Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 4:42 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

What Does It Take To Win (Mathematically Speaking?)

Topic closed. 134 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Stack47.

Page 6 of 9
51
PrintE-mailLink
mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106060
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 20, 2011, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

I have a system that can easily beat the lottery. This whole week I haven't played one ticket.

    lotterybraker's avatar - pyramid
    mississippi
    United States
    Member #34478
    March 3, 2006
    5903 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 20, 2011, 3:20 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. 

    Thanks again for an interesting post.

    No...you dont know much about RANDOMNESS..BUT I DO..I have been studying it over 20 years and believe me..I know random very well..In fact,I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM...the next 5 % will be all KNOWN VARIABLES that pertains to the event in question..no matter what it is..lottery, bank robberies, earthquakes YOU name it...the very LAST 10% OF FINITE RANDOM will be the NATURAL ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT of all the variables...because that will give you the exact TIME of everything!!!!!1

     

    Now the last 10% cant be solved because of one simple fact I have discovered..the closer you get to solving finite random the closer it moves to infinite random...simply put..all random fields begin to expand further and further apart..so the last 10% WILL NEVER BE SOLVED..AND I DO MEAN NEVER!!!!1

     

    now I know what you are thinking..Lotterybraker, you are so full of sh$t..well..do a little a research and learn something..whatever state you live in go BACK TO THE BEGINNING, the very first pic 3, 4 ,5, or pic 6 draw..AND START..its really simple..lets make a demonstration out of ARKANSAS it is the newest lottery and its pic 3 which is the easiest to demonstrate

    VERY FIRST COMBO to show for ARKANSAS

    Mon, Dec 14, 2009ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-2-7

    see that 427..now lets generate a SIMPLE FIELD for everyone to understand

    0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

    here is our field

    nowevery single digit 0-9 will have to SHOW RIGHT AFTER A 4 in any position

    427

    848

    316

    948

    100

    546

    850

    264

    852

    904

    223

    455

    009

    now, if I checked this right the only number in the field that HASNT FOLLOWED 4...IS a 4..which is quite typical for the matching digit to be last..so what we need is a 4 to follow a combo that had a 4 in it and what we get is this..

    January 4 and 5 2010

     

    Tue, Jan 5, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-8-4
    Mon, Jan 4, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-4-5

    the field is complete started dec 14 finished January 5..that is 22 days to complete that VERY SIMPLE FIELD..( VERY IMPORTANT FACT HERE ON THAT 22 DAYS..IT WILL JUMP AROUND LIKE FROG ON CRACK BECAUSE THE NEXT FIELD COULD BE 10 DAYS OR 100)

    But lets not OVERLOOK THE even BIGGER PICTURE..WHAT IS really going On here..the field begins to expand and expand even further apart if you try to add another digit and continue the field..but what is left in the field? INFINITY IS LEFT..all we did was find 0-9..but everything else has to follow that 4 as well..for example 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 51, 62, 87, 99, then what happens..it goes to all 3 diigts 000 001 002 003 004 125, 126, 127 654, 655 656 etc..

    now lets continue just a little further to show you whats going on..

    after Jan 5th we get, WHEN FIELD WAS COMPLETE 0-9

    Thu, Jan 7, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening9-1-5
    Thu, Jan 7, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday5-4-8

    see that 4 midday we get 15 and 19 or 51 and 91 after the 4

    Mon, Jan 11, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening2-7-1
    Sun, Jan 10, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening5-4-2

     

    see the next 4 evening 10th...now we get 12, 17 or 21 71

    and it will continue doing this until 00-99 has made its run

    then what happens..thats right..000-999 all have to appear right after a 4..now the field has really expanded,,but wait..we arent finish yet

    what comes next?..

    thats right day after day..after day after day the field begins to expand from 000-999 to 0000 -9999 even in the pic 3 and then it will expand to 00000 -99999 WHICH WOULD REPRESENT THE NEXT 5 DRAWS BY THE WAY SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH 5 DIGITS NOW..

    NOW..something that is very key!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the further these fields expand what is it doing also?..It is expanding time as well..those pretest draws will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY anything you find in the short term ie short term meaning past few months or so worth of data and it send it further out into the future because  and this is important if it shows in a pretest draw they can hide it for a little longer and then..when it does come back they can get it to show in a different position and bring it back carrying different digits with it..we see it as having showed because we were looking for it any position most likely not specified to a certain position and this can be done as well..we can lock in on a position say 4 in the first and it needs say a 0 in the second..well in a pretest draw that 40x can show and then in a paying draw we get x04..we see it as been showed but box so we still have to wait and wait and wait and wait until we get that 40x..now I discovered a little code I use and I discovered it many years ago..and that is what I use to generate all my fields and all it does is onething..it gives me a small window into the future..it allows me to see a few things that will show in the short term and then it VANISHES LIKE A FART IN THE WIND...simple because all of those fields are forever expanding and that is ABSOLUTELY WHY THE LAST 10 %  OF FINITE RANDOM CANNOT BE SOLVED

    Like I said..I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY HOW RANDOM WORKS..you may not and especially Mathematicians do not either BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ON THE OTHERSIDE OF THE = SIGN!!!..THEY WANT A FORMULA OR AN EQUATION to solve random

    R= xyz..and it just doesnt exist never has and never will simply because all of those numerical fields are expanding ,PRACTICALLY EXPONENTIALLY..THAT PLUS the states tampering with the draws...you could  just about say its a MIRACLE  that you even get a box hit in one month but then that would also be determined by how many combos you play as well doesnt it?

     

    OH and by the way..it doesnt matter if you play pic 3 or interested in pic 3..pic 4, pic 5, pic 6 powerball or mega millions,they all work the same way..you know why they work the same way..because they use the same numbers 0-9..they justhave many more of them!!!! so I use pic 3 to learn everything and have done so for 20 years because I know whatever I find doing numerical research on pic 3..it will AUTOMATICALLY WORK on pic 4 and every other game because why?..THEY ALL USE THE SAME NUMBERS!!!! THE PROBLEM IN THE OTHER GAMES is simple...the fields are much LARGER  which in turns efects time or causes time to be expanded for years and years ie..powerball can hide just a single number for 6 months to a year just by pretesting the draws and go check those pretest draws and find something missing before a certain date..most likely you will find it in a pretest draw shortly after..then you have to wait even longer for it to actually show in the paying draw..

     

    YEAH..I know ALL ABOUT RANDOM...and EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS..how every bit of it works..!!!!!!1

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

      Avatar

      United States
      Member #105312
      January 29, 2011
      435 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 20, 2011, 3:52 pm - IP Logged

      No...you dont know much about RANDOMNESS..BUT I DO..I have been studying it over 20 years and believe me..I know random very well..In fact,I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM...the next 5 % will be all KNOWN VARIABLES that pertains to the event in question..no matter what it is..lottery, bank robberies, earthquakes YOU name it...the very LAST 10% OF FINITE RANDOM will be the NATURAL ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT of all the variables...because that will give you the exact TIME of everything!!!!!1

       

      Now the last 10% cant be solved because of one simple fact I have discovered..the closer you get to solving finite random the closer it moves to infinite random...simply put..all random fields begin to expand further and further apart..so the last 10% WILL NEVER BE SOLVED..AND I DO MEAN NEVER!!!!1

       

      now I know what you are thinking..Lotterybraker, you are so full of sh$t..well..do a little a research and learn something..whatever state you live in go BACK TO THE BEGINNING, the very first pic 3, 4 ,5, or pic 6 draw..AND START..its really simple..lets make a demonstration out of ARKANSAS it is the newest lottery and its pic 3 which is the easiest to demonstrate

      VERY FIRST COMBO to show for ARKANSAS

      Mon, Dec 14, 2009ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-2-7

      see that 427..now lets generate a SIMPLE FIELD for everyone to understand

      0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

      here is our field

      nowevery single digit 0-9 will have to SHOW RIGHT AFTER A 4 in any position

      427

      848

      316

      948

      100

      546

      850

      264

      852

      904

      223

      455

      009

      now, if I checked this right the only number in the field that HASNT FOLLOWED 4...IS a 4..which is quite typical for the matching digit to be last..so what we need is a 4 to follow a combo that had a 4 in it and what we get is this..

      January 4 and 5 2010

       

      Tue, Jan 5, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-8-4
      Mon, Jan 4, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday4-4-5

      the field is complete started dec 14 finished January 5..that is 22 days to complete that VERY SIMPLE FIELD..( VERY IMPORTANT FACT HERE ON THAT 22 DAYS..IT WILL JUMP AROUND LIKE FROG ON CRACK BECAUSE THE NEXT FIELD COULD BE 10 DAYS OR 100)

      But lets not OVERLOOK THE even BIGGER PICTURE..WHAT IS really going On here..the field begins to expand and expand even further apart if you try to add another digit and continue the field..but what is left in the field? INFINITY IS LEFT..all we did was find 0-9..but everything else has to follow that 4 as well..for example 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 51, 62, 87, 99, then what happens..it goes to all 3 diigts 000 001 002 003 004 125, 126, 127 654, 655 656 etc..

      now lets continue just a little further to show you whats going on..

      after Jan 5th we get, WHEN FIELD WAS COMPLETE 0-9

      Thu, Jan 7, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening9-1-5
      Thu, Jan 7, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Midday5-4-8

      see that 4 midday we get 15 and 19 or 51 and 91 after the 4

      Mon, Jan 11, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening2-7-1
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010ArkansasCash 3 Evening5-4-2

       

      see the next 4 evening 10th...now we get 12, 17 or 21 71

      and it will continue doing this until 00-99 has made its run

      then what happens..thats right..000-999 all have to appear right after a 4..now the field has really expanded,,but wait..we arent finish yet

      what comes next?..

      thats right day after day..after day after day the field begins to expand from 000-999 to 0000 -9999 even in the pic 3 and then it will expand to 00000 -99999 WHICH WOULD REPRESENT THE NEXT 5 DRAWS BY THE WAY SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH 5 DIGITS NOW..

      NOW..something that is very key!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the further these fields expand what is it doing also?..It is expanding time as well..those pretest draws will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY anything you find in the short term ie short term meaning past few months or so worth of data and it send it further out into the future because  and this is important if it shows in a pretest draw they can hide it for a little longer and then..when it does come back they can get it to show in a different position and bring it back carrying different digits with it..we see it as having showed because we were looking for it any position most likely not specified to a certain position and this can be done as well..we can lock in on a position say 4 in the first and it needs say a 0 in the second..well in a pretest draw that 40x can show and then in a paying draw we get x04..we see it as been showed but box so we still have to wait and wait and wait and wait until we get that 40x..now I discovered a little code I use and I discovered it many years ago..and that is what I use to generate all my fields and all it does is onething..it gives me a small window into the future..it allows me to see a few things that will show in the short term and then it VANISHES LIKE A FART IN THE WIND...simple because all of those fields are forever expanding and that is ABSOLUTELY WHY THE LAST 10 %  OF FINITE RANDOM CANNOT BE SOLVED

      Like I said..I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY HOW RANDOM WORKS..you may not and especially Mathematicians do not either BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ON THE OTHERSIDE OF THE = SIGN!!!..THEY WANT A FORMULA OR AN EQUATION to solve random

      R= xyz..and it just doesnt exist never has and never will simply because all of those numerical fields are expanding ,PRACTICALLY EXPONENTIALLY..THAT PLUS the states tampering with the draws...you could  just about say its a MIRACLE  that you even get a box hit in one month but then that would also be determined by how many combos you play as well doesnt it?

       

      OH and by the way..it doesnt matter if you play pic 3 or interested in pic 3..pic 4, pic 5, pic 6 powerball or mega millions,they all work the same way..you know why they work the same way..because they use the same numbers 0-9..they justhave many more of them!!!! so I use pic 3 to learn everything and have done so for 20 years because I know whatever I find doing numerical research on pic 3..it will AUTOMATICALLY WORK on pic 4 and every other game because why?..THEY ALL USE THE SAME NUMBERS!!!! THE PROBLEM IN THE OTHER GAMES is simple...the fields are much LARGER  which in turns efects time or causes time to be expanded for years and years ie..powerball can hide just a single number for 6 months to a year just by pretesting the draws and go check those pretest draws and find something missing before a certain date..most likely you will find it in a pretest draw shortly after..then you have to wait even longer for it to actually show in the paying draw..

       

      YEAH..I know ALL ABOUT RANDOM...and EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS..how every bit of it works..!!!!!!1

      Hi Lotterybraker.  No, I don't think you are full of anything.  I plan to read your post carefully and consider whether anything in it gives me a better understanding about what interests me.

      Thanks for the lengthy reply.

        lotterybraker's avatar - pyramid
        mississippi
        United States
        Member #34478
        March 3, 2006
        5903 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 20, 2011, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

        Hi Lotterybraker.  No, I don't think you are full of anything.  I plan to read your post carefully and consider whether anything in it gives me a better understanding about what interests me.

        Thanks for the lengthy reply.

        You are most welcome..I did want to mention or add one other thought..

         

        This may  come off wrong..maybe even sound egotistical..it is not my intention...I dont really share what I call classified knowledge..that 85 % knowledge that I have accumulated over the past 20 years..my code I use..how I design my numerical runs through the past...everything I have discovered that is of numerical sigificance I do not share ..its nothing personal to anyone here at LP and I have said that before..

        I know alot of people think I am full of crap, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if I were to release that 85% of information to the public..or..basically give away 20 years worth of research...

         

        WELL...the UNITED STATES might not have a pic 3 game anymore...anywhere..its the smallest game..easiest to attack..and I can design straight fields just as easy as box fields..!!!!1

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

          mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
          Fort Worth, TX
          United States
          Member #106060
          February 11, 2011
          188 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 20, 2011, 6:19 pm - IP Logged

          You'd make more money giving the secret away than keeping it or selling it..lol.

          How you do anything is how you do everything.

            garyo1954's avatar - garyo
            Dallas, Texas
            United States
            Member #4549
            May 2, 2004
            1689 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 20, 2011, 7:47 pm - IP Logged

            Gareeeee!!!!!

            "...you would take up the task of proving your theory with 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.

            Why Yes, Jimboo!!!!!

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

            I will be more than happy to pass along your apology to RL. Being the gentlemen he is,  he will understand your deep regrets, renunciation of floundering and obfusication and accept it with a smile.

            I'm extremely pleased that we could clear this up in such a timely and easy manner. In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims and are immune from truth, FACT, or any other evidences since you have the almighty 'Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju.'

            That special elixir, coupled with the formidable ability to put ties on goats and lipstick on pigs, if nothing else, (plus $4) should get coffee.

            I'll make this post short since I don't want to keep you from practicing your blindness and lazy mind syndrome. But knowing you have seen the error of your ways, and will no doubt redouble your efforts to duplicate your past mediocrity, posting without knowledge, or FACT, and relying on useless links without offering any opinion or purposeful understanding of the same,

            WHAT DO YOU THINK OF LOTTERYBRAKER'S EXPLANATION OF RANDOM?

              Avatar

              United States
              Member #105312
              January 29, 2011
              435 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 21, 2011, 8:25 am - IP Logged

              Why Yes, Jimboo!!!!!

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

              I will be more than happy to pass along your apology to RL. Being the gentlemen he is,  he will understand your deep regrets, renunciation of floundering and obfusication and accept it with a smile.

              I'm extremely pleased that we could clear this up in such a timely and easy manner. In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims and are immune from truth, FACT, or any other evidences since you have the almighty 'Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju.'

              That special elixir, coupled with the formidable ability to put ties on goats and lipstick on pigs, if nothing else, (plus $4) should get coffee.

              I'll make this post short since I don't want to keep you from practicing your blindness and lazy mind syndrome. But knowing you have seen the error of your ways, and will no doubt redouble your efforts to duplicate your past mediocrity, posting without knowledge, or FACT, and relying on useless links without offering any opinion or purposeful understanding of the same,

              WHAT DO YOU THINK OF LOTTERYBRAKER'S EXPLANATION OF RANDOM?

              Hi Gary.  You didn't address that final question to me but I'd like to comment on it.

              Lotterybreaker's posts step into territory that doesn't get much discussion here except in the form of tunnel vision assertions striking at the foundations of any justification for this forum, the lottery systems forum and all the other forums on this site not devoted to news, prize values and gossip about winners.

              The lotteries are based on the premise no relationship exists between any draw results of the past and any future draw.  The odds for each draw of each game are precisely the same every day, every draw as a purely statistical matter.  If probability theory applies to lottery draws no math can change that and the practice of applying statistics to draws that happened yesterday, last week or a decade ago has no more basis in logic than whatever is being posted on the forum discussing astrology and psychic predictions.

              If the lotteries are actually producing random results as they aspire to do and the premise on which they exist accurately depicts what is actually happening all those forums attempting to devise systems for predicting future draws might most appropriately be shifted to the Mystic Forum.  The only reason a lottery player would have for looking at a past draw would be to see whether he won.

              There aren't two alternatives.  Either probability theory is wrong as it should apply to lotteries or there is no means of any sort to predict future lottery draws and no past draw or series of draws contains any hint of what might occur in the future.

              But if probability theory is wrong in this instance and if a person remains anchored to it as a means of explaining how it can be wrong it leaves only the option of deliberate interference by the lotteries in their results.  There is no basis for believing that is happening and every reason to believe the lotteries are going to extremes to produce random results.

              Again a person is left with either/or.  Any alternative would require a mechanism of some description to explain the body of evidence to support some other explanation for inconsistencies between efforts to produce random results and the officially recorded histories of those results.

                mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
                Fort Worth, TX
                United States
                Member #106060
                February 11, 2011
                188 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 21, 2011, 10:21 am - IP Logged

                Hi Gary.  You didn't address that final question to me but I'd like to comment on it.

                Lotterybreaker's posts step into territory that doesn't get much discussion here except in the form of tunnel vision assertions striking at the foundations of any justification for this forum, the lottery systems forum and all the other forums on this site not devoted to news, prize values and gossip about winners.

                The lotteries are based on the premise no relationship exists between any draw results of the past and any future draw.  The odds for each draw of each game are precisely the same every day, every draw as a purely statistical matter.  If probability theory applies to lottery draws no math can change that and the practice of applying statistics to draws that happened yesterday, last week or a decade ago has no more basis in logic than whatever is being posted on the forum discussing astrology and psychic predictions.

                If the lotteries are actually producing random results as they aspire to do and the premise on which they exist accurately depicts what is actually happening all those forums attempting to devise systems for predicting future draws might most appropriately be shifted to the Mystic Forum.  The only reason a lottery player would have for looking at a past draw would be to see whether he won.

                There aren't two alternatives.  Either probability theory is wrong as it should apply to lotteries or there is no means of any sort to predict future lottery draws and no past draw or series of draws contains any hint of what might occur in the future.

                But if probability theory is wrong in this instance and if a person remains anchored to it as a means of explaining how it can be wrong it leaves only the option of deliberate interference by the lotteries in their results.  There is no basis for believing that is happening and every reason to believe the lotteries are going to extremes to produce random results.

                Again a person is left with either/or.  Any alternative would require a mechanism of some description to explain the body of evidence to support some other explanation for inconsistencies between efforts to produce random results and the officially recorded histories of those results.

                Just because it's random doesn't mean that the likelihood of certain results can't be predicted. Since the lottery is a controlled system it has some finite parameters to work within and therefore output from. For instance we know that three numbers are going to be drawn each time. We know a certain percentage of numbers are going to fall into a certain category (HHL, OOE) over time, consistently. We know the lottery will follow a bell curve. There are many many things we know will happen in the realm of "random". Random doesn't mean completely unknowable or  completely unpredictable. So even though the past isn't influencing future draws directly, it does help to view the past to see what is statistically relevant to your specific system. Hopefully, it is these knowns that lottery players use to make systems and "predict" outcomes. For instance I know that if I play 120 combinations of non-repeating numbers for the next 7 days, I'm going to win more than once. I have to. I also know if I pick 777, and only play 777 every day, that I will never win 7 times in a week.

                How you do anything is how you do everything.

                  Avatar

                  United States
                  Member #105312
                  January 29, 2011
                  435 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 21, 2011, 11:34 am - IP Logged

                  Just because it's random doesn't mean that the likelihood of certain results can't be predicted. Since the lottery is a controlled system it has some finite parameters to work within and therefore output from. For instance we know that three numbers are going to be drawn each time. We know a certain percentage of numbers are going to fall into a certain category (HHL, OOE) over time, consistently. We know the lottery will follow a bell curve. There are many many things we know will happen in the realm of "random". Random doesn't mean completely unknowable or  completely unpredictable. So even though the past isn't influencing future draws directly, it does help to view the past to see what is statistically relevant to your specific system. Hopefully, it is these knowns that lottery players use to make systems and "predict" outcomes. For instance I know that if I play 120 combinations of non-repeating numbers for the next 7 days, I'm going to win more than once. I have to. I also know if I pick 777, and only play 777 every day, that I will never win 7 times in a week.

                  Mayhem:  Thanks for the reply.

                  I didn't intend to suggest a random number of balls or numbers must be drawn within a random matrix for probability theory to be expected to apply if probability theory applies at all.  If that were the case your post would reveal a basic flaw in all lottery systems overlooked when they were designing their systems.

                  The statement, "even though the past isn't influencing future draws directly, it does help to view the past to see what is statistically relevant to your specific system" is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory within the context of the parallel concept that probability theory applies to lottery systems.

                  How many times during one week do you postulate you would win picking 777 every day within the context of probability theory?  How does the near certainty you won't win seven times apply to anything at all regardless of probabilities? 

                  If you look at the Lottery Post page of top predictors you'll see that several people consistently predict lottery results more successfully than others and have evidently done so for a while.  RJOH is one example.  Of the hundreds of people predicting countless lottery draws over time those names and statistics on the page should show the same variations as lottery draws would be expected to show.

                  But if you look at the prediction statistics of the people on that page and examine their past statistical histories you'll discover quickly there is no correlation between the prediction histories and anything remotely contained within the expectations provided by probability theory.

                  But the nuances within your post suggest you actually don't practice your belief in the theory when you are considering lottery draws of the future and your own efforts to predict them.  There's no reason you should and I agree it isn't the best approach if lottery draws are not governed by probability theory.


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 21, 2011, 11:45 am - IP Logged

                    Why Yes, Jimboo!!!!!

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

                    I will be more than happy to pass along your apology to RL. Being the gentlemen he is,  he will understand your deep regrets, renunciation of floundering and obfusication and accept it with a smile.

                    I'm extremely pleased that we could clear this up in such a timely and easy manner. In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims and are immune from truth, FACT, or any other evidences since you have the almighty 'Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju.'

                    That special elixir, coupled with the formidable ability to put ties on goats and lipstick on pigs, if nothing else, (plus $4) should get coffee.

                    I'll make this post short since I don't want to keep you from practicing your blindness and lazy mind syndrome. But knowing you have seen the error of your ways, and will no doubt redouble your efforts to duplicate your past mediocrity, posting without knowledge, or FACT, and relying on useless links without offering any opinion or purposeful understanding of the same,

                    WHAT DO YOU THINK OF LOTTERYBRAKER'S EXPLANATION OF RANDOM?

                    I'm really sorry for my apparent inability to transfer my meaning to your mind with my words.  My proclamation that I have no way to beat the lottery is not new and is in no way an apology to RL-RANDOMLOGIC.  I have nothing to apologise to him for.

                    "In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims..."

                    Sorry, WRONG again!

                    You may not be sure what you believe about randomness, but I had hoped you could at least be logical, on occassion.  Apparently not.  I have not claimed to disprove, nor have I disproved any of the claims made here.  GOT THAT?

                    What I HAVE done is rightfully claimed that no one here has PROVED, through backtests over reasonable periods of time, that their systems have won any more than randomly selected bets would have won.

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's prosaic claims of picking winners at a rate eleven times better than chance, year over year, for 20 years, although of course possible, are not proof!

                    There is a major difference, logically, between disproving an assertion,

                    and pointing out that an assertion has not been proven.



                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 21, 2011, 12:34 pm - IP Logged

                      P.S.  I also helped RICKG determine that one of his CONJECTURES was false:

                      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106/1765400

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #105312
                        January 29, 2011
                        435 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 21, 2011, 12:48 pm - IP Logged

                        P.S.  I also helped RICKG determine that one of his CONJECTURES was false:

                        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106/1765400

                        You must have left something intact.  Rick G:

                         

                        He has predicted 71,000+ draws and has a 2.06% hit ratio combined with 122.25% prize ratio.

                        Last year he had a 50.41% prize ratio.  This year he has a 73.31% prize ratio.

                         

                        Maybe you need to point out some other flaws in his methods.  Whatever methods he was left with after you dismantled him through reasoning and logic.


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 21, 2011, 12:55 pm - IP Logged

                          You must have left something intact.  Rick G:

                           

                          He has predicted 71,000+ draws and has a 2.06% hit ratio combined with 122.25% prize ratio.

                          Last year he had a 50.41% prize ratio.  This year he has a 73.31% prize ratio.

                           

                          Maybe you need to point out some other flaws in his methods.  Whatever methods he was left with after you dismantled him through reasoning and logic.

                          Whether these prize ratios translate to a real world backtestable winning method remains to be seen.

                          It also appears this was NOT the result of winning Pick-3s.

                          http://www.lotterypost.com/predictions-statistics.asp?i=1675&r=3

                          I took you at your word when you said you had no more interest in what I had to say.

                          I'm fine with that.

                            mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
                            Fort Worth, TX
                            United States
                            Member #106060
                            February 11, 2011
                            188 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 21, 2011, 1:30 pm - IP Logged

                            Mayhem:  Thanks for the reply.

                            I didn't intend to suggest a random number of balls or numbers must be drawn within a random matrix for probability theory to be expected to apply if probability theory applies at all.  If that were the case your post would reveal a basic flaw in all lottery systems overlooked when they were designing their systems.

                            The statement, "even though the past isn't influencing future draws directly, it does help to view the past to see what is statistically relevant to your specific system" is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory within the context of the parallel concept that probability theory applies to lottery systems.

                            How many times during one week do you postulate you would win picking 777 every day within the context of probability theory?  How does the near certainty you won't win seven times apply to anything at all regardless of probabilities? 

                            If you look at the Lottery Post page of top predictors you'll see that several people consistently predict lottery results more successfully than others and have evidently done so for a while.  RJOH is one example.  Of the hundreds of people predicting countless lottery draws over time those names and statistics on the page should show the same variations as lottery draws would be expected to show.

                            But if you look at the prediction statistics of the people on that page and examine their past statistical histories you'll discover quickly there is no correlation between the prediction histories and anything remotely contained within the expectations provided by probability theory.

                            But the nuances within your post suggest you actually don't practice your belief in the theory when you are considering lottery draws of the future and your own efforts to predict them.  There's no reason you should and I agree it isn't the best approach if lottery draws are not governed by probability theory.

                            How many times? Never. If I'd started at the beginning of the universe (big bang) until now there would still be a several trillion year shortfall to give sufficient time. 

                            I don't quite follow which theory you say I do or do not follow. I can tell you though that playing 60~120 predetermined combinations in the last 30 draws in Texas I would have had 5~7 straight wins just by playing the edges of the bell curve. Turn it upside down and it better represents the money pit that it is. By playing the edges, which are always there in a random lottery, you can increase your coverage and thus odds. This works for any lotto and follows a linear curve when scaled up. Lot easier than the glorified and convoluted methods of creating essentialy random numbers I see all over the place.

                            How you do anything is how you do everything.

                              garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                              Dallas, Texas
                              United States
                              Member #4549
                              May 2, 2004
                              1689 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 21, 2011, 1:35 pm - IP Logged

                              I'm really sorry for my apparent inability to transfer my meaning to your mind with my words.  My proclamation that I have no way to beat the lottery is not new and is in no way an apology to RL-RANDOMLOGIC.  I have nothing to apologise to him for.

                              "In the future, I'll remember that you are NOT making claims you are merely claiming you have disproved other claims..."

                              Sorry, WRONG again!

                              You may not be sure what you believe about randomness, but I had hoped you could at least be logical, on occassion.  Apparently not.  I have not claimed to disprove, nor have I disproved any of the claims made here.  GOT THAT?

                              What I HAVE done is rightfully claimed that no one here has PROVED, through backtests over reasonable periods of time, that their systems have won any more than randomly selected bets would have won.

                              RL-RANDOMLOGIC's prosaic claims of picking winners at a rate eleven times better than chance, year over year, for 20 years, although of course possible, are not proof!

                              There is a major difference, logically, between disproving an assertion,

                              and pointing out that an assertion has not been proven.


                              Jimboo-boo!!!!!!!!!!!

                              Now we're definitely making progress! You're not making claims, not disproving claims, not answering questions, not stating fact, not presenting evidence, not investigating possibilites, not offering opinion......SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

                              Did I read this right? Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju talking...."I have not claimed......" and then....

                              "What I HAVE done is rightfully claimed...."

                              Can we all get some of this Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju? Must be good stuff if you can make sense of "I have not claimed...."; "I have rightfully claimed."

                              Not that I going to bother with PROVED, since proof is left to each individual. And as you carefully noted, you aren't here to PROVE or DISPROVE anything.  So can we just skip this part?

                              I'm happy to see that you have opened your mind to the possibility that such predictions could be made. You're making progress. This is a good thing. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

                              BTW, Are you claiming:

                              "There is a major difference, logically, between disproving an assertion,

                              and pointing out that an assertion has not been proven."

                              While you ponder that.....

                              Do we need a Home and Garden Good Housekeeping label before posting?

                              Score update:

                              Morons...2

                              Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju with clown shoes...0