix and be correct, but at least think about it."

This is correct, and I have. (See Below.)

"Running many like test can lead to some very interesting results."

Only interesting if they can be used in court in a prosecution of the Lottery!

It makes no difference overall how lotteries choose Quickpicks, provided their Draw of the winning set is as Random as is physically possible. Your observations and calculations show that the Lottery does not have to do anything but generate Random QPs to the best of their ability, because the patterns you've been observing will then occur "Randomly," or "Naturally" if you like.

Since the game you like is the Missouri SM-5, and you're primarily interested in the 4 of 5 wins, WHICH HAVE A FIXED PAYOUT, why would you care what the Quickpicks distribution looks like, UNLESS you think Missouri is planning what the Draw will be to conform to this distribution? Even if it WAS valuable information, I doubt if you have a REAL-TIME bug into the tally of the distribution of the bets as Draw-Time approaches. This whole debate hinges on the question of whether the DRAW is RANDOM, or NOT! In a FAIR Game, knowledge of the distribution of Fixed Payout combos will not help you win more money.

I think you're trying to get "Blood Out Of A Turnip!"

If you think the Lottery Techs are manipulating the Draw, you really should be contacting your Missouri State Representative. Otherwise, I must ask yesterday's question again:

* Generate a large group of 5 number sets simulating many people buying tickets.

* Next pick a single set and check it against all the sets in the large groups of sets.

* Record how many 4 and 5 of 5's matches in the large groups of sets simulating a

drawing and the prizes paid.

* Do this many times and you should find why some days have more 4 of 5's then others.

* 2 of 5 and 3 of 5's are really not a product of this observation

OK. Let's say I've done this, and I come to some conclusion about why there was a particular number of 4/5s over the last few days. Unless my conclusion is an indictment of the Lottery's computerized random selection process, or a ball weighting problem, and I suspect it has persistance, of what value would it be in divining tonight's draw?

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

Some times I feel alone in this world, It is maybe my fault as I seem to be unable to convey my

thoughts. Nothing in the previous post was meant to be used as a method of improving ones

chances but to explain a process which I think that few ever even think of. You can use the

stats and probability just so many ways before they begin to sound like a record that skips. I

though you would be interested it this, My mistake. It's clear to me that your main and maybe

only interest is the bottom line. My interest is in the mechanics and understanding the nature

of unknown processes. You are only interested in the final stage and I want to understand the

steps that come before. Winning a jackpot would be nice and many would take the money and

run, not my style. If I win a jackpot tomorrow I will still be working and doing this tomorrow

night and the next day and the day after that. The lottery is only a small part of what I work

on but you can bet that every one of my interest receives the same attention. We are just too

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

Posted: January 21, 2011, 3:33 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 20, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

It looks to me like you are comparing patterns in the distribution of winning tickets to those expected with truly Random Quickpicks. Below, I hope I can convince you this is not a fruitful endeavor because it ignores important questions and facts.

"You may say, so what, this has no effect on the final set as it can be any number within the matrix and be correct, but at least think about it."

This is correct, and I have. (See Below.)

"Running many like test can lead to some very interesting results."

Only interesting if they can be used in court in a prosecution of the Lottery!

It makes no difference overall how lotteries choose Quickpicks, provided their Draw of the winning set is as Random as is physically possible. Your observations and calculations show that the Lottery does not have to do anything but generate Random QPs to the best of their ability, because the patterns you've been observing will then occur "Randomly," or "Naturally" if you like.

Since the game you like is the Missouri SM-5, and you're primarily interested in the 4 of 5 wins, WHICH HAVE A FIXED PAYOUT, why would you care what the Quickpicks distribution looks like, UNLESS you think Missouri is planning what the Draw will be to conform to this distribution? Even if it WAS valuable information, I doubt if you have a REAL-TIME bug into the tally of the distribution of the bets as Draw-Time approaches. This whole debate hinges on the question of whether the DRAW is RANDOM, or NOT! In a FAIR Game, knowledge of the distribution of Fixed Payout combos will not help you win more money.

I think you're trying to get "Blood Out Of A Turnip!"

If you think the Lottery Techs are manipulating the Draw, you really should be contacting your Missouri State Representative. Otherwise, I must ask yesterday's question again:

* Generate a large group of 5 number sets simulating many people buying tickets.

* Next pick a single set and check it against all the sets in the large groups of sets.

* Record how many 4 and 5 of 5's matches in the large groups of sets simulating a

drawing and the prizes paid.

* Do this many times and you should find why some days have more 4 of 5's then others.

* 2 of 5 and 3 of 5's are really not a product of this observation

OK. Let's say I've done this, and I come to some conclusion about why there was a particular number of 4/5s over the last few days. Unless my conclusion is an indictment of the Lottery's computerized random selection process, or a ball weighting problem, and I suspect it has persistance, of what value would it be in divining tonight's draw?

--Jimmy4164

"Jimmy

Some times I feel alone in this world, It is maybe my fault as I seem to be unable to convey my thoughts. Nothing in the previous post was meant to be used as a method of improving ones chances but to explain a process which I think that few ever even think of. You can use the stats and probability just so many ways before they begin to sound like a record that skips. I though you would be interested it this, My mistake. It's clear to me that your main and maybe only interest is the bottom line. My interest is in the mechanics and understanding the nature of unknown processes. You are only interested in the final stage and I want to understand the steps that come before. Winning a jackpot would be nice and many would take the money and run, not my style. If I win a jackpot tomorrow I will still be working and doing this tomorrow night and the next day and the day after that. The lottery is only a small part of what I work on but you can bet that every one of my interest receives the same attention. We are just too different to communicate in my opinion.

RL"

I'm sorry you feel this way RL-RANDOMLOGIC. Are you sure you read the post you just commented on?

When you say, "I though you would be interested it this, My mistake," it tells me I just wasted a lot of time studying your last couple posts, TRYING to make some sense out of them. When I finally figure out what you MIGHT be doing and write:

"It looks to me like you are comparing patterns in the distribution of winning tickets to those expected with truly Random Quickpicks."

... instead of explaining if I was wrong, you come back with the above.

When you say, "My interest is in the mechanics and understanding the nature of unknown processes." I can only shake my head. It reminds me of all the claims you've made about winnings far in excess of expected. Lotteries are really quite simple games. The only aspects that are possibly "unknown" are what I've been reminding you of, and EVEN gave you the benefit of the doubt on by considering that you might have found a way to measure anomolies in the Missouri computerized system. Read my sentence just quoted above in purple again.

You may be right. Maybe we are just too different to communicate. I try to get at the truth with measurable evidence; you ramble all over the place and become reticent when I ask you a poignant question. I believe your problem with me is that you can't put me in a state of awe with your esoteric ramblings, as you do some of the others here. You impress people who have a propensity or a need to believe that they can have an effect on events, like the lottery, through the shear power of their intellects. I've said this before, but I must say it again: using your program or your methods will NOT cause you or anyone else to LOSEany more than you WILL with Quickpicks. And if you're lucky, you'll win a jackpot every once in a [GREAT] while.

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

Posted: January 21, 2011, 1:42 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 21, 2011

Jimmy

I just seen the light, you seem to think I have some sort of following here at LP and have

become a guru of sorts. I would say that 99% of people that read these threads are just

looking for some entertainment. I don't have a following and I have to shake my head.

Your thought process is not to add but to tear down. You have never added anything to what

I have posted except to keep repeating what I have known since Jr high.

"It looks to me like you are comparing patterns in the distribution of winning tickets to those

expected with truly Random Quickpicks."

NO!

I was compairing the fluxuation of daily payouts to the randomly generated QP sets, big difference.

If the random process was truly random then one would not expect large clumps of similar sets to

exist. Lets say that all the QP's were samples taken off a manufacturing line from a process that

was suppose to assure a good mix of products.

5-39 matrix

575757 sets

any 5 number set

5 of 5 = 1

4 of 5 = 170

3 of 5 = 5610

2 of 5 = 59840

1 of 5 = 231880

0 of 5 = 278256

73,000 tickets sold of which 49,000 were QP's "estimated from ticket sales 70/30 mix"

49,000 / 575757 = .085

0.085 * 170 = 14.46 4 of 5's on average for any given drawing.

Sun. 01/16/11 Match 4 of 5 = 29 set = 3-11-17-24-29 = double the expected average

You can bet your boots that at least twice as many similar set tickets were sold for this drawing

The final set drawn then controls what the payout will be.

QP's

If I had a RNG that produced clusters of very similar sets on a regular basis while at the same time

was able to draw any set within the entire matrix what would be the result.

On the days that the final set was not one of the cluster sets then the payouts would be very low

and on the days that the set was very similar then the payout would be high. 2 of 5 and 3 of 5's

are not much effected by this.

What if anything you do with this is of no concern to me, Just an observation that in my opinion

would have an effect on the methods I used for my tickets. Are QP's really equal, maybe overall

but not on a day to day play, It seems that some days are much better then others. I am Not, I

repeat, Not saying that I can predict this just making this known. I would ask is your RNG generated

QP's a good choice, much more can be gotten from this information. Sufficiently random, define

"sufficiently." I have found this holds true to any RNG that I have worked with. I know you will

think this is trash and worthless knowledge and thats your opinion and you can have it. I think

that even if a person picked there numbers at random they would do better then letting the RNG

do it for you, But who knows you might have one of the correct tickets on the correct day but to

the single player what would make you think that your ticket was anything special or for that

matter anything not so special. Sometimes you have to climb upon something higher to get a

better view of what is really going on.

RL

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11-13-28-30-36

Estimated JP = 55,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 10 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 510 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,211 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,731 $13,811

Mon, Jan 17, 2011 5-6-15-20-39

Estimated JP = 50,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 11 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 592 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 5,665 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,268 $14,335

Sun, Jan 16, 2011 3-11-17-24-29

Estimated JP = 86,000

Match 5 of 5 = 1 $86,000

Match 4 of 5 = 29 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 695 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,248 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,973 $20,448 - JP

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 23-25-28-33-36

Estimated JP = 66,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $66,000

Match 4 of 5 = 14 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 659 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 7,326 $1.00

Total Winners: 7,999 $17,416

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 10-19-29-31-38

Estimated JP = 50,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 26 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 622 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,597 $1.00

Total Winners: 7,245 $19,317

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

You said,"I would ask is your RNG generated QP's a good choice, much more can be gotten from this information. Sufficiently random, define 'sufficiently.'"

Apparently, state RNGs are "sufficiently" Random to produce big winners:

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

Posted: January 23, 2011, 3:06 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 21, 2011

Jimmy

I just seen the light, you seem to think I have some sort of following here at LP and have

become a guru of sorts. I would say that 99% of people that read these threads are just

looking for some entertainment. I don't have a following and I have to shake my head.

Your thought process is not to add but to tear down. You have never added anything to what

I have posted except to keep repeating what I have known since Jr high.

"It looks to me like you are comparing patterns in the distribution of winning tickets to those

expected with truly Random Quickpicks."

NO!

I was compairing the fluxuation of daily payouts to the randomly generated QP sets, big difference.

If the random process was truly random then one would not expect large clumps of similar sets to

exist. Lets say that all the QP's were samples taken off a manufacturing line from a process that

was suppose to assure a good mix of products.

5-39 matrix

575757 sets

any 5 number set

5 of 5 = 1

4 of 5 = 170

3 of 5 = 5610

2 of 5 = 59840

1 of 5 = 231880

0 of 5 = 278256

73,000 tickets sold of which 49,000 were QP's "estimated from ticket sales 70/30 mix"

49,000 / 575757 = .085

0.085 * 170 = 14.46 4 of 5's on average for any given drawing.

Sun. 01/16/11 Match 4 of 5 = 29 set = 3-11-17-24-29 = double the expected average

You can bet your boots that at least twice as many similar set tickets were sold for this drawing

The final set drawn then controls what the payout will be.

QP's

If I had a RNG that produced clusters of very similar sets on a regular basis while at the same time

was able to draw any set within the entire matrix what would be the result.

On the days that the final set was not one of the cluster sets then the payouts would be very low

and on the days that the set was very similar then the payout would be high. 2 of 5 and 3 of 5's

are not much effected by this.

What if anything you do with this is of no concern to me, Just an observation that in my opinion

would have an effect on the methods I used for my tickets. Are QP's really equal, maybe overall

but not on a day to day play, It seems that some days are much better then others. I am Not, I

repeat, Not saying that I can predict this just making this known. I would ask is your RNG generated

QP's a good choice, much more can be gotten from this information. Sufficiently random, define

"sufficiently." I have found this holds true to any RNG that I have worked with. I know you will

think this is trash and worthless knowledge and thats your opinion and you can have it. I think

that even if a person picked there numbers at random they would do better then letting the RNG

do it for you, But who knows you might have one of the correct tickets on the correct day but to

the single player what would make you think that your ticket was anything special or for that

matter anything not so special. Sometimes you have to climb upon something higher to get a

better view of what is really going on.

RL

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11-13-28-30-36

Estimated JP = 55,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 10 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 510 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,211 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,731 $13,811

Mon, Jan 17, 2011 5-6-15-20-39

Estimated JP = 50,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 11 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 592 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 5,665 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,268 $14,335

Sun, Jan 16, 2011 3-11-17-24-29

Estimated JP = 86,000

Match 5 of 5 = 1 $86,000

Match 4 of 5 = 29 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 695 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,248 $1.00

Total Winners: 6,973 $20,448 - JP

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 23-25-28-33-36

Estimated JP = 66,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $66,000

Match 4 of 5 = 14 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 659 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 7,326 $1.00

Total Winners: 7,999 $17,416

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 10-19-29-31-38

Estimated JP = 50,000

Match 5 of 5 = 0 $0

Match 4 of 5 = 26 $250.00

Match 3 of 5 = 622 $10.00

Match 2 of 5 = 6,597 $1.00

Total Winners: 7,245 $19,317

RL-RANDOMLOGIC, You should really consider taking another look at your calculations above. I've excerpted some of them here in BLUE. My comments are in PURPLE(and black).

5-39 matrix 575757 sets any 5 number set 5 of 5 = 1 4 of 5 = 170 3 of 5 = 5610 2 of 5 = 59840 1 of 5 = 231880 0 of 5 = 278256 73,000 tickets sold of which 49,000 were QP's "estimated from ticket sales 70/30 mix"

Does 73,000 represent the AVERAGE daily ticket sales for the 5 days in your set of examples, last year's average, or what?

49,000 / 575757 = .085 0.085 * 170 = 14.46 4 of 5's on average for any given drawing.

If you are going to compare this expected number of 4 of 5s of 14.46 to the occurrences of 4 of 5s in your sample, the observed wins MUST be QuickPick Winners ONLY. Otherwise, you must use 73,000 / 575757 = .127 as your factor. Also, you would have to multiply either .085 or .127 by the ticket sale numbers for each of the 5 days, rather than the average, assuming that's what 73,000 is.

Sun. 01/16/11 Match 4 of 5 = 29 set = 3-11-17-24-29 = double the expected average

For the sake of discussion, let's assume 73,000 was the # of tickets sold on 01/16/11 AND 29 comprehends ALL winning (4 of 5) tickets, QP, and otherwise. Rather than 14.46, your expected 4 of 5s should then be .127 * 170 = 21.59, which makes 29 look much more likely to me to fall within 1 or 2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS of the expected.

What you really should do is analyze the data for a MUCH LARGER sample and calculate the Mean AND Std Deviation of the RATIO of the # of 4 of 5s and the ACTUAL ticket sales for EACH day. While you're at it, you might as well do the same for the other categories too.

There are multiple factors that contribute to this ratio, and I'll bet you a QuickPick ticket that you'll find there is really nothing very unusual about these variations in the breakdown of the Winners. And even if there is, it will make absolutely no difference in your bank account at the end of the year, provided the DRAW IS FAIR!

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

Posted: January 23, 2011, 3:33 am - IP Logged

P.S.S. (Missed the 20 minute Edit Window!)

In the post immediately above, change this sentence:

"Also, you would have to multiply either .085 or .127 by the ticket sale numbers for each of the 5 days, rather than the average, assuming that's what 73,000 is."

to...

"Also, you would have to recalculate the factors .085 OR .127 using the ACTUAL daily ticket sale numbers rather than 73,000."

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

Posted: January 25, 2011, 3:58 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 25, 2011

Jimmy

My bad, 14.46

The 73,000 is a average gotten from the total sales for the game in FY2010. Lets Say that SP's

do no better then QP's and from what I have gathered which is not based on any concrete data

that 70% are QP's and 30% SP's. The 73,000 is average sales per day. Over the years I have

built many RNG's for testing and found that all of them seemed to produce clusters of sets of numbers.

I was calculating using only the 70% assumed QP's. 73,000 - 30% = 49,000. Now if 70% of the

QP's produced 70% of the 4 of 5 on any one day then just multiply 70% times the 4 of 5's hits and

this will give a rough idea of the number of QP matching 4 of 5 numbers. 575757 / 170 = 3386.8 so 1

in about every 3386.8 tickets sold will match 4 of the 5 numbers. 73,000 / 3386 = 21.6 * 70% =

15.12, QP 4 of 5's. Again lets say that as I have observed over the years that RNG's do cluster sets of

similar numbers. Now looking from the point of the drawing, the final set it is just a another output from

the RNG. If my QP was from the cluster of sets and the final drawing was also a cluster set then

I have a greater chance of hitting with my QP. However if the final set is very different from the cluster

QP that I have then my chance of hitting is not as good. The same things applies if reversed. The point I

was making was that the days you see many winners of 4 of 5's is a result of the final set drawn being

very similar in nature to one of these clusters. If one collected all the data and matched it to the

the days which had the most hits one might find some insight into the inner workings of the RNG.

Not saying it is so, just maybe. Since we do not know if the last radom set would be a cluster or non-

cluster set this may not have any use to the player and many would not care one way or the other.

I enjoy playing the lottery and look at it like treasure hunting, each night I get out my maps and other

tools and decide where I will hunt tomorrow. I really don't care if I find it, It's just the kid in me looking

for adventure. I hate to say this but you are a bit like a wet blanket or the guy at the party that runs

everone else off. I don't take hours to proof what I write here and forget most of what I read before

I log off, I am sure that you have noticed much of what I write has many spelling and math errors

many of which are from trying to to edit what I said.

RL

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Anyone who cares to look back at your posts from our sparring a few months ago will chuckle when they compare your claims of financial success then with your Digit System with your significantly subdued remarks today. Maybe I succeeded in getting you to examine your ideas in relation to Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. If I did, that's a good thing. As for you admitting as much, I'm not surprised at your final words. You fit quite neatly into Dean Esmay's description of the person who comes to a realization that they are either unable or unwilling to admit.

"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."

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2134 Posts Offline

Posted: January 25, 2011, 5:35 pm - IP Logged

Let's define various events:

Event H: "The combination (1,2,3,4,5,6) will come." Event B: "The combination (1,9,20,29,42,49) will come." Event C: "The combination (1,2,3,47,48,49) will come." Event D: "Either B or C will happen." Event E: "The sum will be 10." Event F: "The sum will be 21." Event G: "The sum will be 150."

(I use H instead of "A" because the translation software understands letter "A" wrongly)

What I say is: "Events H, B and C are equally probable."

I don't say: "Event D is equally probable as H." Of course, it's twice more probable, if it has two ways to occur. If D = (B or C), then P(D)=P(B)+P(C)=2*P(B)=2*P(H)

Event E has zero probability, because it has 0 ways to occur. Event F has equal probability as H, because H=F, the combination H is the only way for the sum to be 21. Event G has much bigger probability than B, C or D, because G = (B or C or ...) , so P(G)=P(B)+P(C)+... (many ways to occur) So, if P(G)>P(B) and P(B)=P(H)=P(F), then of course P(G)>P(F).

Of course, you are right, the sum 150 is more probable than 21.

You say: P(G)>P(F). I say: P(H)=P(B)=P(C).

These two statements are in no conflict. And they are both correct. You just need to be methodic and not confuse these things.

By the way, RL, I hope that you understand at least a little English. I just noticed that Google Translate turned your Portuguese sentence: "Cada combinação de seis números não têm chance igual de ocorrência." into English: "Each combination of six numbers have an equal chance of occurrence.". (please see my original text here).

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

Posted: January 26, 2011, 12:07 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dr san on January 25, 2011

Let's define various events:

Event H: "The combination (1,2,3,4,5,6) will come." Event B: "The combination (1,9,20,29,42,49) will come." Event C: "The combination (1,2,3,47,48,49) will come." Event D: "Either B or C will happen." Event E: "The sum will be 10." Event F: "The sum will be 21." Event G: "The sum will be 150."

(I use H instead of "A" because the translation software understands letter "A" wrongly)

What I say is: "Events H, B and C are equally probable."

I don't say: "Event D is equally probable as H." Of course, it's twice more probable, if it has two ways to occur. If D = (B or C), then P(D)=P(B)+P(C)=2*P(B)=2*P(H)

Event E has zero probability, because it has 0 ways to occur. Event F has equal probability as H, because H=F, the combination H is the only way for the sum to be 21. Event G has much bigger probability than B, C or D, because G = (B or C or ...) , so P(G)=P(B)+P(C)+... (many ways to occur) So, if P(G)>P(B) and P(B)=P(H)=P(F), then of course P(G)>P(F).

Of course, you are right, the sum 150 is more probable than 21.

You say: P(G)>P(F). I say: P(H)=P(B)=P(C).

These two statements are in no conflict. And they are both correct. You just need to be methodic and not confuse these things.

By the way, RL, I hope that you understand at least a little English. I just noticed that Google Translate turned your Portuguese sentence: "Cada combinação de seis números não têm chance igual de ocorrência." into English: "Each combination of six numbers have an equal chance of occurrence.". (please see my original text here).

United States Member #59354 March 13, 2008 4084 Posts Offline

Posted: January 26, 2011, 4:50 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on January 25, 2011

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

Anyone who cares to look back at your posts from our sparring a few months ago will chuckle when they compare your claims of financial success then with your Digit System with your significantly subdued remarks today. Maybe I succeeded in getting you to examine your ideas in relation to Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. If I did, that's a good thing. As for you admitting as much, I'm not surprised at your final words. You fit quite neatly into Dean Esmay's description of the person who comes to a realization that they are either unable or unwilling to admit.

"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."

Last night President Obama encouraged young Americans to pursue studies in math and science in his State of the Union speech. I immediately thought of you, and wondered if maybe he had read some of your postings here. Your six precepts above surely would have motivated him! Our country really does need to heed his advice.

Above, dr san presented the most succinct indictment of your way of thinking that I've ever seen.

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

Posted: January 26, 2011, 2:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on January 26, 2011

Jimmy

I stand behind what I wrote, Now and In my post. I Still think that the Digit system will win more then

any other system of play. What you want is for me to spill my best stuff because you don't seem to

be able to get past the stats. I win more then anyone I know who plays the lottery and on a regular

basis. You are the one that does not want to admit that you could be wrong. You don't see the error

of your own ways. I am beginning to think your broken record like repetition is a mental condition.

Playing the lottery lottery will always have a element of chance, I am glad you mention this because

I really would have never known. Brilliant deduction. You suffer from a condition far worse then any

fallacy I know of.

"None of us really likes to admit being wrong.

So true, so true. Point this finger at yourself. as It seems to fit quite well.

I try to understand you, I really do but I must say that I moved out of my Shoe-Box a very long time

ago. You should consider the same. Everything you have posted can be summerized by making a

very simple child like experiment. Take the 10 pennies and the bag and test, 1 penny is marked.

Put the pennies in a bag and shake, shake and shake. Next pick one of the pennies out of the bag

without looking and see how often you select the marked penny. You could draw the marked penny

10 out of 10 or you could not select the marked penny in 100 attemps. The stats you know so well

mean nothing to me as they are only a estimate, nothing more nothing less. They DO NOT control

the output but rather make a prediction based on simple math given the number of possible outcomes,

That's It. get over it. How many ways can you say the same thing, It seems to me that there is no end

in sight.

Read This!

#1. When playing the lottery the only sure way to win is to buy all the sets /tickets

Even this could also fail because of ticket misprints or other like event.

#2. To select a few of the tickets to play is the same thing as removing all the rest.

Even a QP does this.

#3. If anyone could predict the lottery there would be no lottery

#4. Any SP is better then a QP, It still may not win but it is better.

#5. A QP that wins does still not make it a better ticket then a SP. A smart set is based on many

bits of information made from observations of the matrix. Once the drawing is over and if a QP

wins it is Chance. If a SP wins then it is still chance but if the correct information is used then

the chance is somewhat better in favor of the players SP. Think about this before you start

to babble again or decide to make some unwanted slure.

#6. This is way over your head and I know you can't begin to understand this concept because you

will go back to the stats and throw everything togeather and come up with the same old results.

Why don't you do something more productive with your time and maybe count blades of grass

or stare at the clouds looking for dog's or sheep or anything for that matter. You hide behind

simple math and think this makes you stand out in some way, not. I never know what the next

set will be but I will play what I think will have the best chance of winning. I don't do this to get

rich but for the chase. So, go ahead and play your $6.00 a couple times a week on a game that

the odds aginst your ever winning are so great that you should keep your money and not play.

But maybe you really think that you have a chance, How absurd!! Really now Jimmy, do you think

you will win, if not then why do you waste your money. O, I forgot, with you it is a simple form of

entertainment. Talk about delusional, I think you win this one hands down. With powerball You

would need to purchase 344 tickets for every 1 ticket that I play for my 5-39 to have the same odds

for a jackpot, I ask again who here is one that is fooled. Your actions speek louder then your words.

Might just be a couple of fools here but I would take my fooled over yours anyday. So go ahead with

your perpetual regurgitating mechanism and tell me how wrong I am but don't be offended if I toss

it into the [been there, done that, don't help, trash bag].

RL

"You (Jimmy) hide behind simple math and think this makes you stand out in some way, not."

There is nothing wrong with statistics and I applaud anyone taking the time to do it. However when their conclusions prove what 99% of all lottery players already knew, the statistics are useless. Jimmy can pretend they mean something for the next 30 years but at the end of the day, they only prove what we already knew on day one. He actually believed it was extraordinary to find playing $1 on the same number in a pick-3 game for over 30 years would result in a loss of lots of money when anyone with a "C" in 6th grade math could have told him that.

The topic of this thread is about the probably of matching 2 to 4 even numbers in a 6/49 lotto game and statistics may show a short term bias that would be more useful to RL's playing strategy. I don't know how RL would use it but since they are winning, it could be helpful.

Since Jimmy has offered no practical helpful playing strategy, he uses stats from the Challenges by unrealistically suggesting a group of players would wager $3168 2 a week for a year or an incredible 4 times a week if they play in the MM Challenge too.

The probability of playing four bonus numbers 792 times in each drawing in PB is it will slightly outperform any number of bonus numbers used when purchasing $3168 QPs over time. The only way to make a realistic comparison would be to buy a like number of QPs and compare them to the Challenge results.

Hey Jimmy, after you buy 128,992 PB tickets every week for a year, let us know how you made out.

"#1. When playing the lottery the only sure way to win is to buy all the sets /tickets

Even this could also fail because of ticket misprints or other like event."

When that Aussie group won $27 million in the Virginia lotto, they didn't have the time to buy all 7.1 million tickets and were over half a million tickets short. The idea that a group could buy all the combos in PB and MM is just plain stupid.

There is nothing wrong with speculating how anyone would wager a reasonable amount of money, but Jimmy keeps coming up with amounts that defy all logic just to prove what most of us already knew.

In the past I've used a 5/39 playing strategy using a reasonable amount of numbers that had consistently averaged 2 or 3 hits a drawings with some 4s and an occasional 5. I made a small profit playing 7 days a week for six weeks and stopped when average number of hits started dropping. Filling out just four playing slips accurately every day and hoping the clerk ran each slip was a real pain in the butt too so it's obvious that anyone suggesting they would play 3168 combos filling out 634 play slips, hasn't filled out very many.

After holding up the line running 634 playsips, can you imagine the look on people's faces in line behind him while he was checking the tickets for accuracy?

"Why don't you do something more productive with your time and maybe count blades of grassor stare at the clouds looking for dog's or sheep or anything for that matter."

LOL!

Reminds me of when Jimmy got out his handy dandy statistics to show a Tic Tac Toe system player that playing all the possible combos on their TTT workout would be a bad bet even if it did average 22 hits a month. At least four people on that thread tried to point out to Jimmy they only played a couple combos and were just satisfied their TTT was producing hits. Just another of example of how useless his statistics are because he doesn't understand how people play. Have you ever seen Jimmy give statistics on reasonable wagers that we didn't already know?

If Jimmy ever decides to take on Pumpi's systems with his boring and useless statistics, Pumpi will probably quit posting forever.

BTW, if you're reading this Jimmy, published odds are those listed on state lottery websites usually in their "odds and payouts" section or on the back of scratch-off tickets. A published odds of 1:81 means on average, 1 ticket out of every 8.1 tickets will win something. Here is a statistic for you: two out of the replies knew that and you were are the one that didn't.

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

Posted: January 26, 2011, 3:21 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on January 26, 2011

"You (Jimmy) hide behind simple math and think this makes you stand out in some way, not."

There is nothing wrong with statistics and I applaud anyone taking the time to do it. However when their conclusions prove what 99% of all lottery players already knew, the statistics are useless. Jimmy can pretend they mean something for the next 30 years but at the end of the day, they only prove what we already knew on day one. He actually believed it was extraordinary to find playing $1 on the same number in a pick-3 game for over 30 years would result in a loss of lots of money when anyone with a "C" in 6th grade math could have told him that.

The topic of this thread is about the probably of matching 2 to 4 even numbers in a 6/49 lotto game and statistics may show a short term bias that would be more useful to RL's playing strategy. I don't know how RL would use it but since they are winning, it could be helpful.

Since Jimmy has offered no practical helpful playing strategy, he uses stats from the Challenges by unrealistically suggesting a group of players would wager $3168 2 a week for a year or an incredible 4 times a week if they play in the MM Challenge too.

The probability of playing four bonus numbers 792 times in each drawing in PB is it will slightly outperform any number of bonus numbers used when purchasing $3168 QPs over time. The only way to make a realistic comparison would be to buy a like number of QPs and compare them to the Challenge results.

Hey Jimmy, after you buy 128,992 PB tickets every week for a year, let us know how you made out.

"#1. When playing the lottery the only sure way to win is to buy all the sets /tickets

Even this could also fail because of ticket misprints or other like event."

When that Aussie group won $27 million in the Virginia lotto, they didn't have the time to buy all 7.1 million tickets and were over half a million tickets short. The idea that a group could buy all the combos in PB and MM is just plain stupid.

There is nothing wrong with speculating how anyone would wager a reasonable amount of money, but Jimmy keeps coming up with amounts that defy all logic just to prove what most of us already knew.

In the past I've used a 5/39 playing strategy using a reasonable amount of numbers that had consistently averaged 2 or 3 hits a drawings with some 4s and an occasional 5. I made a small profit playing 7 days a week for six weeks and stopped when average number of hits started dropping. Filling out just four playing slips accurately every day and hoping the clerk ran each slip was a real pain in the butt too so it's obvious that anyone suggesting they would play 3168 combos filling out 634 play slips, hasn't filled out very many.

After holding up the line running 634 playsips, can you imagine the look on people's faces in line behind him while he was checking the tickets for accuracy?

"Why don't you do something more productive with your time and maybe count blades of grassor stare at the clouds looking for dog's or sheep or anything for that matter."

LOL!

Reminds me of when Jimmy got out his handy dandy statistics to show a Tic Tac Toe system player that playing all the possible combos on their TTT workout would be a bad bet even if it did average 22 hits a month. At least four people on that thread tried to point out to Jimmy they only played a couple combos and were just satisfied their TTT was producing hits. Just another of example of how useless his statistics are because he doesn't understand how people play. Have you ever seen Jimmy give statistics on reasonable wagers that we didn't already know?

If Jimmy ever decides to take on Pumpi's systems with his boring and useless statistics, Pumpi will probably quit posting forever.

BTW, if you're reading this Jimmy, published odds are those listed on state lottery websites usually in their "odds and payouts" section or on the back of scratch-off tickets. A published odds of 1:81 means on average, 1 ticket out of every 8.1 tickets will win something. Here is a statistic for you: two out of the replies knew that and you were are the one that didn't.

Stack47,

Whew! Couldn't you make your point[s] in a sentence or two? Don't bother, however; you've said this all before, and I've replied to it.