United States Member #69169 January 5, 2009 2122 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 3:13 am - IP Logged

You can win any lotto if you have hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even then there is no computer to compile all of these numbers and who in the Hell is going to type them out in a timely manner......NO ONE.

United States Member #105312 January 29, 2011 435 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 10:48 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on March 18, 2011

Sometime back I also read about Gail Howard winning so many lotteries that she allowed her winning tickets to accumulate before cashing them so I reasoned that they must have been small wins. I've never read about her winning any jackpots.

I assume when lottery systems sellers like Gail Howard, Steve Players and others need to have a bunch of winning tickets to sell their systems, they can afford to buy a large group of tickets and write their loses off as a business expense. They obviously don't make their money playing lotteries but rather selling lottery systems to players.

RJOH - The public motive behind government involvement in lotteries isn't out of step with the motives behind the people who exploit the fact it exists as an institution to make money from it indirectly. Government lottery operations are there to persuade the population to voluntarily contribute money to ultimately be spent by governments on government priorities. In order to do that the lottery administrations have to maintain enough of a level of security in their methods and operations to provide ticket buyers a convincing argument they have a possibility of winning. It doesn't necessarily follow that they oppose the Gail Howards and Steve Players in their own efforts to make money indirectly by offering up systems intended to beat the system. Anything encouraging ticket buyers to continue buying tickets or buy more tickets without fraud or eroding trust in the underlying system is probably fine with them.

Where so much money is involved it isn't reasonable to expect sideline industries won't spring up to catch part of the overflow. Gail Howard is one example but a glance at the left sidebar provides plenty of others.

People are paying a lot of money for hope of a particular description. Part of that hope is dressed in efforts to beat the system.

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1691 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 11:25 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on March 19, 2011

Thanks for the tip garyo1954. If I have time, I'll check it out. I'm pretty busy these days and was hoping one of the experts here might take up the task of answering the question prompted by nelson1's earlier posting. I.E., he assumes there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods. I agree with him. Perhaps you can follow your references above, apply them to various results here at LP, and get back to us with your findings.

Sorry to hear about poor RL. I'm surprised you'd say he's been nothing but a gentlemen though. You apparently haven't looked back very far in the archives. And I doubt if you were privy to his private messages to me early on, or were you? BTW, I just checked, and I don't believe I mentioned or even alluded to random number generation in relation to RL's claims in the last couple days. Since you brought it up, though, if he applies his pruning process to the hundreds of thousands of possible plays in his 5/39 game and just can't seem to reduce the playable sets to a number he can afford, and it really looks to him like a good day to bet, he might want to take a shot at randomly selecting from his highly likely sets what his budget permits. He can get some hints on exactly how to do this if he takes a close look at the source code that JADELottery posted recently in this Forum.

Do you have any expert opinion on his claim of picking eleven (11) times as many winners as QuickPick players year over year for about 20 years?

Have a nice day.

Jimbooo!!!!

Great concept.

How can you expect people to check out your most often worthless links to which you offer no background or opinion and yet, when someone points you to specific locations where you can get the necessary information and tools to answer your own questions, you have no time to do it?

Naturally, if you agree with nelson1, and assume there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods, you would take up the task of proving your theory with facts.

You seem to be working very hard on your Master of Fail badge.

Jimboo, for everyone's edification,you interfered in RL's thread, attacked him and his methods, and continue to post the same overused and unproven 'I know it don't work' idea. You have yet to produce a single, verifiable piece of evidence to back up your claim. What's the problem, Jimmy? Don't you have anything to offer? Or is it asking too much that you show fact?

Another obfusication? Since you have no facts to present, and no inclination to produce any, you'll wave this hand and that hand, pushing Jimboo's Magic Ju-Ju Juice, the Miracle Cure, that elimnates the problems of logic and reasoning and discussion. These things are not your strong suit.

So far you haven't been able to give it away even with the free gift coupons and 'flowery verbosity.' Even at a dime a bottle it is worthless.

Now, if you dare test your own logic, you merely have to use the tools I've pointed you to and determine for yourself if picking 11 times as many winners as Quick Picks is possible. Of course, you'd have to put Jimboo's Magic Ju-Ju Juice aside, and you can't. It tastes too good.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19826 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 1:52 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Jordans121 on March 19, 2011

You can win any lotto if you have hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even then there is no computer to compile all of these numbers and who in the Hell is going to type them out in a timely manner......NO ONE.

That was done a few years back in the Virgina lottery when it was a 6/40 games and the cash value of its jackpot exceeded the odds of winning it. The group that did it took over terminals at 3 seven/eleven stores for three days and attempted to play all the possible combinations. They were the only jackpot winners and with other smaller prizes won, they made a nice profit.

After that most states changed their rules so no one person or group could control their lottery terminals more than 15 minutes if other players wanted to use them and now with the larger matrix, jackpot cash values seldom exceed the odds of winning the jackpots.

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

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19826 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 2:01 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JosephusMinimus on March 19, 2011

RJOH - The public motive behind government involvement in lotteries isn't out of step with the motives behind the people who exploit the fact it exists as an institution to make money from it indirectly. Government lottery operations are there to persuade the population to voluntarily contribute money to ultimately be spent by governments on government priorities. In order to do that the lottery administrations have to maintain enough of a level of security in their methods and operations to provide ticket buyers a convincing argument they have a possibility of winning. It doesn't necessarily follow that they oppose the Gail Howards and Steve Players in their own efforts to make money indirectly by offering up systems intended to beat the system. Anything encouraging ticket buyers to continue buying tickets or buy more tickets without fraud or eroding trust in the underlying system is probably fine with them.

Where so much money is involved it isn't reasonable to expect sideline industries won't spring up to catch part of the overflow. Gail Howard is one example but a glance at the left sidebar provides plenty of others.

People are paying a lot of money for hope of a particular description. Part of that hope is dressed in efforts to beat the system.

I agree, in fact states walk a thin line when they release news about players winning multiple jackpots along with a warning that players should play responsible. They are saying players who spend a lot win more and losers who spend a lot lose more but their main mission is to increase sales and hopefully with folks who have more disposable income to waste.

My response to your comments about Gail Howard was to note that while she claims to have won some money playing lotteries she never claim to have beaten them. Fact is I one read here at LP news of a state suing a company that made such a claim and said if they wanted to do business in their state they would have to prove their claims.

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

United States Member #105312 January 29, 2011 435 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 2:07 pm - IP Logged

RL sprinkled with a little RNG seems to be the only thing going on here. I don't know enough about what RL was doing to run tests worth the trouble, but I'll admit to doing some testing on the basic concept splitting double digit numbers as they occur from the perspective of random and non random. I've only done it on two 5/39 games and I only tested for the numbers 4 through 9.

The results weren't earth-shaking and any apologists for statistical randomness wouldn't be impressed, but those numbers appear to occur more in cycles than non-professional statisticians would expect. As a non-statistician I don't associate cycles with randomness in most instances.

mississippi United States Member #34478 March 3, 2006 5903 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

what does it take to win Mathematically SPEAKING?

and the answer is .....NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can not use Math for RANDOM..sorry if you and your friends are under some dilusion that you can..but you can not..and I would also like to say CONGRATULATIONS to any of you that have paid money at some University and acquired some knowledge in probability, statistics, law of large numbers..I think the list could go on for a little while..hopefully you will understand

here is your MATH PART PROBABILITY..taken straight off typing in probability into GOOGLE...

A spinner has 4 equal sectors colored yellow, blue, green and red. What are the chances of landing on blue after spinning the spinner? What are the chances of landing on red?

Solution:

The chances of landing on blue are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

The chances of landing on red are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

NOW I ASK YOU THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTIN..

What is the most important PIECE of information about the problem is MISSING?

ANSWER IS.....TIME..I dont care how many colors there..how many balls there are, how many states there are..all that MATH STUFF was designed by MATHEMATICIANS that still have not figured out yet that TIME IS THE ANSWER TO SOLVING RANDOM..IT is the key to the whole ball of wax..

Like I have said many times before..I could ask my granddaughter for a pic 3 combo to play tonight and if she gave me 567..yep..she is right..ITS IN THERE SOMEWHERE..but she has no idea of time..or when it will show..now..is that to much information for you squash to understand..is that somehow so far above you thinking capacity that you do not FULLY COMPHREHEND that simple little fact..if you pick a combo or 2, or 3or 4, or 10..well you need to have some idea when they will show..but wait a minute..noone can do that it is RANDOM..how could anyone possibly now whats coming out in the NEAR FUTURE..

PROOF..PROOF..PROOF.PROOF.PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

I sent these to SHELBY50 in Illinois at the end of Feb I believe

001 005 009 028 094 096 098... 4 hits this month

118 158 189 105 125 145 156..no hits yet..0's are stuck but that is fine..I told her 60 days..here is a copy of the email

— Previous Private Message — Sent By: shelby50 Sent: March 4, 2011, 3:35 pm

Woo Hoo, Yes we did

sorry it took a little longer but just remember there ARE SO MANY VARIABLES RUNNING for every game it is very hard to find something

variables like..

a single digit return

2 diigit return

single digit first position

second position

third position.

even number return

odd number return

low number return

high number return. series due

high middle or low

a double due in all position

the list goes on and on..so it takes time to cycle through all that stuff to get what you are looking for now you know as well as I do that Illinois is not going to give up a 0 or 1 in every single draw but those numbers should be good for next 2 months..when you think a 0 or 1 is coming throw them in..good luck tonight..

— Previous Private Message — Sent By: lotterybraker Sent: March 4, 2011, 2:18 pm

001 005 009 028 049 069 089

see that small list of variables in that email..that is just for starters..NOW..you are going to sit there and tell me that MATH CAN SOLVE EVERY VARIABLE THAT IS LISTED ABOVE PLUS ALL of the others that are not listed..and then the ABSOLUTE FINAL PIECE of the puzzle is THE NATURAL ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT for all OF THOSE VARIABLES..do you still think Math can solve it?

If you are a Math Guru..Congrats..you like it..obviously someone told you since the lottery has numbers Math can solve it..well I hate to dissappoint you..Math cannot solve RANDOM..stick with what MATH HAS ALREADY TAUGHT EVERYONE SINCE TIME BEGAN

A= LxW..not sure who or when it was found

E= MC2.. this one is kinda new but very helpful

A2+B2 = C2..FOUND LONG TIME AGO Pythagoras

PIE = 3.14 also found long time ago and perfected

SOME CHEMISTRY PERHAPS Nomenclature

NaCl = na+ cl

Math can solve ANYTHING THAT HAS A CONSTANT ALL YOU DO IS PLUG IN THE NUMBERS INTO THE FORMULA AND IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY SPIT OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER EVERYTIME..BECAUSE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS..THERE ENTIRE PURPOSE IS TO SOLVE SOMETHING...BALANCE THE EQUATION..THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT RANDOM THAT CAN BE BALANCED OR SOLVED USING MATH

RANDOM on the other hand has NO CONSTANT..if anyone could find AN ABSOLUTE CONSTANT then all of random could be solved..but..just like all of you when I first started studying numbers for monetary gain IE playing the lottery..I came to the same conclusion that many of you cling to til this day..heh..these are numbers..lets find some math that will help out..it took me about 2 years..somewhere around 1990 ,1991 maybe and I REALISED SOMETHING...

A=LxW..all the math I know of and have been taught going through my school years every bit of it produces a constant and can be solved..they say our UNIVERSE is appoximately 13.7 billion years old..well..13.7 billion years ago when everything was made at one time..including A=LxW..if a=6..then L and W will always be 2 and 3..13.7 billion years FROM NOW A=6..then L and W will still be 2 and 3..balanced and solved

I am not a Mathematician..what I am is this..I have a self imposed double DOCTORATE IN RANDOMOLGY if you will..I took the title because there is NOTHING that anyone at any UNIVERSITY on this PLANET that could teach me about random..plain and simple end of discussion!!!!!!1

"Attention all Mathematicians: Check your degree at the door because when it comes to whole numbers you are the Amateur"

United States Member #69169 January 5, 2009 2122 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 3:12 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by lotterybraker on March 19, 2011

what does it take to win Mathematically SPEAKING?

and the answer is .....NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can not use Math for RANDOM..sorry if you and your friends are under some dilusion that you can..but you can not..and I would also like to say CONGRATULATIONS to any of you that have paid money at some University and acquired some knowledge in probability, statistics, law of large numbers..I think the list could go on for a little while..hopefully you will understand

here is your MATH PART PROBABILITY..taken straight off typing in probability into GOOGLE...

A spinner has 4 equal sectors colored yellow, blue, green and red. What are the chances of landing on blue after spinning the spinner? What are the chances of landing on red?

Solution:

The chances of landing on blue are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

The chances of landing on red are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

NOW I ASK YOU THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTIN..

What is the most important PIECE of information about the problem is MISSING?

ANSWER IS.....TIME..I dont care how many colors there..how many balls there are, how many states there are..all that MATH STUFF was designed by MATHEMATICIANS that still have not figured out yet that TIME IS THE ANSWER TO SOLVING RANDOM..IT is the key to the whole ball of wax..

Like I have said many times before..I could ask my granddaughter for a pic 3 combo to play tonight and if she gave me 567..yep..she is right..ITS IN THERE SOMEWHERE..but she has no idea of time..or when it will show..now..is that to much information for you squash to understand..is that somehow so far above you thinking capacity that you do not FULLY COMPHREHEND that simple little fact..if you pick a combo or 2, or 3or 4, or 10..well you need to have some idea when they will show..but wait a minute..noone can do that it is RANDOM..how could anyone possibly now whats coming out in the NEAR FUTURE..

PROOF..PROOF..PROOF.PROOF.PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

I sent these to SHELBY50 in Illinois at the end of Feb I believe

001 005 009 028 094 096 098... 4 hits this month

118 158 189 105 125 145 156..no hits yet..0's are stuck but that is fine..I told her 60 days..here is a copy of the email

— Previous Private Message — Sent By: shelby50 Sent: March 4, 2011, 3:35 pm

Woo Hoo, Yes we did

sorry it took a little longer but just remember there ARE SO MANY VARIABLES RUNNING for every game it is very hard to find something

variables like..

a single digit return

2 diigit return

single digit first position

second position

third position.

even number return

odd number return

low number return

high number return. series due

high middle or low

a double due in all position

the list goes on and on..so it takes time to cycle through all that stuff to get what you are looking for now you know as well as I do that Illinois is not going to give up a 0 or 1 in every single draw but those numbers should be good for next 2 months..when you think a 0 or 1 is coming throw them in..good luck tonight..

— Previous Private Message — Sent By: lotterybraker Sent: March 4, 2011, 2:18 pm

001 005 009 028 049 069 089

see that small list of variables in that email..that is just for starters..NOW..you are going to sit there and tell me that MATH CAN SOLVE EVERY VARIABLE THAT IS LISTED ABOVE PLUS ALL of the others that are not listed..and then the ABSOLUTE FINAL PIECE of the puzzle is THE NATURAL ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT for all OF THOSE VARIABLES..do you still think Math can solve it?

If you are a Math Guru..Congrats..you like it..obviously someone told you since the lottery has numbers Math can solve it..well I hate to dissappoint you..Math cannot solve RANDOM..stick with what MATH HAS ALREADY TAUGHT EVERYONE SINCE TIME BEGAN

A= LxW..not sure who or when it was found

E= MC2.. this one is kinda new but very helpful

A2+B2 = C2..FOUND LONG TIME AGO Pythagoras

PIE = 3.14 also found long time ago and perfected

SOME CHEMISTRY PERHAPS Nomenclature

NaCl = na+ cl

Math can solve ANYTHING THAT HAS A CONSTANT ALL YOU DO IS PLUG IN THE NUMBERS INTO THE FORMULA AND IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY SPIT OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER EVERYTIME..BECAUSE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS..THERE ENTIRE PURPOSE IS TO SOLVE SOMETHING...BALANCE THE EQUATION..THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT RANDOM THAT CAN BE BALANCED OR SOLVED USING MATH

RANDOM on the other hand has NO CONSTANT..if anyone could find AN ABSOLUTE CONSTANT then all of random could be solved..but..just like all of you when I first started studying numbers for monetary gain IE playing the lottery..I came to the same conclusion that many of you cling to til this day..heh..these are numbers..lets find some math that will help out..it took me about 2 years..somewhere around 1990 ,1991 maybe and I REALISED SOMETHING...

A=LxW..all the math I know of and have been taught going through my school years every bit of it produces a constant and can be solved..they say our UNIVERSE is appoximately 13.7 billion years old..well..13.7 billion years ago when everything was made at one time..including A=LxW..if a=6..then L and W will always be 2 and 3..13.7 billion years FROM NOW A=6..then L and W will still be 2 and 3..balanced and solved

I am not a Mathematician..what I am is this..I have a self imposed double DOCTORATE IN RANDOMOLGY if you will..I took the title because there is NOTHING that anyone at any UNIVERSITY on this PLANET that could teach me about random..plain and simple end of discussion!!!!!!1

Remarkable layout of thought. I've been saying this for a very long time. All numbers will eventually show so if you say 555 is coming out then you are right, it will make its way in the "future". However, one needs to have a time frame in order to come away with a profit. You probability is better when you play a single number like 137. I wonder if you know what the hottest number in your Pick3 states history. Take that number and play it or play the pairs from it. You will be surprised.

United States Member #105312 January 29, 2011 435 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 5:35 pm - IP Logged

Thanks for an interesting post lotterybreaker. It's news to me that anyone has discarded time as an element of any random issues. But I think you're right that it can probably be solved. I just doubt anyone will solve it using high school math.

But you are the one who predicted some pick 3 draws sometime. Congratulations.

mississippi United States Member #34478 March 3, 2006 5903 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 8:20 pm - IP Logged

oh trust me..I can do it more than JUST SOMETIME...that field I used for Illinois is my repeating field I designed, ie 089 twice..and when 1 starts ,one or more of them should repeat as well..I have briefly demonstrated this new run to my fellow LP members in the past several months..this is nothing new..but it is the best run I have ever designed and it works wonderful!!!! I see you are a new member..you have lots of reading to catch upon...!!!!!

and RANDOM IS NOT MATH..it is completely seperate from Math..it has nothing to do with Math..Mathematicians have tried and failed to solve it that is why you get theories of probability and law of large numbers etc..oh yeah..I have B.A. degree also..so in college I took extra levels of Math..you know you have to in order to graduate..

If Math and Random BELONG exclusively to the field of Mathematics..where is the link? Did someone or somegroup have a meeting and say..heh lets group Random with Math

some intersting questions...

If Random is SUPPOSE to be truely about the so Called UNKNOWN which means just that..its random..so you are not suppose to know it..but we do know it..dont we?

unknown event, place and time

Now is this true random or not?..NO..its not true either...random bank robbery, random lightning strike, random tornado, random earthquake, random stock market..random lottery numbers, if we already know these things are going to happen and they do..then how can it be random? whats missing? some very specific info like where and whena VERYLARGE FIELD..that is what random gives me..the random fields I can generate would give me the answers to all of those if I had enough info to sift through and design a field for..and yes I bet you I could do it also...because in ANY LARGE FIELD ..I can squeeze the crap out of random and make it force out something

now of course the lottery is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than any of those other events..because of ONE SIMPLE FACT..the lottery is a SCAM..pure and simple SCAM..when a state takes out 4-6 pretest draws before they have one to pay people for..and then turn right around and take out 4-6 more EVEN AFTER THEY had the paying draw..they are not doing that for safety or security reasons..they are doing that to hide and change numerical sequences..and we have had this discussion before also..

it would be like you wanting to invest in WAL-MART with your HEDGEHOG (HAHA) FUND..but Wal-Mart says..you know what..instead of daily information..from now on we are only going to give you info for our company one day of the week the other 4 days is pretest data and it has no bearing on our company's future whatsoever..now..how many people would invest in some crackpot scheme like that?

EVERY COMBINATION they take out of those machines whether they pay money on them or not HAS BEARING on what comes out in the future and efects time more than anything!!!!

Just remember to complete this field 000-999 each combination has to show just one time..just one time is all..if it shows in a pretest draw..just like I said before...they can hide STRAIGHTS FOR A LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG TIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Now I want to apologise to anyone if they were thinking I was trying to take over their thread..wasnt my intention at all...I just wanted to spew a few thoughts about the MATH PART..simplyput..that is how I feel about the Math/random connection which Iwill argue there is no connection between the 2 in my view they are COMPLETE OPPOSITES of each other..one solves the mysteries of the universe, designs perfect buildings and cars using CONSTANTS..the other proves itself every nite when you purchase your losing tickets and believe me..I have purchased and will continue to purchase my share of losers as well...however, I still wouldnt mind living in a state that actually had a lottery to play....good luck to everyone tonight!!!!1

"Attention all Mathematicians: Check your degree at the door because when it comes to whole numbers you are the Amateur"

United States Member #105312 January 29, 2011 435 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 9:08 pm - IP Logged

Lotterybraker: I don't think we know much about randomness at all. We know quite a lot about something we call probabilities and treat probabilities as though they intrude or exist in an environment we call randomness. The great majority of people who have advanced degrees in math or science agree randomness exists and many have attempted to quantify how it appears in the habitat that has been created for it.

But the underlying question of whether randomness actually exists goes a lot deeper and further back in the history of human thought than science. People as intelligent as anyone on the planet today argued about it centuries before the word science was invented to describe a method of observing nature and formulating hypotheses about those observations for testing.

Questions about whether the condition of randomness exists within the context of lottery attempts to produce random numbers is a different matter entirely. Members in all the forums hold strong views about it. Not just the math forum.

I don't question that you believe what you are saying is true. I don't even question that it might be true. I'm just not interested in Pick 3 at the moment.

United States Member #69169 January 5, 2009 2122 Posts Offline

Posted: March 19, 2011, 11:45 pm - IP Logged

Lottery Braker has stated this over and over and he is absolutely right. I look back in his long,long ago posts and he explains this well but you have to read it first. LB is one of the best predictors on LP in my opinion, I take him at his word and you should too. Besides, Ive tried almost every way that is possible other than LB's way because it is too time consuming and plus I have my own strategies.

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

Posted: March 20, 2011, 4:22 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on March 19, 2011

Jimbooo!!!!

Great concept.

How can you expect people to check out your most often worthless links to which you offer no background or opinion and yet, when someone points you to specific locations where you can get the necessary information and tools to answer your own questions, you have no time to do it?

Naturally, if you agree with nelson1, and assume there are differences among random sequences generated by different methods, you would take up the task of proving your theory with facts.

You seem to be working very hard on your Master of Fail badge.

Jimboo, for everyone's edification,you interfered in RL's thread, attacked him and his methods, and continue to post the same overused and unproven 'I know it don't work' idea. You have yet to produce a single, verifiable piece of evidence to back up your claim. What's the problem, Jimmy? Don't you have anything to offer? Or is it asking too much that you show fact?

Another obfusication? Since you have no facts to present, and no inclination to produce any, you'll wave this hand and that hand, pushing Jimboo's Magic Ju-Ju Juice, the Miracle Cure, that elimnates the problems of logic and reasoning and discussion. These things are not your strong suit.

So far you haven't been able to give it away even with the free gift coupons and 'flowery verbosity.' Even at a dime a bottle it is worthless.

Now, if you dare test your own logic, you merely have to use the tools I've pointed you to and determine for yourself if picking 11 times as many winners as Quick Picks is possible. Of course, you'd have to put Jimboo's Magic Ju-Ju Juice aside, and you can't. It tastes too good.

No Jimboo. I won't do your homework.

G

Gareeeee!!!!!

"...you would take up the task of proving your theorywith facts."

My Theory? Methinks you need to pay more attention to the details. If you note the context and my posts regarding nelson1's post, you'll discover I have made no claims that require any proof. It's widely known that "random" sequences have measurable properties that vary depending on the methods used to generate them. Cycle length of these sequences is an important one for lotteries. I am getting quite weary of being forced to repeat myself so that people like you can be relieved of any effort to look up and read my earlier posts. I won't do your homework.

"you interfered in RL's thread, attacked him and his methods,"

UH HA!So this is what ails you! "Attacked," 'eh? Hmm. Are you RL's hired muscle, or do you work pro bono? Is he so broken and depressed that he has to send you and others out to defend his undocumented claims?

If you, Stack47, and RL-RANDOMLOGIC, et al, truly believe my postings are a waste of time and no threat to you or your livelihood, it's curious why you expend so much energy trying to discredit everything I say. What is your true agenda?

You can all discuss and debate the qualities or existence of randomness until your hearts are content. I am quite confident that state lotteries in the US are "sufficiently random" for the purpose of generating random sequences of numbers from sets of 10 to 60 objects. Any variations in the underlying [most likely] 64 bit output of RNGs or the physical chaos of the mechanical ball machines is so insignificant in the lottery context that they will have no discernable effect on the distribution of the winnings to the winners.

You and your leader, the poor weakened warrior, could put to rest any and all of these controversies by simply posting the source code of a simulation that proves the claims made about your systems. If you determine this to be impossible or unwise, for whatever reasons, why not devote all of your energy to the tasks of raising capital, planning, and organizing a nationwide trip. You could then cruise stealthily around the country as a team, exploiting any and every vulnerable state lottery you encounter!

With your fully capitalized crew, and an ELEVEN TO ONE EDGE IN LOTTO, you could surely afford the finest hotels. And who knows, you might get LUCKY, and hit a BIG ONE! Be sure to be prepared for that possibility by always wearing caps with your LP usernames on them so when you pose in media events, we will all know you succeeded!!

It's really quite simple. Prove your methods, or stand down!

And don't bother suggesting that I do that:

I am making NO claims. I CAN NOT beat the odds of the lotteries.