Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 23, 2017, 5:30 am
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 8 of 9
51
PrintE-mailLink
Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
FEMA Region V Camp #21
United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5699 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 22, 2011, 6:30 pm - IP Logged

"I wish I could blame Jimmy on my losses, but I can't. I appreciate his efforts in backtesting to prove or disprove systems"

Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands. He did the same analysis with a Tic Tac Toe workout suggesting players would play every possible combination in the workout every day for over 33 years. He doesn't have clue how players use their workouts or systems.

His analysis never includes that any system may get a number of hits over a month or two of play or that the player might increase their wagers. None of Jimmy's analysis include even average lottery play and hardly anyone responds because they would never play that way.

(Should I mention Jimmy's Challenge statistics that ridiculously suggested a group of players would actually wager $3168 twice a week for a year?)

The fun part of Lottery Post is reading and discussing ideas with players from all over the world. I believe the difference between Jimmy and the other 100,000 plus LP members is they are looking for ways to have more fun playing lottery games and Jimmy wants to prove having fun and winning a couple bucks is impossible.

Some systems don't pass the "eyes rolling test" while others are very interesting. Rick, your systems are always fun and interesting to try. Don't stop suggesting them because we have one sour puss on board trying to disprove them.

We're on page seven and Jimmy still hasn't offered even one suggestion on "What does it take to win" on the topic he started.

Stack, I'll keep posting systems that I think are fun to play around with because I know that you and others will also have fun working with them.  Every system I've ever posted has been improved upon.  The fun is in the hunt, not the kill.  Jimmy's backtesting is a necessary part of the process.  One day his rigid backtesting may uncover a real winner.  Consider Jimmy as the dose of reality that we all need to stay balanced in our expectations.

Everybody brings something to the table.

Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).



    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 22, 2011, 7:43 pm - IP Logged

    "I wish I could blame Jimmy on my losses, but I can't. I appreciate his efforts in backtesting to prove or disprove systems"

    Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands. He did the same analysis with a Tic Tac Toe workout suggesting players would play every possible combination in the workout every day for over 33 years. He doesn't have clue how players use their workouts or systems.

    His analysis never includes that any system may get a number of hits over a month or two of play or that the player might increase their wagers. None of Jimmy's analysis include even average lottery play and hardly anyone responds because they would never play that way.

    (Should I mention Jimmy's Challenge statistics that ridiculously suggested a group of players would actually wager $3168 twice a week for a year?)

    The fun part of Lottery Post is reading and discussing ideas with players from all over the world. I believe the difference between Jimmy and the other 100,000 plus LP members is they are looking for ways to have more fun playing lottery games and Jimmy wants to prove having fun and winning a couple bucks is impossible.

    Some systems don't pass the "eyes rolling test" while others are very interesting. Rick, your systems are always fun and interesting to try. Don't stop suggesting them because we have one sour puss on board trying to disprove them.

    We're on page seven and Jimmy still hasn't offered even one suggestion on "What does it take to win" on the topic he started.

    Stack47,

    "Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands."

    These two sentences reveal the totality of your incomprehension of variance, standard deviation, and probability.

    Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanned it, and posted it here before last night's draw, announcing I selected the number with my new system.  And low and behold, it hit, straight up, netting me $499!  Then, I made a post in the Pick-3 Forum claiming that my new system is a great performer because I won $500 for an investment of only $1.  Now, I wonder what your response would be?  If you have at least half a brain, I would expect you to say something to the effect that I'm jumping the gun, and my system can't be proclaimed a winner after only one test.  For now, I'm going to assume that you would agree with this.

    So I agree with you, and again tonight, 15 minutes before the draw, I post another scan of my system's pick for tonight.  Let's assume further that my pick for tonight was a loser, but I still want to claim I have a winning system because I've now netted $498 on a $2 investment!  You object, so I agree to continue.  [Let's assume] I continue doing this for a week, without a hit.  At that point, I'm claiming a system that nets $493 with a $7 investment...  At the end of a month, I will have netted $470 on a $30 investment, but you're still hesitant.  It will take about 1 year and 4 months without another hit before I go into the red, but I hope I don't have to drag this out any further before asking you a simple question!

    Stack47, would you please tell us exactly how many tickets I would need to scan and post, and how many of them would have to be winners, before you would agree that I have devised a winning Pick-3 system, or NOT?  Remember, the straight win tickets cost $1, the choices are [000-999], and the payoff is $500 for a straight hit.

    All that is required here is a simple set of 3 words and 3 numbers.

    For example:

    X Draws, Y Tickets,  Z Winners

    If you REALLY want to impress everybody, you could assert your confidence in your answer.  You could express it like a probability, where 1.0 would mean you are certain, and 0.50 would mean you aren't really sure one way or the other.

    OK Mr. Stack47, you love to keep telling us how ridiculous my back-tests and Powerball stats have been because they don't represent the way real people play the lottery, so here's your chance!  Since you don't believe I'm competent to do so, tell us how YOU would judge a Pick-3 system.

    For everyone reading this, remember what Stack47 has been asked to do, and all that is required in his response is 3 words, 3 numbers, and optionally, a 4th number defining his confidence in the other 3.

    --Jimmy4164

      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
      Dallas, Texas
      United States
      Member #4549
      May 2, 2004
      1847 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 22, 2011, 9:05 pm - IP Logged

      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

      For everyone reading this, remember whatJimboo has been asked to do. All the way back on page 6 no less.

      Certainly we should add to that and ask: What are your qualifications?

      When you backtest something, do you go in with a predisposed outlook? i.e., looking for the failure of the sytem and not at possible tweaks that might make it viable?

      Do you use your super secret Magic Ju-Ju on them?

      Inquiring morons want to know!!!!!

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19903 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 22, 2011, 9:25 pm - IP Logged

        If you play the jackpot games and win a jackpot using your system, no amount of backing test is going to convince you that your system didn't work since winning a jackpot is a once in a life time experience for most players.  A system that wins a jackpot game only have to work once and it's a winner.

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

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7344 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 22, 2011, 10:15 pm - IP Logged

          For everyone reading this, remember whatJimboo has been asked to do. All the way back on page 6 no less.

          Certainly we should add to that and ask: What are your qualifications?

          When you backtest something, do you go in with a predisposed outlook? i.e., looking for the failure of the sytem and not at possible tweaks that might make it viable?

          Do you use your super secret Magic Ju-Ju on them?

          Inquiring morons want to know!!!!!

          Did you notice when I mentioned had Jimmy not interrupted Rick's idea for a system "it's possible that someone could have won thousands", Jimmy came back with some mumbo jumbo about posting and winning a pick-3 straight QP?

          "When you backtest something, do you go in with a predisposed outlook? i.e., looking for the failure of the sytem and not at possible tweaks that might make it viable?"

          Nobody but Jimmy cares if a system didn't work 20 years ago.

          "Do you use your super secret Magic Ju-Ju on them?"

          Naw, Jimmy just wants put negative karma on lottery players.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7344 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 22, 2011, 10:27 pm - IP Logged

            Stack47,

            "Jimmy compared your system to the 33 year history of PA evening pick-3 drawing when I seriously doubt you or anyone else would continue to use any system that failed for even 6 months. Had you continued with your ideas, it's possible someone could have used your system for a month and won thousands."

            These two sentences reveal the totality of your incomprehension of variance, standard deviation, and probability.

            Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanned it, and posted it here before last night's draw, announcing I selected the number with my new system.  And low and behold, it hit, straight up, netting me $499!  Then, I made a post in the Pick-3 Forum claiming that my new system is a great performer because I won $500 for an investment of only $1.  Now, I wonder what your response would be?  If you have at least half a brain, I would expect you to say something to the effect that I'm jumping the gun, and my system can't be proclaimed a winner after only one test.  For now, I'm going to assume that you would agree with this.

            So I agree with you, and again tonight, 15 minutes before the draw, I post another scan of my system's pick for tonight.  Let's assume further that my pick for tonight was a loser, but I still want to claim I have a winning system because I've now netted $498 on a $2 investment!  You object, so I agree to continue.  [Let's assume] I continue doing this for a week, without a hit.  At that point, I'm claiming a system that nets $493 with a $7 investment...  At the end of a month, I will have netted $470 on a $30 investment, but you're still hesitant.  It will take about 1 year and 4 months without another hit before I go into the red, but I hope I don't have to drag this out any further before asking you a simple question!

            Stack47, would you please tell us exactly how many tickets I would need to scan and post, and how many of them would have to be winners, before you would agree that I have devised a winning Pick-3 system, or NOT?  Remember, the straight win tickets cost $1, the choices are [000-999], and the payoff is $500 for a straight hit.

            All that is required here is a simple set of 3 words and 3 numbers.

            For example:

            X Draws, Y Tickets,  Z Winners

            If you REALLY want to impress everybody, you could assert your confidence in your answer.  You could express it like a probability, where 1.0 would mean you are certain, and 0.50 would mean you aren't really sure one way or the other.

            OK Mr. Stack47, you love to keep telling us how ridiculous my back-tests and Powerball stats have been because they don't represent the way real people play the lottery, so here's your chance!  Since you don't believe I'm competent to do so, tell us how YOU would judge a Pick-3 system.

            For everyone reading this, remember what Stack47 has been asked to do, and all that is required in his response is 3 words, 3 numbers, and optionally, a 4th number defining his confidence in the other 3.

            --Jimmy4164

            "Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanned it, and posted it here before last night's draw, announcing I selected the number with my new system."

            Let's not; the children's make believe forum is on the other side of the Net. If you hurry they may give you a pretend magic wand or a flying carpet.

            "Then, I made a post in the Pick-3 Forum claiming that my new system is a great performer because I won $500 for an investment of only $1.

            Yawn!

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7344 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 22, 2011, 10:36 pm - IP Logged

              If you play the jackpot games and win a jackpot using your system, no amount of backing test is going to convince you that your system didn't work since winning a jackpot is a once in a life time experience for most players.  A system that wins a jackpot game only have to work once and it's a winner.

              I've heard some strange and bizarre methods of playing jackpot games, but can't really knock them because as you say "It only has to work once".

                mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
                Fort Worth, TX
                United States
                Member #106060
                February 11, 2011
                188 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 23, 2011, 1:00 am - IP Logged

                Anything would work once given long enough.

                How you do anything is how you do everything.


                  United States
                  Member #93947
                  July 10, 2010
                  2180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 23, 2011, 1:33 am - IP Logged

                  "Let's pretend I bought a Straight Pick-3 ticket yesterday, scanned it, and posted it here before last night's draw, announcing I selected the number with my new system."

                  Let's not; the children's make believe forum is on the other side of the Net. If you hurry they may give you a pretend magic wand or a flying carpet.

                  "Then, I made a post in the Pick-3 Forum claiming that my new system is a great performer because I won $500 for an investment of only $1.

                  Yawn!

                  "Yawn!"

                  Your response is not surprising.  I've had a few students like you, usually in the back of the classroom.  When they were clueless, they would yawn and/or fall asleep.  Perhaps a shorter, simpler, question requiring a less precise answer is something you can deal with.

                  In a Pick3 game paying $500 for a straight hit on a $1 bet, how many tickets would you buy without a hit before throwing in the towel and trying a different "system?"

                  Given the countless times you've told me that you know all of this cold, and the data I've presented is meaningless, this should be a slam dunk for you!  You've made it clear that "no one" would play the same failing Pick-3 system for 6 months, let alone 30 years, and I will take the risk of assuming you would not give up on it after buying one ticket, so.....

                  ...come on guy, in your world, when has a Pick-3 system failed?

                  Apparently you think it's somewhere between 1 day and 6 months, (1 ticket and 180 tickets,) right?  Or maybe you were thinkin' BOX play - we're talkin' straights here now.

                  We're waiting on your wisdom!


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 23, 2011, 1:50 am - IP Logged

                    If you play the jackpot games and win a jackpot using your system, no amount of backing test is going to convince you that your system didn't work since winning a jackpot is a once in a life time experience for most players.  A system that wins a jackpot game only have to work once and it's a winner.

                    I like your short to the point posts that pack a lot into a few words, sometimes using innuendo.

                    I'll bet you'd like to agree with some of the things I say, but the peer pressure is too great!  Wink

                    Here's a short thread from 7 months ago.  It doesn't deal directly with the question I've been

                    pushing Stack47 to answer, but it's related.

                    In subtle ways, it might help lead you from the "shade" into the "sunshine!"

                    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219511

                      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                      Dallas, Texas
                      United States
                      Member #4549
                      May 2, 2004
                      1847 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 23, 2011, 2:30 am - IP Logged

                      I like your short to the point posts that pack a lot into a few words, sometimes using innuendo.

                      I'll bet you'd like to agree with some of the things I say, but the peer pressure is too great!  Wink

                      Here's a short thread from 7 months ago.  It doesn't deal directly with the question I've been

                      pushing Stack47 to answer, but it's related.

                      In subtle ways, it might help lead you from the "shade" into the "sunshine!"

                      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/219511

                      Jimbooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

                      Here's a short reminder that discussion is give and take, opinion oriented, and you have not answered the questions asked of you either!!!!

                      Happy to hear you want to lead 'us' out of the shade, but who's going to lead you out?

                      IF you do get out of the 'shade,' trip over to Systems fo and see how people play Pick 3.

                      Most real 'people' use two, three or more systems and compare. You know why?

                      Oh, forgot you don't answer questions. HINT: It has nothing to do with Magic Ju-Ju.

                      Guess you'll never figure that one out.

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #105312
                        January 29, 2011
                        435 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 23, 2011, 7:50 am - IP Logged

                        I wish I could blame Jimmy on my losses, but I can't.  I appreciate his efforts in backtesting to prove or disprove systems.  The last thing we want to do is lead other players astray.  I have no probs with Jimmy whatsoever.

                        My two cents:

                        As someone wisely posted above, every effect has a cause.  The cause is not only 'buying the ticket' but includes everything (e.g., the interaction of atoms on the bouncing balls, the position of the balls before they are scrambled, the timing of the person drawing the number, etc.).  Just because we can't identify the causes doesn't mean they doesn't exist.  Attempting to define randomness is a good mental exercise but nothing is random.  It only appears that way.  Disorder co-exists with order...without one you can't have the other.  Order defines disorder and disorder defines order.

                        In other words, everyone on this thread is correct AND incorrect.  It is all relative to the player himself.  As an observer, he affects the experiment.

                        I think we'd have more success concentrating on the outcome of the draw and not the causes leading up to it.  That means accessing the "future" which is not as difficult as analyzing the causes.  Look how popular the Dreams forum is compared to the Mathematics or Systems forums.  Are they not successful?

                        Consider this:  Linear time is a mental construct used to define a sequence of events.  But time is not linear.  (Think of the infinity symbol where the lines do not intersect in 3-D.)  The number has already been drawn.  We only 'think' the number isn't drawn until 10 o'clock.  This is a tough concept to wrap our heads around, but once we understand it we can use it to our advantage.

                        Hi RickG:  Thanks for an interesting post.  Drifting things back into the direction of physics seems a positive nudge.

                        Concentrating on the outcome of the draw seems to me to be what everyone is doing.  The personal preference for concentrating on the outcome of the next draw or the outcomes of thousands or possibly millions of draws already past is just a matter of approach and where a person believes the best opportunity for understanding it all can be found.  If a person believes there is a relationship between past draws and future ones and that what has happened in the past can provide insights into some underlying system of events some will surmise the best way to arrive at understanding is found in the past.

                        If a relationship exists at all between past draws and future draws the 'why' or 'how' mechanism bridging the two might be important as an avenue to better understanding.  Otherwise the observer is on the outside attempting to diagnose symptoms, chasing them and attempting educated guesses as to what they might do.

                        At one level time is relative.  But from the perspectives of living creatures and inanimate objects on the surface of this planet it appears not to be, even though for most of us it is deceptive.  Even what we tell ourselves time actually is has been disfranchised from the physical phenomena originally associated with it.  Sunrise no longer has much to do with actual measurement of time as it pertains to clocks on the wall.  Daylight saving time and time zones have broadened the options of timing of actual events.

                        In fact, lottery draws don't actually happen in the order they appear to happen because of geographic differences within the time zones and outside them.  Not to suggest it has any meaning, but it does add a different insight regarding the phrase, "Time is relative".

                        I enjoyed reading your post.  Thank you.

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #105312
                          January 29, 2011
                          435 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 23, 2011, 8:18 am - IP Logged

                          If you play the jackpot games and win a jackpot using your system, no amount of backing test is going to convince you that your system didn't work since winning a jackpot is a once in a life time experience for most players.  A system that wins a jackpot game only have to work once and it's a winner.

                          Good morning RJOH.  I enjoy reading your posts.

                          Can a system that wins a jackpot once but doesn't apply to other past or future draws be called a system?  If it predicted a jackpot and a ticket was bought it's a winner by definition.  But is a system an animal of a different description?

                            Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
                            FEMA Region V Camp #21
                            United States
                            Member #520
                            July 27, 2002
                            5699 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 23, 2011, 10:05 am - IP Logged

                            Hi RickG:  Thanks for an interesting post.  Drifting things back into the direction of physics seems a positive nudge.

                            Concentrating on the outcome of the draw seems to me to be what everyone is doing.  The personal preference for concentrating on the outcome of the next draw or the outcomes of thousands or possibly millions of draws already past is just a matter of approach and where a person believes the best opportunity for understanding it all can be found.  If a person believes there is a relationship between past draws and future ones and that what has happened in the past can provide insights into some underlying system of events some will surmise the best way to arrive at understanding is found in the past.

                            If a relationship exists at all between past draws and future draws the 'why' or 'how' mechanism bridging the two might be important as an avenue to better understanding.  Otherwise the observer is on the outside attempting to diagnose symptoms, chasing them and attempting educated guesses as to what they might do.

                            At one level time is relative.  But from the perspectives of living creatures and inanimate objects on the surface of this planet it appears not to be, even though for most of us it is deceptive.  Even what we tell ourselves time actually is has been disfranchised from the physical phenomena originally associated with it.  Sunrise no longer has much to do with actual measurement of time as it pertains to clocks on the wall.  Daylight saving time and time zones have broadened the options of timing of actual events.

                            In fact, lottery draws don't actually happen in the order they appear to happen because of geographic differences within the time zones and outside them.  Not to suggest it has any meaning, but it does add a different insight regarding the phrase, "Time is relative".

                            I enjoyed reading your post.  Thank you.

                            JosephusM, I agree that patterns from the past can predict 'rhyming' of the future.  We see this happen in our own lives and in the world around us. 

                            "If a relationship exists at all between past draws and future draws the 'why' or 'how' mechanism bridging the two might be important as an avenue to better understanding.  Otherwise the observer is on the outside attempting to diagnose symptoms, chasing them and attempting educated guesses as to what they might do."

                            That statement sums it up nicely.  Very few of us understand the 'why' or 'how' mechanism and are left on the outside making guesses.  But our analytical mind is notorious for over-thinking a problem and coming up with muddied solutions.  Whereas, our intuitive mind can come up with instantaneous solutions that may be as good as our analytical guesses.  How many of us have developed our intuition to the same level we have developed our analytical mind? 

                            The problem may best be solved using 'whole-brain' thinking as opposed to just left-brain or right-brain methods.   I would imagine that successful players do just that. 

                            I'll let you know when I get there...Wink

                            Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


                              Avatar

                              United States
                              Member #105312
                              January 29, 2011
                              435 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 23, 2011, 10:41 am - IP Logged

                              JosephusM, I agree that patterns from the past can predict 'rhyming' of the future.  We see this happen in our own lives and in the world around us. 

                              "If a relationship exists at all between past draws and future draws the 'why' or 'how' mechanism bridging the two might be important as an avenue to better understanding.  Otherwise the observer is on the outside attempting to diagnose symptoms, chasing them and attempting educated guesses as to what they might do."

                              That statement sums it up nicely.  Very few of us understand the 'why' or 'how' mechanism and are left on the outside making guesses.  But our analytical mind is notorious for over-thinking a problem and coming up with muddied solutions.  Whereas, our intuitive mind can come up with instantaneous solutions that may be as good as our analytical guesses.  How many of us have developed our intuition to the same level we have developed our analytical mind? 

                              The problem may best be solved using 'whole-brain' thinking as opposed to just left-brain or right-brain methods.   I would imagine that successful players do just that. 

                              I'll let you know when I get there...Wink

                              Thanks Rick.  Might not the intuitive side of human thinking, the 'whole brain' thinking be as usefully employed toward identifying the why and how mechanism provided such a thing exists as toward attempting to intuit the results of the next draw?

                              I agree with you that whole brain thinking is a neglected discipline.  But whole brain thinking involves analysis as well as intuition.  Can it be called whole brain thinking if a person abandons one in favor of the other?  Or if a person favors one over the other?

                              From my viewpoint you are the expert here, along with RJOH in any discussion concerning public demonstrations of success predicting lottery draws.  If you believe intuitive thinking is more important and is the how of it I'm willing to believe you.

                              But I'm prepared to more readily believe that wasn't what you intended to communicate.